Daily Archives: May 9, 2021

On August 18, 2020, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published apetitionby researchers at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF) seeking federal approval to release their genetically engineered (GE)Darling 58 (D58) American chestnut treeinto U.S. forests. Researchers claim the transgenic D58 tree will resist thefungal blightthat, coupled with rampant overlogging, decimated the American chestnut population in the early 20th century. In fact, the GE American chestnut is aTrojan horsemeant to open the doors to commercial GE trees designed for industrial plantations.

The D58 would be the first GE forest tree approved in the U.S. and the first GMO intended to spread in the wild. (GE canola plants werediscoveredin the wild in 2010 but that was unplanned.) This is a project to rapidly domesticate a wild species through genetic engineering and accelerated breeding, and then to put it back into ecosystems to form self-perpetuating populationsan intentional evolutionary intervention that has never been attempted before with any species,explainscientists at the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), which are nonprofits based in Washington, D.C.

The Southern U.S. is global ground zero for the forest products industry and we see genetically engineered chestnut trees as this industrys sneaky way of opening the floodgates for frankentrees that will harm forests, biodiversity and local communities across the region,explainsScot Quaranda of Dogwood Alliance, a nonprofit based in North Carolina that works to protect Southern U.S. forests. Our natural forests that support wildlife and the economic sovereignty of rural communities will rapidly be replaced with tree plantations for wood pellets, paper and more, leaving environmental and climate injustice in their wake.

The GE American chestnut faces an uphill battle due to decades of opposition to GE trees by Indigenous peoples, scientists, students, activists, foresters and others, including aGE tree ban by the Forest Stewardship Counciland a United Nationsdecisionthat warns countries of the dangers of GE trees and urges use of theprecautionary principlewhile addressing the issue.

By October 19, 2020, the close of the public comment period on the petition,109 organizations, representing millions of members, plus an additional 123,426 individualshad registered their opposition to the D58. The next step is the creation of a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by the USDA recommending action on the petition. The American Chestnut Foundation (TACF) estimates this could take up to a year to complete. Following this, another public comment period will be undertaken to review the draft EIS, after which the agency will develop a final EIS with a decision on the petition.

D58 Safety Studies Invalid, Warn Scientists

While American chestnut trees are known to livehundredsof years, D58 trees have only been growingsince2017, calling into question the ESFpetitionassertion that Darling 58 has been studied in detail and no plant pest or environmental risks have been observed.

In areport on the GE American chestnutshe co-wrote, Dr. Rachel Smolker from Biofuelwatch explains, Given the long lifespan of trees and varying environmental conditions they face, we cannot extrapolate from tests done on very young trees under controlled lab and field conditions. How GE trees might behave in the diverse and changing context of natural forests over long periods of time is unknown and likely to remain unknown even after they are released.

Scientists at CFS and ICTAwarn ofproblems with the D58 safety studies,writing, Given the young age of Darling 58 trees and corresponding dearth of tissue samples, conclusions from most of the animal experiments described in the Petition are too preliminary to depend upon.

In studying ESFs assessment of the impacts of inserting the blight-resistant oxalate oxidase (OxO) transgene into the chestnut genome, both CFS and ICTA furtherpoint outthat some D58 studies did not, in fact, use material from transgenic D58 trees, rendering them invalid. Petitioners did experiments to study how bumblebees might be affected by Darling 58, but did not have enough Darling 58 pollen for the experiments so used non-transgenic pollen instead, to which they added purified OxO from barley seeds. Other important initial studies on animals reported in the Petition are of limited use because they involved feeding leaves from the Darling 4 instead of Darling 58 even though Darling 4 has much lower levels of OxO in leaves again invalidating the conclusions for risk assessments. The Darling 4 was an earlier version of the American chestnut genetically engineered with the OxO transgene.

While researchers have argued that a strict regulatory process will ensure the safety of the D58 GE tree, a 2019 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine titled, Forest Health and Biotechnology: Possibilities and Considerations, raises flags: Forest health is not accounted for in the regulations for the use of biotechnology or for other approaches to mitigating forest tree insect pests or pathogens. There are no specific regulations or policies that those agencies apply to biotech trees.

Profit Motive Trumping Morality?

Proponents argue that there can be no downside to releasing a tree engineered to resist an introduced blight. But like fire suppression, which has led to devastating wildfires due to an unnatural buildup of flammable materials in the forest, the future impacts of even a well-meaning action can become catastrophic, especially in combination with the unpredictable effects of climate change and extreme weather. Yet, researchers are engineering trees with the conviction that because they can, they should.

In her bookCan Science Make Sense of Life?, Dr. Sheila Jasanoff, Pforzheimer Professor of Science and Technology Studies at the Harvard Kennedy School, explains the implications of this arrogance. For life scientists and their enthusiastic promoters, the arc of the technologically possible, often coincident with the promise of financial gain, increasingly defines the boundaries of the morally permissible.

Researcher William Powell, whose GE American chestnut research hasreceivedboth financial and technical support from companies with a vested interest in the approval of the GE American chestnutincluding Monsanto, ArborGen andDuke Energydefendshis approach. In an article in the Conversation, Powell says, One of the key advantages of genetic engineering is that its far less disruptive to the original chestnut genomeand thus to its ecologically important characteristics. The trees remain more true to form with less chance of unforeseen and unwanted side effects. Once these genes are inserted, they become a normal part of the trees genome and are inherited just like any other gene.

However, in a briefing paper published by the Federation of German Scientists, Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher, a molecular geneticist, and Antje Lorch, a biologist, counter that the genetic engineering process is inherently risky. Thepaperstates, It is well documented that the processes of plant transformation give rise to many mutations throughout the plant genome as well as at the insertion site of the transgene. Any robust risk assessment study needs to take several generations into account, for example to assess the stability and heritability of the transgene, unintended side effects and changes due to transformation impact.

Why the American Chestnut?

The D58 American chestnut is the culmination of decades of effort to open the doors to GE trees in the U.S. by biotechnology and timber companies. In 1999, Monsanto joined with timber companies from the U.S. and New Zealand to form a forestry biotechnology joint venture, which later became ArborGen, one of the worlds leaders in GE tree research and development. GE tree research was originally focused on trees and traits valued by the forest products industry; trees like poplar, pine and eucalyptus, and traits like insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, faster growth or altered wood composition.

Other early associationsincluding theTree Genetic Engineering Research Cooperativeat Oregon State University, launched in 1994brought together university researchers with timber and biotechnology giants as well as the U.S. Forest Service to develop genetically engineered trees for industrial timber plantations.

These efforts were met with widespread opposition and sabotage, leading the industry to conclude that they needed a charismatic test tree to try to win over the public opinion relating to GE trees.

A 2007published paperexplains, There is opposition to commercial application of trees, engineered specifically for fast growth and increased yields, by those whose stance is that the value accrues only to big companies. It will remain for traits that have broad societal benefits, such as conservation for acceptance to be gained.

The D58 is seen as a positive example for the beleaguered biotechnology industry of the benefits of biotechnology for conservation. Duke Energy also sees the American chestnut for its value as a greenwashing tool. Duke Energy invested millions into the GE American chestnut through theForest Health Initiative. Its hope was to use the American chestnut to help green its devastated mountaintop removal mining lands.

Naturalist and author Bernd Heinrich has one such grove growing on his land in Maine. In aNew York Times op-edin 2013, he wrote, I have been enjoying American chestnuts for several years now, harvested from some trees that are now part of my forest of 600 acres in western Maine. I planted four seedlings in the spring of 1982. Beyond all my expectations, the trees thrived, and some are now 35 feet tall. In my small corner of western Maine, the American chestnut is now promising to again become a significant component of the ecosystem.

Once dominant in Eastern U.S. forests, the American chestnut was highly valued for its beautiful and rot-resistant wood, and abundant nuts. While few actually remember the tree, which largelydisappearedfrom the landscape by the 1920s, a public relations effort was launched in the early 2010s with articles appearing in numerousmajor publicationsheralding the return of this mighty giant through the wonders of genetic engineering.Millions of American chestnut stumps, meanwhile, continue to send up shoots that occasionally grow into trees large enough to produce nuts, and in some locations, wild American chestnuts are spreading on their own, showing at least some evolving blight tolerance.

Another decades-long program by theAmerican Chestnut Cooperators Foundationis successfully breeding pure wild American chestnuts that are naturally blight-resistant.

In spite of examples like this, GE chestnut proponents have declared the American chestnut functionally extinct, and insist that itssurvivalhinges on the release of unproven and risky genetic engineered American chestnut trees into forests. But Lois Breault-Melican, a former board member of the American Chestnut Foundation whopublicly resigned from the TACFover the organizations support for the GE American chestnut, points out that this argument ignores the risks posed to organic and other chestnut growers: These growers are concerned about the potential GMO contamination of their orchards caused by the unregulated and unmonitored planting of genetically engineered American chestnut trees. If theUSDA approves these GE American chestnuts, the integrity of chestnut orchards would be forever compromised.

Indigenous Sovereignty Concerns

Indigenous peoples in the regions of proposed D58 releases have expressed concern that unregulated distribution of a GE tree would violate their sovereign right to keep their territories free from GMOs. They insist that Indigenous peoples be consulted in theprocessof reviewing the D58 American chestnut.

Today, there remain large areas of traditional and treaty lands on which much is forested and managed as sovereign territory of many different Native American Peoples,explainsBJ McManama of the Indigenous Environmental Network. These forests are not only a source of economic self-determination but hold great cultural significance to include sacred sites where trees are an element of sustenance, knowledge and familial identity. Every living being within the forests [is] related in some form and nothing within these lands lives in isolation; therefore, changing or altering the original instructions of any one or any part of these elements threatens the natural order established over millennia.

The Eastern Band of Cherokee, members of the Lumbee Tribe of central North Carolina and Seminole Peoples from unceded Florida territory joined the Campaign to STOP GE Trees foran October 2014 gatheringin the mountains of North Carolina to protest GE trees as a form of colonization. Their concerns were focused on the GE American chestnut trees.

Lisa Montelongo, a member of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee,explained, Im very concerned that GE trees would impact our future generations and their traditional uses of trees. Our basket makers, people that use wood for the natural colors of our clay workthere would be no natural life, no cycle of life in GE tree plantations.

Following the camp, the Bands Tribal Council passed a unanimous resolution prohibiting GE trees from their lands: Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians (EBCI) Tribal Council Resolution No. 31 (2015): We commit to rejecting biomass, genetically engineering the natural world, carbon trading, carbon offsets and carbon sequestration schemes as they are false solutions to the climate change. Concerns were focused on the inability of the tribe to keep the GE American chestnut tree off of their lands if it were released into surrounding forests, which they describe as a violation of the Free, Prior and Informed Consent mandate under theUNs Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Global Impact of the Genetically Engineered D58 American Chestnut Tree

In the end, the potential deregulation of the D58 is not about restoring a mighty giant to Eastern U.S. forests. Its approval is about paving the way for the deregulation of all GE trees, toward the creation of an oxymoronic future bioeconomy where biodiverse forests are replaced with specially engineered trees for the manufacture of fuels, chemicals, textiles, plastics and other goods in a green version of business as usual. Implicit in this scheme is a massive increase in the consumption of wood. This in turn will drive accelerated conversion of carbon-rich native forests, critical for climate regulation, and other ecosystems for conversion to fast-growing plantations that include GE trees with traits to expedite their use as feedstocks. Existing non-native plantations of eucalyptus, the most common plantation tree, are already notorious for their devastating social, ecological and climate change impacts. Butnew researchout of Oregon State University is attempting to green these plantations with claims that eucalyptus trees can be genetically engineered to be infertile, through a process to knock out LEAFY, the gene believed to control flower formation. The research claims this would prevent eucalyptus trees from invading native ecosystems, though it does nothing to address the ability of eucalyptus to spread asexually through vegetative propagation.

This new technology also does nothing to address the serious problems caused by industrial plantations of eucalyptus. These impacts,outlined in detail by the World Rainforest Movement, include depletion of fresh water; forced displacement of Indigenous groups, rural communities and subsistence farmers; and catastrophic wildfires. In fact, the addition of GE trees to these plantations could exacerbate known impacts and/or lead to new, unknown and potentially irreversible problems.

Another attempt to green GE trees for the bioeconomy involves the development of treesspecially engineered to store extra carbonas a supposed climate change mitigation tool. But anew article in Yale Environment 360challenges schemes like this that focus on tree planting for climate mitigation. Echoing the findings of the World Rainforest Movement and others, the article reports a growing number of scientists and environmentalists are challenging this narrative on tree-planting. They say that planting programs, especially those based on large numerical targets, can wreck natural ecosystems, dry up water supplies, damage agriculture, push people off their landand even make global warming worse. In addition, they say, Tree planting can distract from the greater priorities of protecting existing forests and reducing fossil fuel use.

The attempts to greenwash genetically engineered trees with their unpredictable and irreversible impacts are beingopposed globally by a broad coalitionof scientists, Indigenous peoples, agronomists, peasant farmers, foresters, teachers and others, as well as organizations focused on protecting forests, human rights and climate justice. GE trees have no place in an ecologically and socially just future.

Authors note:Following the initial publication of this article, Reutersreportedthat a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed on April 21 between the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians (EBCI) and the American Chestnut Foundation. The MOU, described by EBCI members as highly controversial, would allow the planting of GE American chestnuts on Cherokee land.

Anne Petermann is the executive director ofGlobal Justice Ecology Project. She has been working on issues related to protecting forests and defending the rights of Indigenous peoples since 1990 and co-founded the first global campaign against genetically engineered trees in 2000. In the years since, she has presented the social and ecological dangers of genetically engineered trees at conferences, with community groups, and at the United Nations and other international fora on five continents. She currently coordinates theCampaign to STOP GE Trees, which she co-founded in 2014. Follow her on Twitter:@AnneGJEP.

This article first appeared onTruthoutand was produced in partnership withEarth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Continued here:
USDA May Allow Genetically Modified Trees to Be Released Into the Wild - NewsClick

On August 18, 2020, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published apetitionby researchers at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry (ESF) seeking federal approval to release their genetically engineered (GE)Darling 58 (D58) American chestnut treeinto U.S. forests. Researchers claim the transgenic D58 tree will resist thefungal blightthat, coupled with rampant overlogging, decimated the American chestnut population in the early 20th century. In fact, the GE American chestnut is aTrojan horsemeant to open the doors to commercial GE trees designed for industrial plantations.

The D58 would be the first GE forest tree approved in the U.S. and the first GMO intended to spread in the wild. (GE canola plants werediscoveredin the wild in 2010 but that was unplanned.) This is a project to rapidly domesticate a wild species through genetic engineering and accelerated breeding, and then to put it back into ecosystems to form self-perpetuating populationsan intentional evolutionary intervention that has never been attempted before with any species,explainscientists at the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and International Center for Technology Assessment (ICTA), which are nonprofits based in Washington, D.C.

The Southern U.S. is global ground zero for the forest products industry and we see genetically engineered chestnut trees as this industrys sneaky way of opening the floodgates for frankentrees that will harm forests, biodiversity and local communities across the region,explainsScot Quaranda of Dogwood Alliance, a nonprofit based in North Carolina that works to protect Southern U.S. forests. Our natural forests that support wildlife and the economic sovereignty of rural communities will rapidly be replaced with tree plantations for wood pellets, paper and more, leaving environmental and climate injustice in their wake.

A genetically engineered chestnut tree may be the first to spread into forests, setting dangerous global precedents.

The GE American chestnut faces an uphill battle due to decades of opposition to GE trees by Indigenous peoples, scientists, students, activists, foresters and others, including aGE tree ban by the Forest Stewardship Counciland a United Nationsdecisionthat warns countries of the dangers of GE trees and urges use of theprecautionary principlewhile addressing the issue.

By October 19, 2020, the close of the public comment period on the petition,109 organizations, representing millions of members, plus an additional 123,426 individualshad registered their opposition to the D58. The next step is the creation of a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by the USDA recommending action on the petition. The American Chestnut Foundation (TACF) estimates this could take up to a year to complete. Following this, another public comment period will be undertaken to review the draft EIS, after which the agency will develop a final EIS with a decision on the petition.

While American chestnut trees are known to livehundredsof years, D58 trees have only been growingsince2017, calling into question the ESFpetitionassertion that Darling 58 has been studied in detail and no plant pest or environmental risks have been observed.

In areport on the GE American chestnutshe co-wrote, Dr. Rachel Smolker from Biofuelwatch explains, Given the long lifespan of trees and varying environmental conditions they face, we cannot extrapolate from tests done on very young trees under controlled lab and field conditions. How GE trees might behave in the diverse and changing context of natural forests over long periods of time is unknown and likely to remain unknown even after they are released.

Scientists at CFS and ICTAwarn ofproblems with the D58 safety studies,writing, Given the young age of Darling 58 trees and corresponding dearth of tissue samples, conclusions from most of the animal experiments described in the Petition are too preliminary to depend upon.

In studying ESFs assessment of the impacts of inserting the blight-resistant oxalate oxidase (OxO) transgene into the chestnut genome, both CFS and ICTA furtherpoint outthat some D58 studies did not, in fact, use material from transgenic D58 trees, rendering them invalid. Petitioners did experiments to study how bumblebees might be affected by Darling 58, but did not have enough Darling 58 pollen for the experiments so used non-transgenic pollen instead, to which they added purified OxO from barley seeds. Other important initial studies on animals reported in the Petition are of limited use because they involved feeding leaves from the Darling 4 instead of Darling 58 even though Darling 4 has much lower levels of OxO in leaves again invalidating the conclusions for risk assessments. The Darling 4 was an earlier version of the American chestnut genetically engineered with the OxO transgene.

While researchers have argued that a strict regulatory process will ensure the safety of the D58 GE tree, a 2019 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine titled, Forest Health and Biotechnology: Possibilities and Considerations, raises flags: Forest health is not accounted for in the regulations for the use of biotechnology or for other approaches to mitigating forest tree insect pests or pathogens. There are no specific regulations or policies that those agencies apply to biotech trees.

Proponents argue that there can be no downside to releasing a tree engineered to resist an introduced blight. But like fire suppression, which has led to devastating wildfires due to an unnatural buildup of flammable materials in the forest, the future impacts of even a well-meaning action can become catastrophic, especially in combination with the unpredictable effects of climate change and extreme weather. Yet, researchers are engineering trees with the conviction that because they can, they should.

In her bookCan Science Make Sense of Life?, Dr. Sheila Jasanoff, Pforzheimer Professor of Science and Technology Studies at the Harvard Kennedy School, explains the implications of this arrogance. For life scientists and their enthusiastic promoters, the arc of the technologically possible, often coincident with the promise of financial gain, increasingly defines the boundaries of the morally permissible.

Researcher William Powell, whose GE American chestnut research hasreceivedboth financial and technical support from companies with a vested interest in the approval of the GE American chestnutincluding Monsanto, ArborGen andDuke Energydefendshis approach. In an article in the Conversation, Powell says, One of the key advantages of genetic engineering is that its far less disruptive to the original chestnut genomeand thus to its ecologically important characteristics. The trees remain more true to form with less chance of unforeseen and unwanted side effects. Once these genes are inserted, they become a normal part of the trees genome and are inherited just like any other gene.

However, in a briefing paper published by the Federation of German Scientists, Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher, a molecular geneticist, and Antje Lorch, a biologist, counter that the genetic engineering process is inherently risky. Thepaperstates, It is well documented that the processes of plant transformation give rise to many mutations throughout the plant genome as well as at the insertion site of the transgene. Any robust risk assessment study needs to take several generations into account, for example to assess the stability and heritability of the transgene, unintended side effects and changes due to transformation impact.

The D58 American chestnut is the culmination of decades of effort to open the doors to GE trees in the U.S. by biotechnology and timber companies. In 1999, Monsanto joined with timber companies from the U.S. and New Zealand to form a forestry biotechnology joint venture, which later became ArborGen, one of the worlds leaders in GE tree research and development. GE tree research was originally focused on trees and traits valued by the forest products industry; trees like poplar, pine and eucalyptus, and traits like insect resistance, herbicide tolerance, faster growth or altered wood composition.

Other early associationsincluding theTree Genetic Engineering Research Cooperativeat Oregon State University, launched in 1994brought together university researchers with timber and biotechnology giants as well as the U.S. Forest Service to develop genetically engineered trees for industrial timber plantations.

These efforts were met with widespread opposition and sabotage, leading the industry to conclude that they needed a charismatic test tree to try to win over the public opinion relating to GE trees.

A 2007published paperexplains, There is opposition to commercial application of trees, engineered specifically for fast growth and increased yields, by those whose stance is that the value accrues only to big companies. It will remain for traits that have broad societal benefits, such as conservation for acceptance to be gained.

The D58 is seen as a positive example for the beleaguered biotechnology industry of the benefits of biotechnology for conservation. Duke Energy also sees the American chestnut for its value as a greenwashing tool. Duke Energy invested millions into the GE American chestnut through theForest Health Initiative. Its hope was to use the American chestnut to help green its devastated mountaintop removal mining lands.

Naturalist and author Bernd Heinrich has one such grove growing on his land in Maine. In aNew York Times op-edin 2013, he wrote, I have been enjoying American chestnuts for several years now, harvested from some trees that are now part of my forest of 600 acres in western Maine. I planted four seedlings in the spring of 1982. Beyond all my expectations, the trees thrived, and some are now 35 feet tall. In my small corner of western Maine, the American chestnut is now promising to again become a significant component of the ecosystem.

Once dominant in Eastern U.S. forests, the American chestnut was highly valued for its beautiful and rot-resistant wood, and abundant nuts. While few actually remember the tree, which largelydisappearedfrom the landscape by the 1920s, a public relations effort was launched in the early 2010s with articles appearing in numerousmajor publicationsheralding the return of this mighty giant through the wonders of genetic engineering.Millions of American chestnut stumps, meanwhile, continue to send up shoots that occasionally grow into trees large enough to produce nuts, and in some locations, wild American chestnuts are spreading on their own, showing at least some evolving blight tolerance.

Another decades-long program by theAmerican Chestnut Cooperators Foundationis successfully breeding pure wild American chestnuts that are naturally blight-resistant.

In spite of examples like this, GE chestnut proponents have declared the American chestnut functionally extinct, and insist that itssurvivalhinges on the release of unproven and risky genetic engineered American chestnut trees into forests. But Lois Breault-Melican, a former board member of the American Chestnut Foundation whopublicly resigned from the TACFover the organizations support for the GE American chestnut, points out that this argument ignores the risks posed to organic and other chestnut growers: These growers are concerned about the potential GMO contamination of their orchards caused by the unregulated and unmonitored planting of genetically engineered American chestnut trees. If theUSDA approves these GE American chestnuts, the integrity of chestnut orchards would be forever compromised.

Indigenous peoples in the regions of proposed D58 releases have expressed concern that unregulated distribution of a GE tree would violate their sovereign right to keep their territories free from GMOs. They insist that Indigenous peoples be consulted in theprocessof reviewing the D58 American chestnut.

Today, there remain large areas of traditional and treaty lands on which much is forested and managed as sovereign territory of many different Native American Peoples,explainsBJ McManama of the Indigenous Environmental Network. These forests are not only a source of economic self-determination but hold great cultural significance to include sacred sites where trees are an element of sustenance, knowledge and familial identity. Every living being within the forests [is] related in some form and nothing within these lands lives in isolation; therefore, changing or altering the original instructions of any one or any part of these elements threatens the natural order established over millennia.

The Eastern Band of Cherokee, members of the Lumbee Tribe of central North Carolina and Seminole Peoples from unceded Florida territory joined the Campaign to STOP GE Trees foran October 2014 gatheringin the mountains of North Carolina to protest GE trees as a form of colonization. Their concerns were focused on the GE American chestnut trees.

Lisa Montelongo, a member of the Eastern Band of the Cherokee,explained, Im very concerned that GE trees would impact our future generations and their traditional uses of trees. Our basket makers, people that use wood for the natural colors of our clay workthere would be no natural life, no cycle of life in GE tree plantations.

Following the camp, the Bands Tribal Council passed a unanimous resolution prohibiting GE trees from their lands: Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians (EBCI) Tribal Council Resolution No. 31 (2015): We commit to rejecting biomass, genetically engineering the natural world, carbon trading, carbon offsets and carbon sequestration schemes as they are false solutions to the climate change. Concerns were focused on the inability of the tribe to keep the GE American chestnut tree off of their lands if it were released into surrounding forests, which they describe as a violation of the Free, Prior and Informed Consent mandate under theUNs Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

In the end, the potential deregulation of the D58 is not about restoring a mighty giant to Eastern U.S. forests. Its approval is about paving the way for the deregulation of all GE trees, toward the creation of an oxymoronic future bioeconomy where biodiverse forests are replaced with specially engineered trees for the manufacture of fuels, chemicals, textiles, plastics and other goods in a green version of business as usual. Implicit in this scheme is a massive increase in the consumption of wood. This in turn will drive accelerated conversion of carbon-rich native forests, critical for climate regulation, and other ecosystems for conversion to fast-growing plantations that include GE trees with traits to expedite their use as feedstocks. Existing non-native plantations of eucalyptus, the most common plantation tree, are already notorious for their devastating social, ecological and climate change impacts. Butnew researchout of Oregon State University is attempting to green these plantations with claims that eucalyptus trees can be genetically engineered to be infertile, through a process to knock out LEAFY, the gene believed to control flower formation. The research claims this would prevent eucalyptus trees from invading native ecosystems, though it does nothing to address the ability of eucalyptus to spread asexually through vegetative propagation.

This new technology also does nothing to address the serious problems caused by industrial plantations of eucalyptus. These impacts,outlined in detail by the World Rainforest Movement, include depletion of fresh water; forced displacement of Indigenous groups, rural communities and subsistence farmers; and catastrophic wildfires. In fact, the addition of GE trees to these plantations could exacerbate known impacts and/or lead to new, unknown and potentially irreversible problems.

Another attempt to green GE trees for the bioeconomy involves the development of treesspecially engineered to store extra carbonas a supposed climate change mitigation tool. But anew article in Yale Environment 360challenges schemes like this that focus on tree planting for climate mitigation. Echoing the findings of the World Rainforest Movement and others, the article reports a growing number of scientists and environmentalists are challenging this narrative on tree-planting. They say that planting programs, especially those based on large numerical targets, can wreck natural ecosystems, dry up water supplies, damage agriculture, push people off their landand even make global warming worse. In addition, they say, Tree planting can distract from the greater priorities of protecting existing forests and reducing fossil fuel use.

The attempts to greenwash genetically engineered trees with their unpredictable and irreversible impacts are beingopposed globally by a broad coalitionof scientists, Indigenous peoples, agronomists, peasant farmers, foresters, teachers and others, as well as organizations focused on protecting forests, human rights and climate justice. GE trees have no place in an ecologically and socially just future.

Anne PetermannIndependent Media Institute

This article first appeared onTruthoutand was produced in partnership withEarth | Food | Life, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Authors note:Following the initial publication of this article, Reutersreportedthat a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed on April 21 between the Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians (EBCI) and the American Chestnut Foundation. The MOU, described by EBCI members as highly controversial, would allow the planting of GE American chestnuts on Cherokee land

Read the rest here:
Will USDA Allow Genetically Modified Trees to Be Released Into the Wild? - LA Progressive

Researchers headed by a team at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), School of Medicine, have used gene therapy to prevent learning and memory loss in a mouse model of Alzheimers disease (AD). The results of their experiments, which involved delivering a gene called SynCav1 to the mouse brain, could represent a key step toward testing the approach in humans with the neurodegenerative disorder.

Reporting their results in Molecular Therapy-Methods & Clinical Development, the investigators, headed by Brian P. Head, PhD, adjunct professor in the department of anesthesiology at UCSD School of Medicine and research health scientist at the VA San Diego Healthcare System, stated, Our data indicate that SynCav1 gene therapy may be an option for AD and potentially in other forms of neurodegeneration of unknown etiology. Their paper is titled, Synapsin-caveolin-1 gene therapy preserves neuronal and synaptic morphology and prevents neurodegeneration in a mouse model of AD.

AD is the most common form of neurodegeneration and cognitive dysfunction in the elderly, the authors wrote. The disorder is characterized by the accumulation of clumps of misfolded proteins called amyloid plaques and neurofibrillary tau tangles, both of which impair cell signaling and promote neuronal death.

Current AD treatments targeting plaques and tangles address only symptoms, which the authors pointed out suggests that removal of toxic amyloid species alone may not be enough to reverse functional deficits in the brain. They suggest that a reversal and cure of AD will likely require a combination of interventional approaches that both decrease aggregating toxins and promote neuronal and synaptic plasticity. Gene therapies that target neuroprotection and resilience may be an effective option to treat individuals affected with AD or other forms of neurodegeneration of different or unknown ethology.

For their reported studies the team used an adeno-associated viral (AAv) vector to introduce synapsin-caveolin-1 cDNA (AAV-SynCav1) into the hippocampus region of three-month-old transgenic PSAPP AD mice.

PSAPP mice exhibit learning and memory deficits at 9 and 11 months, respectively. These deficits are associated with decreased expression of caveolin-1, a scaffolding protein that builds the membranes housing cellular signaling tools, such as neurotrophin receptors (NTRs) that receive the critical extracellular signals, which govern all cellular life and function. With decay and destruction of these membranes, cell dysfunction and neurodegeneration follow. Previous research has found decreased Cav-1 in AD Enrons and other conditions. Both preclinical and clinical findings revealed that Cav-1 and Cav-1 associated signaling complexes (NTRs and neurotransmitter receptors) were decreased in degenerating neurons in AD, chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), the authors wrote.

The researchers administered a single injection of AAV-SynCav1 to the hippocampus of PSAPP mice. The hippocampus is a complex region deep within the brain that plays a major role in learning and memory. In AD, the hippocampus is among the first areas of the brain to be impaired. Our goal was to test whether SynCav1 gene therapy in these AD mouse models might preserve neuronal and synaptic plasticity in targeted parts of the membrane, and improve higher brain function, Head noted.

The results confirmed that at 9- and 11-months, hippocampal learning and memory in the mice were preserved. Moreover, the researchers found, critical membrane structures and associated neurotrophin receptors also remained intact in animals that received the gene therapy. The neuroprotective effects from SynCav1 gene delivery occurred independently to reducing amyloid plaque depositions. These findings are the first to demonstrate that a one-time hippocampal delivery of AAV-SynCav1 to PSAPP mice preserved hippocampal learning at 9 months and preserved memory at 11 months, the investigators claimed.

The team had previously demonstrated the neuroprotective properties of SynCav1 in different in vitro and in vivo models, including ischemia, aging, traumatic injury, and in neurodegenerative mice that model a familial form of ALS, suggesting that Cav-1 may serve as a central neuroprotective target in a variety of neurodegenerative conditions. They say that their newly reported study now expands on the therapeutic potential of SynCav1 to a new neurodegenerative mouse model of a familial form of AD.

These results suggest SynCav1 gene therapy is an attractive approach to restore brain plasticity and improve brain function in AD and potentially in other forms of neurodegeneration caused by unknown etiology, the investigators noted. They concluded that results from this and previous studies indicate that, regardless of the cause of the neurodegenerative condition (known versus unknown etiology, injury versus genetic abnormality,) the therapeutic and translational potential of SynCav1 might be exploited in the future to treat sporadic neurodegenerative conditions or to be used in combination with already existing drugs or biologics designed to target known monogenic candidates linked to other neurodegenerative conditions (EOFAD, FALS, Parkinsons, and Huntingtons diseases).

The ability of SynCav1 to preserve axonal myelin in hippocampal neurons in the PSAPP mice further indicates the potential utility of the treatment against demyelinating diseases, including multiple sclerosis, Gillian-Barre syndrome, and Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease, the scientists noted.

Heads laboratory is currently testing SynCav1 gene delivery in other AD models at symptomatic stages as well as in a mouse model of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrigs disease). He hopes to advance this work to human clinical trials soon. The SynCav1 gene therapy is patented through UCSD and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Read this article:
Gene Therapy in Alzheimers Disease Mice Preserves Memory and Learning - Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News

A new gene-editing tool has enabled Harvard's Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering scientists to accomplish a feat that wouldn't be possible to do with CRISPR, according to a press release.

The group of researchers created what they callthe "Retron Library Recombineering" (RLR) technique, which could allow scientists to run millions of genetic experimentsat the same time.

This tool, described in a recent paper in PNAS, employs retrons, which are bacterial DNA segments that undergo reverse transcription to generate single-stranded DNA fragments (ssDNA). RLR produces up to millions of mutations concurrently in bacterial cells and "barcodes" mutant cells, enabling the whole pool to be screened at once. This way large quantities of data can be quickly produced and analyzed.

But why is this important? Well, because it overcomes the major limitations ofCRISPR-Cas9,a groundbreaking technology that can be used to edit genes. Overall, it is difficult for scientists to deliver CRISPR-Cas9 materials in large numbers, and it can sometimes be toxic to cells since the Cas9 enzyme, the molecular "scissors" that cut strands of DNA, often cuts unintended sites.

"RLR enabled us to do something thats impossible to do with CRISPR: we randomly chopped up a bacterial genome, turned those genetic fragments into single-stranded DNA in situ, and used them to screen millions of sequences simultaneously," explains co-first author Max Schubert. "RLR is a simpler, more flexible gene-editing tool that can be used for highly multiplexed experiments, which eliminates the toxicity often observed with CRISPR and improves researchers ability to explore mutations at the genome level."

While CRISPR-Cas9 cuts DNA to insert the mutant sequence into its genome, retrons can insert the mutant DNA strand into a replicating cell, where it would be introduced into the DNA of the daughter cells. Moreover, since sequences of retrons can be used as "barcodes," this enables scientists to track individuals.

"We figured that retrons should give us the ability to produce ssDNA within the cells we want to edit rather than trying to force them into the cell from the outside, and without damaging the native DNA, which were both very compelling qualities," said co-first author Daniel Goodman.

RLR was tested onE. coli bacteria andit was discovered that after a few tweaks, 90 percent of the species incorporated the retron sequence. Furthermore, the scientists demonstrated how effective it can be in large-scale genetic experiments: By sequencing the retrons' barcodes rather than individual mutants, they were able to detect antibiotic resistance mutations in E. coli even faster.

"Being able to analyze pooled, barcoded mutant libraries with RLR enables millions of experiments to be performed simultaneously, allowing us to observe the effects of mutations across the genome, as well as how those mutations might interact with each other," said senior author George Church. "This work helps establish a road map toward using RLR in other genetic systems, which opens up many exciting possibilities for future genetic research."

All in all, the advancements are exciting but may be a little premature. RLR is yet to work in mammalian cells. According to the researchers, more work needs to be done to improve andstandardize the editing rate, but it seems to have a bright future ahead.

"This new synthetic biology tool brings genome engineering to even higher levels of throughput, which will undoubtedly lead to new, exciting, and unexpected innovations," said Wyss Institutes Founding Director Don Ingber.

Go here to see the original:
Scientists Have Created A New Gene-Editing Tool That Could Rival CRISPR - Interesting Engineering

Genomics researchers and the agriculture industry have welcomed the publication of a long-awaited report recommending EU legislation on genetically modified organisms be updated to allow the use targeted gene editing in crops.

In the study, the European Commission acknowledges the potential of gene editing and notes most research into commercial applications is taking place outside the EU.

The Commission carried out the study at the request of member states, to assess if gene editing can be used safely for agriculture, industrial and pharmaceutical applications. The report is based on expert opinions from the Commissions in house science and policy advice services, the Joint Research Centre and the Scientific Advise Mechanism, and contributions from member states and stakeholders.

Precision breeding of plants through gene editing is banned in the EU following a 2018 ruling by the European Court of Justice, which found these techniques are subject to the 2001 EU directive banning genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

The GMO directive is not up to date with new technologies. Finally, we are happy to see that the Commission comes to similar conclusions, Petra Jorasch, manager of plant breeding innovation at the industry group Euroseeds told Science|Business.

Oana Dima, science policy manager at EU-SAGE, a group of scientists from 134 European plant science institutes and societies agreed, saying, We are happy that the Commission sees that the current regulatory framework has negative implications for research in Europe.

Researchers and the agriculture industry are calling for an update to the GMO legislation so that crops developed by modern plant breeding techniques that do not involve the introduction of genes from other species are excluded. Gene editing using Crispr-Cas9 and related techniques can improve plant characteristics without introducing foreign DNA.

According to the report, technologies such as Crispr-Cas9 can help the EU make food production more sustainable, with new plants that are more resistant to diseases and harsher environmental conditions and which do not require the use of pesticides and fertilisers.

The EU has a grand plan to make the continent carbon neutral by 2050 and sustainable agriculture is a big part of this. The Commissions farm to fork strategy aims to reduce the use of fertilisers by 30% and turn 25% of agricultural land over to organic farming. The Horizon Europe research programme will fund projects to improve soil health and reduce the use of pesticides and antibiotics in agriculture.

New genomic techniques can promote the sustainability of agricultural production, in line with the objectives of our farm to fork strategy, said Stella Kyriakides, EU commissioner for health and food safety.

The biotech industry has warned before that the current GMO legislation is way behind the times and hitting Europes global competitiveness in food production. Its time for a change that ensures innovation leadership to market, not just in the lab, said Claire Skentelbery, director general of industry group EuropaBio.

Argentina changed its laws to allow genome editing in crops in 2015. Other countries, such as US, Canada, Australia and Japan, soon followed suit. The debate is ongoing in the UK, Russia, China, India and South Africa. The EU remains the only major region in the world where genome edited crops are regulated as GMOs.

Legal proposal

The Commission will present the results to the EU council next week and member states are likely to come up with a position in the coming weeks. They will then consult the European Parliament and should set out a legal proposal later this year. Any kind of legal proposal would need support from parliament and council, said Jorasch.

The EU27 largely agree the current legislation is not fit for purpose but have yet to agree on a common approach to gene editing. Jorasch said the negotiations will be difficult because the decision in member states could fall between agriculture and environment ministries. There is still need for further discussion, she said. Ministers of agriculture are more likely to be supportive, whereas minsters of environment are more critical.

As one case in point, last week Germanys environment minister Svenja Schulze said the current EU law on GMOs should continue to be applied to gene editing, so that products continue to be tested and labelled for risk. However, Germanys agriculture minister Julia Klckner said the Commissions report signals the need for an, overdue modernisation of EU GMO legislation.

In addition to potential hurdles in some member states, organic food producers are opposed to any changes to the GMO legislation, arguing the benefits of gene editing are hypothetical and achievable by other means.

Organic farmers associations say novel genomic techniques should be treated with caution and warn that allowing gene editing in agriculture would undermine the farm to fork strategy. A weakening of the rules on the use of genetic engineering in agriculture and food is worrying news and could leave organic food systems unprotected, said Jan Plagge, president IFOAM Europe, an international association of organic farmers.

The environmental lobby group Friends of the Earth warns food products based on gene editing would not be labelled as GMOs on shelves and new legislation could exempt a new generation of genetically-modified crops from safety checks.

However, Dima said organic farmers and conventional farmers could both thrive under a new legal framework. I think there is some common ground, in view of what we want to achieve, she said. We need to find a way to ensure coexistence.

See the rest here:
Scientists and industry cheer outcome of Commission study on gene editing - Science Business

The world is passing through a calamitous situation with the ongoing pandemic of Covid-19 striking the global population in multiple waves since its onset in December 2019. The pandemic has severely challenged the administrative machineries of the governments and the prevailing healthcare system.We were revelling in the marvels of modern technology with novel inventions of wireless telephony, genetic engineering and digital systems and also latest systems of healthcare, comprising potent chemical drugs and sophisticated surgical procedures. But the onslaught of the pandemic and the death toll of over three million humans that it has taken put big question marks on our technologies and systems. I would like to add that it has cast shadows on our lifestyles and beliefs too.

Pandemics in olden times were regarded as the curses of gods. But even in the present times of professedly high scientific achievements, are we in a position to explain it any better? So many theories were advanced about its origin in scientific terms but there is no satisfactory explanation yet. We seem to be wallowing in confusion and at a total loss to steer our way clearly out of this calamity.That brings us back to the ancient theory of the curse of gods and prompts us to take a holistic, a scientific-spiritualistic look at the phenomenon.

Our primordial scriptures say that pandemics are the fallout of adharma i.e. violation of the tenets of righteousness by humans. This view is further corroborated by the ancient treatises on medicine authored by Sage Charak who was the greatest exponent of Ayurveda, the science of healthy living.Righteousness is dharmathe 10 principles of human living that promote peace, progress and prosperity in the world. Let us recount these cardinal principles. These arepatience, forgiveness, mind control, regulation of the senses, cleanliness, honesty, application of intellect, true knowledge, abjuring anger and truthfulness.

It is not difficult to see how many of the above tenets of dharma and to what extent are being violated by the present generation of global humans. But the most significant violation in the current context is lack of true knowledge and its application.We are predominantly reductionist in our approach to various things in all walks of life. Modern systems of healthcare regard the human body as a conglomerate of various physical organs carrying out their specific tasks and human physiology as a play of various chemicals in the body internals. We do not take a holistic view of the bodya view that takes into account human mind, intellect, ego self, the soul and the supersoul, God. Our view also fails to consider the interconnectedness of all sentient beings in the infinite spiritual medium which is God. We are working with half knowledge, and half knowledge is dangerous.

We have a largely mechanistic outlook towards dealing with Nature. We think that we are entities outside of the inert Nature and the latter can be milked at will. We have defiled our environmental elementspolluted the air with harmful gaseous effluents, soil with chemical pesticides and fertilisers as also plastic waste, water with hazardous waste of factories and ether by microwave radiation. We have thus polluted the Panchabhut, meaning all the five primal elements of natureair, earth, water, fire and ether. This is the result of using wrong, environment-unfriendly technologies which are not in line with true knowledge. Our medical technologies and systems are also largely misaligned with true knowledge enshrined in Ayurveda.

We are paying a huge price for all this.

The pandemic is a stern reminder to the current crop of humans to revisit and refine its understanding of material nature based on the eternal wisdom of the Vedas. We need to shed our intellectual arrogance and bring about suitable changes in our living paradigms to align them with eternal true knowledge.We need to adopt a holistic approach in dealing with Mother Nature in which all sentient beings are regarded as intimately linked in both material and spiritual terms with their creator God controlling and regulating them real time. We will then be working in line with true knowledge handed down to us by the omniscient creator. Only there lies a lasting solution to the present set of catastrophic problems confronting us.

Atul Sehgal is the author ofGuide to Inner Wellness (Rupa Publications, Jan 2021). Email: atul4956@gmail.com

Read the original here:
Let's handle the pandemic holistically - The New Indian Express

Dyno Therapeutics, a Harvard University spinout working to improve gene therapy, is expanding with $100 million in new funding from tech investor Andreessen Horowitz and several other venture firms.

Since officially launching a year ago, Dyno has struck deals with Novartis, Roche and Sarepta Therapeutics to aid their efforts to develop more efficient delivery of gene therapy. But even after doubling in size to 50 employees, the company hasn't been able to keep up with demand for its services, CEO Eric Kelsic said in an interview.

"Even though it's in the very beginning, we just had so many folks who want to partner with us," said Kelsic. "This is really to meet the demand that we've seen for partnering and to enable us to both expand our [existing] partnerships, as well as to work with new partners."

Over the next two years, Dyno hopes to triple its workforce, adding employees on both the scientific side to work with partners on research as well as on the business side to develop and support those collaborations. The Series A round announced Thursday will help fund that expansion.

Eric Kelsic, CEO of Dyno Therapeutics

Courtesy of Dyno Therapeutics

Dyno emerged last May to take forward technology built by the Harvard Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering. It aims to solve some of the limitations of adeno-associated viruses, one of the main delivery vehicles for shuttling genetic material into human cells.

People can have pre-existing immunity to the protein shell, known as a capsid, that surrounds those viruses, for example. Infusion can also trigger immune responses. Other limitations include the efficiency by which genetic material is delivered into cells, the capacity capsids have to carry that material and the types of tissue the capsids can reach.

To get around those challenges, Dyno is leaning on machine learning, combined with data from in vivo research, to optimize AAVs better suited for carrying therapeutic DNA.

Engineering better AAVs is a goal that a number of new startups share, including Affinia Therapeutics and Taysha Gene Therapies. In Dyno's case, however, the company plans to design capsids for its partners rather than developing treatments itself.

All three companies are now flush with new cash, underscoring the growing investor interest. Taysha went public with a $181 million initial public offering in September 2020 and Affinia on Monday announced a $110 million venture funding round.

Manufacturing and quality control is a particular challenge for gene therapy developers and, in the past year, the Food and Drug Administration has appeared to apply closer scrutiny. Both Sarepta and competitor Pfizer, for example, have encountered delays on key research programs for Duchenne muscular dystrophy treatments due to questions on tests they use to measure their product's potency. Others have been set back by FDA requests for more information on their production processes.

Custom-designed capsids can help, Kelsic said. "Scale up is a challenge. In some cases, you need to scale up the dose in order to treat the disease and in other cases it's to scale up to treat other patients who need to benefit."

"Our platform directly helps with that," he added. "By making the delivery more efficient, that means you can actually treat the disease more effectively with a lower dose. With the efficiency being higher you can make more doses per batch and therefore treat more patients."

Deals with Novartis and Sarepta, which were announced when the company launched publicly last May, target muscle and eye diseases, respectively. Together, the two collaborations could earn Dyno up to $2 billion in partnership revenue, depending on how well the projects that emerge from them advance.

Roche, which bought the gene therapy pioneer Spark Therapeutics in 2019, came along in October with a partnership aiming at neurological and liver diseases. That deal could be worth up to $1.8 billion in milestone payments.

And if Dyno's expansion plans pay off, more announcements could be coming still.

See original here:
Dyno, in demand for its gene therapy work, raises $100M for fast expansion - BioPharma Dive

Waiving vaccine producer patents,vaccinatingthe world more quickly against COVID-19 those are the popular demands that have already been made by 100 nations of the World Trade Organization (WTO) since October 2020. It is not entirely clear why US President Joe Biden has recently adopted this much too simple concept as well. Biden has not given reasons for his change of tack, least of all officially vis--vis European partners in the EU. It might be a simple case of populism.

Regrettably, the problem of vaccine shortage is more complex than claims made by many governments and aid organizations suggest, according to which the allegedly profit-seeking pharmaceutical industry must simply be deprived of its knowledge. Firstly, there is no single patent for a single vaccine. If anything, companies have been safeguarding techniques.

Production of every single COVID vaccine is based on several patents to which different companies claim ownership or for which they've made an application. Secondly, it's not the formula that's crucial, it's the detailed knowledge of how the vaccine is actually produced. To this end, vaccine manufacturers must issue licenses, equip production facilities and train staff. Of course, the World Trade Organization is entitled to discuss those details in Geneva.

Licensing and cooperation between vaccine developers and manufacturers have been in place for quite some time. According to the EU, pharmaceutical companies have by now sealed 200 applicable technology transfer agreements worldwide. The problem is not protection of intellectual property but a lack of sufficiently large production facilities, which are currently being set up in many places. In the short term, handing over a vaccine blueprint to a generic drugs manufacturer in India or South Africa will, in the short term, be justpointless. At least this will not alleviate acute vaccine shortage in India, for example.

DW's Europe Correspondent Bernd Riegert

A vaccine based on genetic engineering such as the BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine is made up of more than 300 components which are manufactured as preliminary products in 20 different countries. Those vaccines are just like the viral vector vaccines offered by AstraZeneca or Johnson & Johnson complex biological products which cannot simply be reproduced as a generic drug, unlike a painkiller consisting of chemicals.

The European Commission is prepared to discuss patents and licenses; thus far, however, there is no proof that protection of intellectual property slows down vaccine production at least according to the findings of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The manufacturers themselves also claim that patents are not the problem and that waivers would not mean changes in production at this point.

The German Government, therefore, does the right thing by not just chimingin with Washington's simplistic, sweeping demand. For a lack of protection of their own achievements could lead to a situation in which companies become reluctant to take part in the elaborate development of new vaccines. However, BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca et al. are urgently needed, because as early as autumn it might be necessary to put booster shots against coronavirus mutations on the market.

The EU has, by the way, stipulated in its contracts on funding pharmaceutical company research that knowledge gained through public financing must be openly published for the benefit of all which means there is no patent which would have to be abolished.

The establishment of production facilities is already in progress. The aim is to produce some nine billion COVID shots this year. 11.5 billion shots are needed, however. The EU, the US, India and some other countries with large pharmaceutical companies should therefore make an effort to establish production facilities more quickly, facilitate investments and support manufacturers instead of cracking down on them.

The US, Britain and India, for instance, could help if they refrained from stockpiling preliminary products for vaccine production, or by imposing an export ban on those products. Currently, supply chains across all continents are a huge problem. The EU tries to plead innocent, referring to its altruistic actions: Thus far, 200 million COVID shots have been exported from the EU to Asia and Africa. If US President Biden wished to offer short-term help as well, he could, at long last, give the green light to exporting COVID vaccines from the US.

If we want to achieve that developing countries receive more vaccines quickly, we must simply share the scarce vaccines at our disposal today. It is rather doubtful that governments in Germany, Europe or the US can push through such a policy vis--vis their respective populations. Simple concepts and a demand for waiving patents of little relevance are a much more practicable approach.

Regrettably, that approach will also be ineffective.

Follow this link:
Opinion: COVID vaccine patents are not the issue - DW (English)