Technological and scientific advancements in the genetic engineering field have proceeded rapidly in the past few years. On the one hand, proponents of genetic modification argue that this technology makes our lives much better. On the other hand, opponents of genetic engineering cite numerous environmental and ethical issues. One area of genetic engineering that has sparked heated debates is germline engineering, also known as inheritable genetic modification (IGM).
What is inheritable genetic modification?
IGM refers to the technology of changing the genes that are passed on to the next generations of the human species. The genetic alterations would be made in sperm, eggs, or early embryos. Engineered genes would appear in the person who was formed from that embryo or gamete, as well as in the future generations.
This technique has not been tested in humans. IGM would be without a doubt the most important, but also most controversial, type of genetic engineering since it would irreversibly modify the human species.
What are the arguments in favor of IGM?
Proponents of IGM argue that this technique can be used to enable people to avoid passing on to the future generations such serious genetic diseases as Tay-Sachs. It can also allow a couple (both are homozygous for a flawed gene) to conceive a healthy baby related to both of them.
In addition, IGM can allow people to genetically “enhance” their babies to live longer, become healthier, more attractive, more intelligent, and more athletic. Generally, IGM allows people to have the qualities that they wish for their children.
Proponents also say that IGM will not cease even if banned. They believe that the demand for this technology will be strong and that people will readily pay. Instead of encouraging black markets and likely abuses, advocates call the governments to legalize IGM for the much needed regulation.
What are the arguments against IGM?
However, opponents of IGM argue that it would reduce the human beings as mere objects. They particularly oppose the “pre-selection” of human traits and the cultural construction of people as biologically perfectible artifacts. For them, IGM would change the natural parent-child relationships. It would also have other destabilizing socio-cultural effects.
What’s more, IGM would be very expensive and the “upgrades” would accrue to the children of the well-off families. Opponents, even advocates, acknowledge that IGM could lead to the rise of “genetic castes.” Social rifts would be so enormous that notions of a common humanity could be gone forever, with horrible consequences.
February 18th, 2009
Neonatal diabetes is characterized by insulin-sensitive hyperglycemia usually diagnosed within the first six months of life. The prevalence of this condition is around 1 in 400,000 births. About 50% of all cases of neonatal diabetes are an effect of mutations in either the sulfonylurea receptor -1 gene (SUR1) or the KIR6.2 gene (polymorphisms of KCNJ11).
Researchers at Oxford University in the United Kingdom headed by Frances Ashcroft have now designed a mouse model of the disease that they strongly believe could provide significant information about this human disease.
In the breakthrough study, Ashcroft and colleagues genetically modified mice to express V59M, a mutant KIR6.2 protein, in the beta-cells of their pancreas. This mutant protein is primarily responsible for neonatal diabetes in humans.
The research team found that these beta-V59M mice contacted diabetes soon after their birth. By the time they reach the age of five weeks, the blood glucose levels of the mice significantly increased, while the hormone insulin could not be detected. These are the two major characteristics of diabetes.
The researchers explained that the mice developed diabetes because their pancreatic beta cells were producing less insulin due to the altered KIR6.2 protein. The mutant protein forms a complex called a KATP channel with the protein modified from the SUR1 gene.
When the researchers treated the pancreata from five-week-old beta-V59M mice with a drug that slows down KATP channel activity, they found that beta-cells of the pancreata began producing insulin again. Therefore, expression of the V59M mutant Kir6.2 in pancreatic beta cells of the mice alone provides sufficient evidence in the understanding of neonatal diabetes in humans.
February 12th, 2009
Cotton accounts for over 10% of all pesticide use and 25% of insecticide use in the world. However, as more weeds and insects become resistant to these chemicals, farmers need more pesticides and insecticides. This is a perfect formula for health, environmental, and socio-economic disaster. Scientists have found a potential solution for this looming catastrophe: genetically modifying cotton crops.
Genetically modifying cotton crops
Scientists have successfully engineered cotton crops. Most genetically altered cotton plants are modified with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a natural bacterial insecticide, in order for cotton to be resistant to main insect pests. Many firms worldwide promote this technology as environmentally friendly since GM cotton crops need less pesticide.
The widespread adoption results in a significant long-term decline in damage due to the cotton bollworm, considered as the biggest threat to the cotton crop. Bt is very toxic to the moth and butterfly larvae, while leaving non-target insects unharmed. In addition to becoming resistant to insect pests, genetically modifying cotton plants has an added benefit.
Curbing pests in neighboring fields
A recent study published in the Science journal has found that benefits of a GM cotton crop variety are not only restricted to cotton fields, but they extend to neighboring conventional crops. The 10-year study was led by Kong-Ming Wu of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing.
In examining the GM cotton crop variety in China, Wu and his team have shown that the GM cotton crops make their own biological insecticide. The result: significant decrease in the cotton bollworm populations after introducing Bt cotton and also dramatic reduction of insect pest populations in neighboring fields.
Acknowledging GM benefits
The result of Wu and his team’s study lend support to the advantages of genetic engineering. According to Julian Little of the Agricultural Bio-technology Commission, representing GM companies “It is time that anti-GM groups acknowledge the very real benefits that this technology can bring to the developing world.”
January 29th, 2009
Researchers at the Penn State University revealed that genetically modifying plants could be what we need for a more environmental-friendly and cheaper way of producing ethanol. This could also help convert agricultural waste into livestock food.
Lignin
At the center of the scientific study is lignin, an important element of woody plant material. This protective barrier is woven in with cellulose, making plants strong and sturdy enough to withstand microbial attack and strong gusts of wind. However, this “plastic wall” makes access to the cellulose much harder.
According to John Carlson, molecular genetics professor at Penn State, “There is lots of energy-rich cellulose locked away in wood. But separating this energy from the wood to make ethanol is a costly process requiring high amounts of heat and caustic chemicals.” He adds that enzymes of fungi that attack lignin are still in the development stage and not yet widely available. They are also not efficient in breaking up the protective barrier.
Genetically engineering lignin
Scientists have attempted to address the problem by decreasing the lignin content. This procedure, however, can lead to several problems. One of the major problems is that plants may become limp and unable to stay upright and become more susceptible to pest attacks. According to Ming Tien, biochemistry professor at Penn State, “Trying to engineer trees without lignin is like trying to engineer boneless chicken. It just doesn’t make sense.”
The research
Penn State biochemists and geneticists use a different approach in modifying lignin. Instead of decreasing the lignin content, Tien, Carlson, and postdoctoral associate Haiying Liang attempted to engineer lignin connections, without compromising either the plant’s structural rigidity or the lignin’s biosynthesis.
The researchers took a bean gene and modified it into a poplar tree. It yielded a protein that injected itself between two lignin molecules upon the creation of the the lignin polymer. Carlson explains, “Now we have a lignin polymer with a protein stuck in between.” The team has already filed a provisional patent on their approach.
The results
The results look promising. The team found that genetically modifying lignin created a type of lignin, which does not weaken the plant. “We can break open the lignin polymer by using enzymes that attack proteins rather than enzymes that attack lignin,” Carlson says. Also, the genetic modification may have turned lignin more efficient and greener sources of ethanol. This could also aid in transforming agricultural waste into livestock food.
January 8th, 2009
The genetic modification debate on the merits and dangers of GM crops is a heated one. The pro-GM camp argues that genetic engineering of crops can increase their quality and nutritional value whereas the anti-GM camp fuels the discontent that scientists are just playing God and describes GM crops as unnatural and “Frankenstein foods.”
One area of debate is whether genetically modifying crops is better than using insecticides in pest management.
Insecticides
Farmers use insecticides to maintain the quality of crop products. However, insecticides may have negative effects on human health and the environment in general. While insecticides protect the crops from target insects, they also significantly affect non-target insects. Thus scientists are attempting to genetically modify crops to reduce the reliance on insecticides.
GM crops
Scientists have already provided evidence about the advantages of crops that contain genes from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). They found that many forms of Bt toxin affect only the target insects, lowering the risk of harmful effects to non-target beneficial insects. They also found out that Bt toxin is also harmless to humans and other mammals.
GM crops or insecticides?
To find out which one affects non-target insects more significantly, scientists from the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and researchers at the Iowa State University, University of Nebraska at Omaha, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency first compared the abundance of non-target insects in GM crops and non-GM crops without insecticides.
The scientists and researchers also compared the abundance of non-target insects in both types of crops with insecticides. They also compared the the population of these insects in GM crops without insecticides against the population in non-GM crops with insecticide treatment. They examined toxins like Cry3A in potato, Cry1Ac and Cry1Ab in cotton, and Cry1Ab and Cry3Bb in maize.
The results
While the researchers observed significant variability in the effects of GM maize and cotton crops on non-target insects, within-group data were fairly consistent. They found that the most influential variable was the insecticide applied. Insecticides like organophosphates, pyrethroids, neonicotinoids, and carbamates had considerably more negative effects on non-target insects than did the GM crops.
They also found that regardless of whether they are in GM or non-GM crop fields, insecticides have uniform impacts on insect populations.
December 11th, 2008
Mapping dog genome could shed light on human diseases. A complete sequence of dog genome not only helps explain dogs’ unique set of behaviors, traits, and diseases, it could also help identify human disorders. Understanding the relationship between canine genetics and diseases could eventually lead to the development of new treatments for diseases and illnesses in humans.
Dog genes and human diseases
Humans and dogs may be more alike than we think. For one, they share a number of diseases, such as cancer, epilepsy, and diabetes. Dog gene sequencing could be the primary tool in examining disease-causing genes in humans, since the same genes are responsible for identical diseases in humans.
In humans, diseases are caused by mutations in a number of different genes, which is almost impossible to detect. On the other hand, diseases in dogs are caused by a single gene mutation. This same mutated gene causes the same disease in humans.
The study
Genomic researchers were able to map out the genes of Shadow, a standard poodle, although it was only 80% complete. In 2006, scientists were able to completely sequence out a boxer genome. According to molecular biologist Ewen Kirkness of the The Institute for Genomic Research in Rockville, Maryland, “The boxer genome will help us get at the genes responsible for diseases and traits in dogs.”
Molecular biologists tracked short DNA stretches that randomly occur, known as short interspersed elements (SINEs), which usually turn up, down, or even off the expression of these genes. The researchers discovered that the dog population has about 20,000 differences. SINEs can function as signposts for certain genes associated with a trait or disease.
Almost every dog gene corresponds to a similar human gene. Specific dog breeds are predisposed, for example, to cancer, cardiovascular disease, deafness, blindness, and other common diseases and disorders.
The mapping of the dog gene is a big leap forward for research in fields like veterinary medicine. This work can be extended to the human gene, which could help scientists better understand and develop treatments for human diseases and illnesses.
Implications
Overall, having a sequenced dog genome helps in treating and eliminating not only dog diseases, but also human diseases and illnesses. Kirkness says, “Testing can be done by breeders to limit the passage of these mutations into future generations.” Also, studying the mutations in dog and human genes allows genetic engineers to look at possible ways correct the errors in genetic coding that cause specific diseases or illnesses.
November 27th, 2008
Damage to bones, cartilage, ligaments, and tendons are common in horses used in racing, polo, and equestrian. In a potential breakthrough, Melbourne researchers are trying to harness stem cells to repair these damages.
Horse injuries
Bone, cartilage, ligament, and tendon injuries in horses range from a minor inflammation to a complete rupture. The latter can lead to permanent lameness, eventually ending the competitive life of the horse. Once it suffers a ligament or tendon injury, the horse will have a higher risk of re-injury. Bone injuries also vary in severity. The most serious cases of bone damage can result in the euthanization of the horse.
Reversing the damage
Stem cell research has potential to reverse these damages. Paul Verma of the Monash Institute of Medical Research in Australia and the American company, ViaGen Inc., are working together in developing equine embryonic stem cell lines. Their aim is to create a “bank” of stem cells (genetically matched) preserved for horses.
Verma said they have developed techniques and methods to obtain stem cells from horse embryos. In a pilot study, he said they “have successfully created a number of horse embryonic stem cell lines.” He adds that, “The next step will be to look at using these stem cell lines to regenerate tendon, ligament, cartilage and bone cells. Once the stem cells can be coaxed into ‘becoming’ the appropriate tissue cells, they can be transplanted to replace the damaged tissue.”
One major benefit of engineering therapeutic cells is that its natural source will be recognized by the immune system of a a horse as its own. Moreover, there is no risk of horses not accepting the tissues derived from the stem cells.
Irina Polejaeva, Chief Scientific Officer of ViaGen, said there will be no risk of rejection since the derived cells are identical genetically to the horse that receives treatment. Specialist equine surgeon, John van Veenendaal, said, “Having access to a less invasive, faster method of treating injured horses would be fantastic.”
Implications for the industry
Peter Morgan, a horse trainer well-known for his rehabilitative training for injured horses, said the implications of stem cell research for the industry could be massive. It “could change the way we look at and treat injured racehorses. It would mean injured horses could get back onto the track much more quickly. If we were able to race stud mares successfully for longer, it would increase the value of the mare and her offspring,” Morgan said.
November 13th, 2008
Genetic modification of organisms (GMO) has recently attracted much public attention. Proponents of biotechnology highlight its beneficial effects on agriculture and food processing industry - cheaper, tastier, more durable, tasty, and nutritious food.
Critics of genetic engineering use such terms as “genetic manipulation” and “Frankenstein food” to stress the unnaturalness of the process, as well as the related dangers like negative impacts on the natural environmen and human health.
Undoubtedly, like any technology, genetic modification has both positive and negative effects. This article presents some of the arguments in favor and against biotechnology as applied to agricultural food production. The focus is on the ecological and environmental effects of genetic modification of agricultural crops.
Biotechnology pros
Most biotechnological efforts in agriculture have been focused on developing herbicide tolerant crops or disease and pest resistant crops. One of the major benefits is that it reduces the application rates for herbicides used on herbicide resistant crops (HRCs). It also reduces the overall quantity of herbicide.
Critics argue that there would be a significant increase in the overall quantity of herbicide, but some reports show otherwise. Farmers in the United States treat more than 90% of all corn, soybean, and cotton acreage with herbicides at least once every year. Also, farmers who used the first genetically engineered modified cotton and soya reported an increase in yield and net return with a stable or reduced quantity of herbicides.
Proponents of transgenic crops note that the engineered crops can produce a toxin that kills insect, so farmers do not need to spray much herbicide. Another potential ecological and environmental benefit of genetically modified crops is that farmers in the future may use marginal lands as biotechnology creates crops that can grow on acidic, salty, or dry soils. This would mean reduced deforestation.
Biotechnology cons
There are a number of major ecological and environmental contentions against genetic engineering of agricultural crops. First, there is the danger of crops transferring genes to wild varieties. For example, if herbicide tolerant genes are introduced into crops for fortification purposes, then a transfer of these enhanced genes to the wild type can improve the latter’s fitness.
Second, there is the risk of transferring engineered genes into the soil. Although it is unlikely that the impact will be great, many studies have shown that soil bacteria can absorb the DNA from the modified crops. Third, there is also the risk of insects becoming resistant to herbicides and pesticides.
Lastly, non-target crop species on the wider ecosystem may somewhat be affected. By injecting new genes into existing crops, biotechnologists are making a new variety of the crop, which consequently may affect the larger environment. The risk is that the DNA of the crop flows to other domesticated or wild varieties of the same crop.
Effective public stategy
Overall, the uncertainty about the positive and negative effects of biotechnology on the environment is the reason for the differing opinions about genetic engineering in agriculture. Considering that this process is subject to much R&D and GMOs are already available at a very large scale, it looks unrealistic to strive for a total GMO ban.
An effective public strategy must include several elements: (1) promotion of communication among industry, science, politicians, NGOs, and consumers; (2) focusing legislation on the responsibilities of private firms; (3) development of standards for testing and monitoringecological, environmental, and health effects of GMOs; and (4) provision of consumer choice between GMO-based products GMO-free products.
October 24th, 2008
People use their scent to attract the opposite (or same) sex. Many of them prefer a natural scent, while other love the smell of perfume or cologne. Many others are turned off by bad odor. In the plant kingdom, flowers also use scent to attract pollinators. Usually, flowers with fragrant and aromatic scent attract more insects than flowers with bad or no smell.
Scent then is crucial to the ecosystem, as well as to the flower industry. That’s why scientists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem are attempting to genetically modify the scent of flowers and embed scents in those that do not have one.
The importance of smell
Smell is an important part of our lives. We use our sense of smell in choosing food, perfume, and even our partners. But it is not just what we smell, it is also what we taste, says Prof. Alexander Vainstein, the researcher leading the team at the Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment. He adds, “Aroma is of major importance for defining the taste of food.”
Scent in plants and flowers is used to attract such pollinating insects as bees and beetles. These insects help in passing on the pollen needed in the reproduction and creation of fruits. Scent intensity varies, depending on species, time of day, weather, and age of the flower.
The research
In the study recently published in the Plant Biotechnology Journal, Vainstein and Michal Moyal Ben-Tzvi, his research assistant, were successful in finding a way to enhance the scent of flowers by tenfold. Together with other researchers at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, they succeeded in causing flowers to emit a scent all day long, irrespective of their natural rhythm of producing scent.
Vainstein’s lab is the only lab in the world where researchers study flower scent and color. His greenhouse at the university’s Rehovot campus is filled with genetically altered flowers whose scent, color, and architecture the researchers are attempting to engineer.
Application
The development has been patented by the university’s technology transfer company, Yissum. It is intended for application to other agricultural produce. The importance of this genetic modification is that using natural components will change and increase not only the scent of fruit and vegetables; it will also also influence the commercial viability of many agricultural produce.
Also, the genetic alteration will benefit the flower industry. “Many flowers lost their scent over many years of breeding. Recent developments will help to create flowers with increased scent as well as producing new scent components in the flowers,” says Vainstein.
October 9th, 2008
With diminishing fishery resources and increasing food demand from an ever-growing human population, it is not surprising that aquaculture corporations and multinational biotechnology are funding research and development into genetically modifying fish. Genetically engineered fish are bred to enhance their commercial viability, like enhanced growth rates, feed conversion efficiency, and tolerance for certain environmental conditions.
Farm-raised trout, sought after mainly by recreational anglers, are genetically modified to prevent negative ecological impacts such as transfer of undesirable genes to native trout population.
Killing sex drive
One recent study done in Great Britain has successfully modified farmed trout, preventing them to interbreed with native trout population. It was prompted by concerns regarding the ecological effects of the yearly restocking of rivers and lakes with 900,000 farm-raised brown trout.
The problem is the interbreeding of these fish with the wild ones, passing on undesirable genes. The scientists found a solution: genetically engineering the farm-reared fish with an extra set of chromosomes. “We knew one answer could be to release so-called triploid fish - which have been altered to have an extra set of chromosomes,” said Environment Agency’s head of fisheries Dr. Dafydd Evans.
Easier catch
In addition to rendering the fish infertile, another effect of genetically altering farm trout is that it makes them easier to hook, certainly a bonus for Britain’s two million recreational anglers.
“It is an unexpected bonus,” Evans said. “It means anglers can catch more and so get more sport out of them.” Dylan Roberts, the trust’s head of fisheries, said, “They are bred for eating and have lost many of the genes vital for survival. We don’t want them giving those genes to native populations.”
Roberts tagged around 1,000 triploid farmed fish and another 1,000 farmed fish with normal gene and released them into the rivers. He then conducted a survey, asking anglers how many of each trout they caught and how the fish fought. Results show that genetically modified trout are easier to catch. One theory to explain this occurrence is that having lost their sex, engineered trout focus on eating. This makes them less active, thus easier to hook.
Controversies
The practice of releasing with farm-raised trout in rivers and lakes is highly controversial among environmentalists. Many critics argue that releasing them for capture and recreation is similar to releasing cows into the woods and then shooting them down.
Supporters, on the other hand, argue that the recreational fishing industry is generating millions of pounds. They say that this sports helps rural areas while offering urbanites a great hobby that gets them outdoors.
September 18th, 2008
Salmonella, a genus of bacteria, is one of the leading causes of foodborne illnesses in the United States. According to the Center for Disease Control, salmonella illnesses about 14 of 100,000 persons each year, with an annual 30,000 reported cases of salmonellosis. Salmonella may be very bad bacteria, but researchers have discovered a way to transform these distressing bacteria into heroes: genetic modification. A latest study suggests that modified salmonella can deliver an antigen that protects against pneumonia. Another study suggests that engineered salmonella can slow down tumor growth.
Vaccine against pneumonia
With the support of the Gates Foundation, researchers at the Arizona State University have genetically engineered salmonella to release an antigen that fends off pneumonia directly to cells. The modified salmonella destroy themselves to deliver their genetic payload. Affected cells then respond to the instructions and produce small amount of pneumoccocus. This prompts an immune response to pneumonia, and immunity to the disease. It could save the lives of more than a million children every year.
Salmonella do not infect the body in the process and the does not leave vaccine cells in the environment. According to lead researcher Roy Curtiss: “If we tried to use live Streptococcus pneumoniae causing pneumonia for a vaccine, we would obviously kill the patient. The benefit of a live vaccine that uses a weakened form of salmonella, is that the salmonella can be taken up through the intestinal lining and stimulate an immune response by using just a portion of the bacteria causing pneumonia that itself is not deadly.”
The genetically engineered salmonella colonize the host’s lymph tissues and produce a protein coming from the S. pneumoniae bacterium. This bacterium then triggers a very strong antibody response. After entering into the immunized individual, the salmonella vaccine functions as its own factory in producing the protective proteins from the S. pneumoniae pathogen. This is unlike most vaccines manufactured by vaccine companies. “This ability to cause manufacture in the immunized individual dramatically decreases the cost of such vaccines to make them affordable for use in the developing world,” says Curtiss.
Slowing down tumor growth
Researchers Markus Loeffler and John Reed of the Burnham Institute for Medical Research genetically engineered salmonella bacteria to express the Fas ligand (FasL), a signaling protein that can slow down the growth of tumors and can attract neutrophils. Injecting FasL into the bloodstream can pose a major problem since it is toxic. But Loeffler, Reed, and their colleagues speculated that salmonella might help to safely target FasL to tumors.
In their current study, the researchers injected attenuated FasL-expressing salmonella to mice having tumors taken from mouse colon cancer and breast cancer. After the treatment, tumor growth significantly slowed down in mice with either colon or breast tumors. In addition, lung metastases were also reduced in mice having breast cancer. The anti-cancer effect of injecting attenuated FasL-expressing salmonella seemed reliant on the presence of neutrophils or inflammatory cells. The authors conclude that “these results from murine cancer models suggest that FasL-expressing [Salmonella] could offer an acceptable strategy for employing FasL and possibly other toxic cytokines for cancer therapy.”
September 4th, 2008
One of the major problems confronting the earth today is the severe water shortage in many regions, causing adverse impacts on people, animals, and plants. This is specifically not good for crops that need a lot of water to survive. Sure, many types of plants survive with less water requirements such as cactus, jade plant, century plant, snake plant, sedum, etc. But all-important food crops such as rice, wheat, maize, sugar cane, etc. are different. They don’t survive in soils that have less water. Lack of water has already caused food shortages and crises in many countries around the world. In this light, researchers at Tel Aviv University are resorting to genetic modification in attempts at solving this serious environmental, social, and economic problem.
Inefficient water irrigation system
The inefficiency of the present irrigation techniques largely contributes to the global food crisis. The problem is that water in the irrigation system evaporates before they reach the roots of the food crops. In addition to the food crops gone to waste, this results in a massive waste of time, energy, and funding. Realizing the severity and urgency of the problem, researchers at Tel Aviv University are currently looking at a possible solution by examining the root of the problem, literally. They are genetically modifying plants’ root systems to improve their ability to find the water essential to their survival.
Every drop counts
As the cliché goes, every drop counts. Thus, it is very important that water uptake by irrigated food crops should be improved, says Prof. Amram Eshel, a professor at the Plant Sciences Department in Tel Aviv University and one of the project’s head researchers. His team, along with Hillel Fromm’s research team, are hoping to genetically engineer plants that take advantage of a recently discovered gene that directs hydrotropism, or a plant’s ability to orient its roots towards where the water is.
In investigating how genetically modified plant roots direct themselves towards water source, the Tel Aviv University scientists are observing plants that grow on moist air. Until now, the method of growing plants in mist and air (aeroponics) was a benchtop method used only in small-scale settings. The Eshel and Fromm are doing their research on Arabidopsis, a small flowering plant that is related to mustard and cabbage.
Environmental and economic consequences
Eshel said that one of their major aims is to conserve water, adding that, “We are increasing a plant’s efficiency for water uptake. Plants that can sense water in a better fashion will be higher in economic value in the future.” If their research turns out to be success, farmers in many parts of the world will be benefited by the water-saving consequences. According to one member of the research, “We are developing plants that are more efficient in sensing water.” The Israeli Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development is funding Eshel and Fromm’s project.
Not a new idea
The idea of modifying plant root systems has its roots in the 19th century, where scientists were already puzzled why roots seek out the soil’s wetter regions. While this phenomenon is documented thoroughly, scientists and researchers until recently did not know how the mechanism worked and how to improve it. Fresh insights from the current research could lead to crops that are great water seekers.
August 21st, 2008
The 2008 Beijing Olympics is only a day away as of this writing. Athletes around the world are raring to give their countrymen honor and glory by winning their respective sports nice and clean. But there has never been a “clean” Olympics. In fact, Jacques Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) expects about 40 positive doping results at the Beijing Games, compared to 26 positive results at the 2004 Athens Olympics. There were 12 athletes caught doping at the 2000 Olympics in Sydney – former track queen Marion Jones was one of them.
Gene doping
Forget about steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. A new generation of “genetically modified”sportsmen and sportswomen could spoil the Summer Olympics and other sporting events as athletes go to new heights to realize their goals. Gene doping, which may be more difficult to detect than the more conventional kind, could turn out to be the greatest fair-play problem in sports history.
According to British scientist Andy Miah who is conducting a research on the incoming Games, “In 2004, people were starting to talk about its use at the Athens Olympics,” adding that, “This year the case is even stronger that this will be the first genetically-modified Games. Many scientists will say it’s still not possible, but I’m not taking this for granted. We need to assume that it’s happening. It’s already feasible.”
IGF-1
Treatments for illnesses and diseases now in various R&D phases can be modified to enhance future athletic performance. Researchers at the Harvard University and University of Pennsylvania have made some startling discoveries regarding muscle growth and repair mechanisms. The researchers found that a hormone known as IGF-1 facilitates the division of cells of the satellite cells that surround the muscle. The extra cells can mix with muscle fibers, which repair any damage in the outer layer and bulk up the inner layer. Thus, additional IGF-1 could be used to repair damaged muscle (due to disease or illness) or shrunk muscle (due to age).
The researchers injected the synthetic IGF-1 gene into middle-aged mice. A revealing result: the injected legs remained strong and healthy as the mice aged. On the other hand, the non-treated legs became 25% less strong. In spite of these positive results, researcher H. Lee Sweeney at the University of Pennsylvania warns: “Safety concerns as well as unresolved questions about whether it is better to deliver AAV (the synthetic virus carrying the Igf-1) in humans through the blood stream or by direct injection into muscle mean that approved gene therapy treatments using AAV-IGF-1 may be as much as a decade away.”
Myostatin
Myostatin is a hormone that keeps our muscles manageable. It seems that if we remove Myostatin’s inhibition, our muscles should become bulkier. Consider this case: In 2004, doctors were puzzled by a boy who had a mutation that inactivated Myostatin. The 4.5-year-old boy had an impressive physique; he appears born for bodybuilding as he could hold out two 3-kilogram dumbbells with both arms extended. Researchers have been developing myostatin-blocking medicines for muscle diseases such as muscular dystrophy.
PPAR-delta
Of course, many atheletes desire not only muscle bulk but also endurance. Researchers at the Salk Institute in San Diego, Califoria genetically engineered mice. They encoded PPAR-delta, a fat-burning protein, with hopes at creating slimmer mice. As expected, the mice were lean even when consuming foods rich in fats. The mice also developed many slow-twitch muscle fibers, enabling them to run double distance of their non-treated counterparts.
August 7th, 2008
The term “designer baby” used to be found only in weblogs and sci-fi movies. But in 2004 the term made its way to the Oxford English Dictionary. The dictionary defines it as “a baby whose genetic makeup has been artificially selected by genetic engineering combined with in vitro fertilization to ensure the presence or absence of particular genes or characteristics.”
From fiction to non-fiction
Imagine a number of couples in a waiting room, all excitedly looking through a variety of catalogs. But these catalogs are not your usual catalogs. Here, couples choose specific traits they want for their future babies. This process of creating a “perfect baby” may look like a scenario from a Twilight Zone episode, but it may be the reality tomorrow. Or maybe sooner.
Making a baby girl or a a baby boy used to be a trial-and-error affair for all couples. But not anymore, as couples can now turn to the newest genetic testing techniques to predetermine the sex of their babies with great accuracy. In fact, as early as 1997, a baby girl was born after a genetic prescreening.
In 2004, five babies were born to give stem cells for their siblings who had critical non-heritable conditions. A first in genetic engineering history, the “savior siblings” were created to treat children with conditions not related to genes. A technique known as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) was employed to test embryos. The test looked for a tissue type that matched that of the ailing siblings. The team of scientists from the Reproductive Genetics Institute in Chicago said that the aim of the procedure was to provide stem cells for transplantation to young children who suffer from such rare condition as Diamond-Blackfan anemia as well as leukemia.
Germ line engineering
The first single-cell bacteria genetic engineering was accomplished in 1973. Since then, genetic engineering has gained much attention from scientists, leaders, and the general public. Scientists have already mastered genetic modifications in plants and animals and it is only a matter of time when this same procedure can be applied to humans in attempts to make the future generation much healthier, smarter, and better looking.
Basically, germ cell genetic modifications are changes performed with the eggs, sperm, or embryo. Over a certain period of time, these modifications may become part of the gene pool for good as germ cell characteristics are passed from generation to generation. Changes include the enhancement of genes that are linked with intelligence, appearance, and athletic ability. Germ line modifications also include the removal of hereditary diseases.
The debate
One reason proponents support germ line modification is because this procedure cleanses the gene pool of unwanted genes like diabetes. They also propose that genetic modification would help in preventing the need for repeated modifications for somatic cells. Also, with germ line modification, couples are given the opportunity to enhance certain characteristics of their future children.
On the other hand, critics attack germ line modification by stating that scientists cannot guarantee that characteristics an individual may want to preserve will not be modified or eliminated. Sometimes, genes that pose a threat in one area of the body, can be beneficial to other parts of the body. Thus, it is almost impossible to predict whether undesired characteristics would be the only ones eliminated.
July 17th, 2008
Because of the apparent threat of a global food crisis, some sectors are turning into genetically modified products to increase yield for consumption. Still, not all are into the plan.
There were five countries that were focused in the article. These are the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, China, and Thailand. The article was ordered in such a way that the countries most receptive to GM crops were presented first. Somehow, it appeared that the Philippines is the most open with regards to GM corn being a solution to the food crisis. But there is a catch to that and that will be mentioned as we go along.
From there, it gets stingier as Japan might consider importing GM grains if the situation might call for it. For now, the Japanese government is content on importing GM products for cooking oil, animal feed, and manufactured goods.
This is also the same case in China where it has a detailed stipulation as early as 2001 with regards to GM products and its uses. The closest the country allows in having GM substances is through indirect means like in edible oil and this should be properly labeled.
A Developmental Research Centre official was even quoted, “No genetically modified grain, including seeds, is allowed for edible consumption in China.”
South Korea, on the other hand, implemented a law at the start of the year that imposes strict rules on importing of GM seeds. Presently, the peninsula is importing GM food crops for research purposes. From the manner the agriculture ministry official was quoted, it seems that the country would not bend its rules anytime soon even with an impending catastrophe.
Thailand, where the United Nations’ Food and Agricultural Organisation is based, pulled up its nose to the idea of even considering using GM food crops for commercial use and the official even bared that the rest of the continent is not bent on the idea either.
This now leads us to the conclusion of the article where the Philippine source was quoted that the country was just mimicking the agricultural policies of the United States. As much as that the archipelago is the odd man out in this article, it even exposes that the idea might not even be originally theirs.
As an afterthought, Asian countries in general have not yet embraced the idea of including GM food as part of their citizens’ diet. Nevertheless, there are still a minority of nations who are up to it or who might consider doing so when events do not improve.
Source:
http://news.ph.msn.com/regional/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1372424
May 6th, 2008
Although genetically modified crops are getting so much flak today, there seems to be some instances where they may provide some positive benefits in some areas related to farming and the environment. According to an article on the sciencedaily website, a team of researchers found out that genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops may have helped reduce herbicide runoff in watersheds and improve water quality in a four-year span.
A four-year study conducted by soil scientists Martin Shipitalo and Lloyd Owens, and agricultural engineer Rob Malone at the USDA-ARS’s North Appalachian Experimental Watershed near Coshocton, OH, aimed to compare the relative losses of residual and contact herbicides when applied at normal rates. Both types of herbicides were applied to seven small watersheds that was planted with genetically modified Liberty Linked corn and Roundup Ready soybean. Residual herbicides are the type of herbicides more commonly used for most organic crops while contact herbicides began its use with the introduction of genetically modified herbicide resistant crops.
The researchers noted that losses of contact herbicides were usually much less in surface run-off than for those areas where residual herbicides were used as a percentage of the amount of herbicide that was used. When averaged for all the soybean crop years, glyphosate runoff was about one half that of alachlor and one seventh of metribuzin, two of the residual herbicides that can be replaced by the contact herbicide Roundup. In the same study, another contact herbicide, glufosinate (Liberty) has an average runoff loss one fourth that of atrazine, a type of residual herbicide for corn crops that it can replace.
Residual herbicide runoff in different bodies of water has been a constant problem in areas of the country where farming is practiced. These residual herbicides find their way in nearby rivers, streams and lakes as well as water reservoirs and build up concentrations that can exceed drinking water standards. This poses a problem if those bodies of water are also used as sources of drinking water. This contamination can lead to increased costs when treating the water supply and may even result for the need to look for alternative sources of water supply.
The study showed that replacing residual herbicides with that of contact herbicides while planting genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops may help avoid contaminating watersheds and water supply sources from excessive herbicide surface runoffs.
Source: American Society of Agronomy. “Herbicide-tolerant Crops Can Improve Water Quality.” ScienceDaily 23 April 2008. 23 April 2008 .
April 23rd, 2008
In an article on the GM Watch website, many of the world’s leading scientists have condemned current industrial farming practices and see no role of genetic engineering in solving the hunger crisis in the world today, so says in the report released by International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). In the midst of soaring prices of commodities in the world market and record high food prices, the need for urgent change in the agricultural sector worldwide should be of primary concern for the different governments around the globe.
The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) is a joint cooperation between various international organizations, governments, civil society, the private sector and scientific institutions that was initiated by the World Bank. Its objective is to provide information for the world decision makers on how to structure agricultural development and research in order to help reduce hunger and poverty worldwide. In its final report, the collective has concluded that industrial agriculture has failed and that genetic engineering has proven to be not a reliable solution for hunger and poverty reduction as well as climate change.
The final report, which is the first assessment of global agriculture, has been singed by 60 government representatives that were part of the IAASTD in Johannesburg, South Africa. The only countries present that didn’t sign the final report were the US, Canada, and Australia. Despite these countries having a hand in selecting the authors of the report, they still considered the assessment as unbalanced.
The final assessment report clearly showed that there are other ways to improve food production and quality without destroying livelihoods and natural resources. It states that solutions that modern farming need to provide should support biodiversity, must be labor intensive and must work together with nature and not against it, a total opposite of what genetic engineering and current industrial farming may be doing to current agriculture.
The report of the IAASTD further calls for a fundamental change in farming practices and recommends agro-ecological methods and more small scale farming as the more probable solutions to the current food crisis. The authors believe that world agriculture in general, if controlled by a few private players especially in terms of seed and toxic agricultural inputs would prove to be the end for small-scale farmers. It would even spell the worsening of the current crisis with the destructive and chemical dependent, one-size-fits-all method used in industrial farming today.
Source: http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=8999
http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=Press_Materials&ItemID=11
April 16th, 2008
Labeling GM food has been under close scrutiny especially in the United States. It seems that most biotech companies are against it for fear that it will prevent consumers from eventually avoiding buying foods that might contain genetically modified crops as ingredients. But lack of proper labeling might work against the consumers themselves when it comes to having the right to know. Different camps on the debate seem to have their own reasons and it is important that more people should be able to know what these are.
Despite the lack of proper labeling for foods that contain GM crops for ingredients, the use of such crops has actually been growing from year to year. And because of the lack of proper labeling for foods with genetically modified crop ingredients, many Americans may be totally unaware of how much of the food they are taking contain GM crops as ingredients.
It might surprise a lot of Americans today that as early as 2002, American supermarkets have about 60 percent of products on their shelves known to contain GMO’s. Along that time, statistics have shown that only a 14 percent of American consumers believe that over half of the food on the supermarket shelves contain food products with GMO. What is even more surprising is that only 19 percent of American consumers believe that they have eaten a GM food product. This just shows that the typical American consumer is not given the proper information to the type of food products that they are eating today. This credit goes to the few powerful biotech companies handling a majority of the GMO market today.
The reason why there is a great disparity between low consumer awareness and the reality behind the high percentage of GMO food products in the market is the lack of proper labeling. Biotech companies believe that labeling products as containing GMO’s may prove to be unfair to them. It might have a negative impact on GM food products that may bring down sales of many of the current food products containing genetically modified food ingredients. And statistics may give proof to this. A little more than half of Americans (54 percent) say that labeling GM foods will have a negative effect on their purchasing decision.
The reason it seems for biotech companies to fight against GM food labeling is economically-based. They might lose their business in case consumers become aware of certain products containing GMO’s are labeled as such. But doing so might look like shortchanging the ordinary American consumer. Every consumer should have the right to know what they are putting on their dinner table. But what the biotech companies are doing is that they are trying to hide behind the cloak on improper labeling to drive their business success. It is the fear of consumers on the possible effects of GM foods that biotech companies seem to loathe. Some of these fears might prove to be unfounded. But instead of biotech companies trying hard to fight off putting labels on GMO food products, why not try to convince people on the safety of GM foods and dispel the fears that consumers seem to have on them, if they do say that they are unfounded fears in the first place. That seems to be the most logical way, with giving each side a fair shake.
April 9th, 2008
Too many times have we heard that genetic engineering may provide the answer to the world’s problems in agriculture. But up until now, doubts and fears still seem to be in the minds of many people when faced with the idea of using or consuming food coming from a genetically modified crop. Adherents to the technology believes that the only way to improve global practices to increase yields and enjoy better harvests is through genetic engineering. It seems that such people are keen on selling the idea that the genetic engineering of important crops is the only way to survive. But is it really?
The most recent statistics have shown that genetically engineered crops now cover an estimated 81 million hectares of agricultural land worldwide. In 2004, 17 countries were known to have officially grown GE crops with others continually being persuaded to adopt GM crops in their own lands. The pressure to adopt planting GM crops has led to world agriculture being forced to make a major choice between which technology to build its future on.
Genetic engineering as a technology utilized for world agriculture can still be seen as a risky proposition as many biosafety issues about plants developed under genetic engineering still remain to be addressed clearly. The problem with GM crops on its various opponents is that most of the crops now commercially introduced to the public were given certain privileges that allowed them to be made commercially available even with an obvious lack of extensive safety testing. This is due in part to the scientists lack of knowledge for suitable testing methods for GM plants during those times. This has led to many biosafety doubts that continue to haunt and plague GM plants that has made public acceptance all the more difficult.
There are still many who believe that organic management of farms may still be the best way to go for the future of agriculture. With news that some of the considered GM plants developing new problems such as new pesticide tolerant enemies and pests as well as uncontrolled crop contamination, the use of GM crops may not be as smooth after all. The future scenario that biotech companies may eventually control world agriculture with their patented GM crops also seem to put a number of farmers ill at ease. Only time will tell where the fate of world agriculture or that or GM crops will lead to. People can only hope that wherever that fate may bring them, it would all be for the better.
April 2nd, 2008
Over the course of developing genetically modified foods, some of the major biotech companies seem to be trying to rush up having GM crops more commercially available even with a severe lack of adequate testing. With the field of genetic modification and genetic engineering a relatively new technology, most of the scientists haven’t yet been able to come up with a suitable number of standard tests that would really help erase the doubts on the safety of GM crops and foods for human consumption.
With the lack of substantial safety testing of GM foods, it is possible that such foods may pose some potential health hazards to consumers. And the threat has been brought about by careless introduction of GM crops for commercial use despite the lack of extensive safety testing. Most of the health hazards have been discovered way after the GM crops have already been approved for public use. Here are some evidences of those potential hazards:
- Scientists at the Russian Academy of Science reported between 2005 and 2006 that a study made on feeding female rats with glyphosate-tolerant GM soybeans resulted in the the birth of an excessive number of severely stunted pups with more than half of the litter dying within a span of three weeks. The surviving pups were later on found to be completely sterile. (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GM_Soya_Fed_Rats.php)
- Between 2005 and 2006, there has been a report of mass deaths of sheep grazing on Bt cotton, a GM crop. Villages in the Warangal district in Andra Pradesh, India reported that thousands of sheep has died after grazing on post harvest Bt cotton. Findings of the alarming deaths strongly suggested that the sheep may have died out of severe toxicity. (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MDSGBTC.php)
- Hundreds of farm workers and cotton handlers in Madhya Pradesh, India were reported to have suffered from allergy symptoms after exposure to Bt cotton. A similar incident happened in a town in Tuka, Bagumbayan, Sultan Kudarat in southern Philippines in 2003 where thirty-two people suddenly suffered from several ailments including headache, dizziness, vomiting, diarrhea, breathing difficulties and stomach aches when 30 hectares of the land in the area was planted with Bt maize. Some of those who suffered were unaware that Bt maize was being planted in their area. (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMBanLongOverdue.php)
These are just a few of the various circumstances where GM crops were found to pose as a potential health hazard not only for consumers but for the whole environment as well. Commercialization of such GM crops without undergoing a stricter regulatory process may soon result in more and more risks that may affect humans in one way or the other. Such hazards continue to put a stain into the success of the so-called plants of the future, the GM crops.
March 26th, 2008
Previous Posts