Category Archives: Genetic Engineering

The National Academies of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine today published a report Human Genome Editing: Science, Ethics, and Governance that contends with uses of gene editing for human reproductive purposes, prospects which have been brought into vivid reality since the emergence of new biotechnology tools such as the gene modification system, Crispr-Cas9. The report suggests limitations on genetic engineering to the heritable germline code of embryos, or even earlier upstream in the process, sperm and ovum, which convey information passed on to subsequent generations.

However, the report appears to exclude the public from participation and concludes that clinical trials using heritable germline genome editing should be permitted. They should notnot without public discussion and a more conscious evaluation of how this impacts social standing, stigma and identity, ethics that scientists often tendto cite pro forma and then swiftly scuttle.

The statement is a striking reversal in outlook of leadership since just a year ago in December 2015, when the International Summit on Human Gene Editing was held at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington D.C., a conference which I attended, also drawing Nobel laureates, lawmakers, and bioethicists from across the globe, and declaring that a broad societal consensus be attained before moving ahead with altering heritable code. Indeed, weeks after the Summit, U.S. lawmakers added a rider to an omnibus spending bill to prevent the Food and Drug Administration from spending time or money reviewing applications of gene modification to heritable code.

Unlike more than 40 other countries, and an international treaty Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, the U.S. does not have a legal ban on modification to heritable code, but it does have a strong regulatory framework on drugs, and federal agencies treat Crispr-Cas9 as a drug. But the limitations on heritable code are only in effect temporarily in so far that spending is restricted on applications FDA can review.

Marcy Darnovsky, director for the Center for Genetics and Society noted the report appears to send from scientists to lawmakers a green light for proceeding with efforts to engineer the genes and traits that are passed on to future children and generations while noting that it excludes the public from participation in deciding whether human germline modification is acceptable in the first place.

In fact, there are a number of critical arguments on how we determine what is acceptable. The first is technical. The field of genetics is by no means accomplished. A group called the Human Aggregation Consortium just last year revealed that of 192 high frequency genetic variants that had previously been considered pathogenic, only nine are likely harmfulan important clarification for anyone wanting to recode their genome. Most mutations have very small effects on biological traits, and we know very little about how genetic variants enhance or diminish other genetic variants and differ based on genetic background.

Secondly, as Darnovsky, and Hille Haker, a bioethicist from Loyola University in Chicago, have pointed out that gene modification in combination with reproductive technologies to engender a genetically connected child is not a medical necessity. There is a difference between a negative right, which is a freedom from, a harm, and a full positive right, which is a freedom to access or gain some benefits. If a gene-edited child were a full positive right, society would be required to pay for all of its citizens to have children, apply genetic tests, gene modification and in vitro fertilization techniques to anyone who wants one. Importantly, scientists who patent gene modification systems such as Crispr-Cas9 have an interest in selling it as much as possible, which means the scientists themselves cannot be left solely responsible for shaping the moral frameworkthe public has an important role to play in shaping the morays around science today more than ever. Andthe debates are becoming more nuanced and sophisticated as gene editing systems such as Crispr-Cas9 allow us to do things like circumvent the oldcause celebreof altering human embryos, by editing heritable code in the sperm or eggs.

Our genomes are a constantly undergoing alteration and it would be incorrect to conceive of them as sacrosanct. Genes are shuffled with each new generation so its unlikely that gene editing will give some families permanent advantages. The theory of evolution suggests that we adapt to local conditions rather than progress to a more perfect form. But gene modification risks market based eugenics, meaning putting values on certain traits, and seeking to eliminate other traits, when genetic variants that contribute to many features such as autism, neuropsychiatric disorders, may be less a disease as ways of being in the world.

Evolution does not create values, we do. And we risk molding our children into commodities we would like to have, rather than emphasizing the people they can become. Darnovsky wrote the problem is stigmatizing people with disabilities, exacerbating existing inequalities, and introducing new eugenic abuses. Strangely, theres no apparent connection between those dire risks and the recommendation to move ahead. Thephilosopher-scientist Jean Rostand wrote a generation ago, science hasmade us godsevenbeforewe are worthy of beingmen. But those are professional experts. Its time to hear more from the public on what we think.

Jim Kozubek is the author ofModern Prometheus: Editing the Human Genome with Crispr-Cas9

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Jim Kozubek

Jim Kozubek is the author of Modern Prometheus: Editing the Human Genome with Crispr-Cas9 (Cambridge University Press)

Credit: Nick Higgins

View post:
The Public Should Have a Say in Allowing Modification of Our Germline Genetic Code - Scientific American (blog)

I first became involved deeply in the debates over biotechnology during the great embryonic stem cell debate.

During that time, I watched in stunned and appalled amazement as scientists lied to legislators and hyped the imminent likelihood of CURES! CURES! CURES! in order to win a political debate and gain federal research grants.

During that experience, Iconcluded that many in the sector essentially have an arrogant we decide what should and should not be done in science ethicrather thansociety as a whole determining proper parameters through democratic processesand moreover, that somehave an essentially anything goes mentality at odds with the views of the rest of society.

More, these advocatespretend to be willing to accept reasonable limitations. But a close look reveals these restraints are primarily over things they cannot yet do.

Then, aftera controversial technology becomes doable, the once unthinkable is suddenly moved into the full speed ahead! file.

Now, that pattern holds with human genetic engineering. From the New York Times story:

An influential science advisory group formed by the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Medicine on Tuesday lent its support to a once unthinkable proposition: the modification of human embryos to create genetic traits that can be passed down to future generations.

This type of human gene editing has long been seen as an ethical minefield. Researchers fear that the techniques used to prevent genetic diseases might also be used to enhance intelligence, for example, or to create people physically suited to particular tasks, like serving as soldiers

Just over a year ago, an international group of scientists said it would be irresponsible to proceed with making heritable changes to the human genome until risks could be better assessed and there was broad societal consensus about the appropriateness of any proposed change. No one is pretending that such a consensus now exists.

But in the year that the committee was deliberating, [bioethicist] Ms. [Alta] Charo said, the techniques required to perform this sort of gene editing have passed crucial milestones.

See what I mean?

Know this: It starts with health and that justification is deployed to sway the public and regulators.

But soon, these technologies move to promoting enhancement and eugenic designalready seen in currently deployed reproductive technologies.

Read the rest here:
Scientists Want to Genetically Engineer Humans - National Review

Gene Editing

Since the debate about the moral ramifications behind CRISPRbegan, the scientific communitys stance has generally leaned towards caution versus support. Researchers recognize the potential, but gene editing and its implications on the future of the human race are so massive its not something to be taken lightly.

A new report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) however, shows how the scientific community is beginning to soften their stance on the subject. Co-Chair of the study committee Alta Charo points out:

Human genome editing holds tremendous promise for understanding, treating, or preventing many devastating genetic diseases, and for improving treatment of many other illnesses. However, genome editing to enhance traits or abilities beyond ordinary health raises concerns about whether the benefits can outweigh the risks, and about fairness if available only to some people.

The paper also goes on to support germ-line engineering, a process that allows people to have biological children while ensuring that they dont pass on serious genetic diseases to their offspring but only if there are no reasonable alternatives available. To that end, scientists are calling for more stringent regulations. They concede that global prohibition of the technique is not practical, especially in the interest of safety and efficacy.

Genome editing research is very much an international endeavor, and all nations should ensure that any potential clinical applications reflect societal values and be subject to appropriate oversight and regulation, said committee co-chair Richard Hynes, Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator and Daniel K. Ludwig Professor for Cancer Research, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. These overarching principles and the responsibilities that flow from them should be reflected in each nations scientific community and regulatory processes.

The biggest concern that experts have over gene editing is anchored on the very real possibility that it will be used to create designer babies. All efforts now are centered on using CRISPR to prevent inherited disease. But whos to say that the same principles wont be used to engineer traits like strength, beauty, or intelligence?

That said, what if only some peoplehave access to this tool in the future? Could itcreate a social divide between engineered babies and naturally born ones? The risks also arent entirely known. While rare, there are instances where CRISPR edits DNA in unintended places, which could result in unforeseen consequences.

Of course, were still pretty far off from a designer baby being born. Right now, the gene editing technique is still being tested in animals, and it will take a significant amount of time and research before it will be ready for humans. But thats not to say that we shouldnt already be having a conversation about where this advancement will take us.

Go here to read the rest:
US Scientists Have Backed the Genetic Modification of Human Embryos - Futurism

Forbes

Will Genetically Engineered Animals Finally Bring Home The Bacon? Forbes My own prime candidate is an Obama-era Food and Drug Administration policy that has decimated an entire once-promising biotechnology sector--the genetic engineering of animals with novel and valuable traits. After more than a decade of deliberation ... and more »

See original here:
Will Genetically Engineered Animals Finally Bring Home The Bacon? - Forbes

Researchers have been creating drug-addicted laboratory mice for years, but now, theyve created one capable of just saying no. Armed with extra-strong synapses created through genetic engineering, the new mice were able to resist addiction, even when presented with an ODs worth of cocaine. The freak mice were discovered by accident: The genetic engineering strategy that produced them was originally thought to make them more prone to addiction.

The University of British Columbia (UBC) researchers, publishing their work in a new Nature Neuroscience article today, custom-designed mice that produced higher-than-usual levels of the protein cadherin, which strengthened their brains synapses, the gaps between neurons that brain signals jump over. They originally thought that strengthening the reward-associated parts of the brain with cadherin would make the mice more addiction prone, but when the cadherin-strengthened mice were injected with enough cocaine to become addicted and then given the option to seek out some more coke or not, they were only half as interested in the substance as their unaltered counterparts.

A close examination of this counterintuitive result revealed that cadherin inhibits a particular neurochemical receptor in the mices brains, making it harder not easier for some neurons to signal each other. With cadherin interfering with their brains signals, the mice dont anticipate the pleasure derived from cocaine and, in turn, their behavior is not affected. In short, the mice seem to be addiction-proof.

The strength of our synapses is, among other factors, what helps us learn new tasks and make new associations, but the engineered mice appeared to have formed no strong associations about cocaine, despite being injected repeatedly. The experiments results reinforce previous theories that cadherin plays a vital role in addiction and behavioral change, though the exact nature of that role still isnt clear.

Shernaz Bamji, Ph.D., a professor in the Department of Cellular and Physiological Sciences and one of the papers authors, explained to Inverse that these results mean it could some day be possible to treat addiction by changing the way learning occurs in certain areas of the brain itself, whether through cadherin, or using some other chemical. The more we learn about which functions within the brain we should be focusing on, she says, the closer we come to being able to predict who will be the most vulnerable to addiction. The results, however, do not mean doctors can start fortifying addiction-prone humans with cadherin the way Bamji and her colleagues did with the mice theres a lot we still have to understand about the neurochemistry of learning before we do that.

For normal learning, we need to be able to both weaken and strengthen synapses, Bamji said in a statement. That plasticity allows for the pruning of some neural pathways and the formation of others, enabling the brain to adapt and to learn. Ideally, we would need to find a molecule that blocks formation of a memory of a drug-induced high, while not interfering with the ability to remember important things.

The study adds to a growing body of evidence against the idea that addiction is all about an individuals lack of willpower. Such arguments are usually lazy substitutions for the actual science, which says that addiction to substances like cocaine has a lot to do with our genes. Some people have genetic mutations that leave their synapses more vulnerable to addictive substances. Fortunately, geneticists are now one step closer to figuring out how to strengthen those synapses before theyre attacked.

Photos via University of British Columbia, Science News / V. Kumar and K. Kim

Here is the original post:
Genetically Engineered Mice DGAF About Cocaine - Inverse

This post is hosted on the Huffington Post's Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

Over a year ago, I read an article about the genetic engineering of human embryos and I immediately knew that the world was in trouble. Todays article in The Times has only confirmed my fears.

I don't fear scientific progress or the eventual certainty that our species will customize offspring like video game characters. I accept that people will one day be born who are immune to cancer, asthma, and blindness. When that day comes, when the benefits of genetic engineering have been studied, tested, and perfected, the results will be extraordinary: a world where - physically speaking at least - no one will ever be born unlucky.

Creating a world free from the misfortunes of birth defects and genetic diseases will truly be one of our species' greatest accomplishments. The trouble, though, is how we get there.

Those of us alive today are going to live through a complicated transition. Some day in the next decade or two, some of us will be regular people, and some of us will have been born with the benefits of genetic engineering.

How are you going to react to the other side?

How will you feel about a "designer baby" who grows up and competes for your job or takes your child's place at an elite college? Should these people have less rights than you and me? Or should they should have special protections, considering the resentment they are sure to engender?

These are the questions I set out to explore in my novel, The Ones, and it is urgent that we as society begin to address these issues now.

Consider what scientists are already capable of: the relatively recent discovery of CRISPR-Cas9 has created a gene editing tool that can cut, add, or replace parts of our DNA sequence. Think of this as similar to the "find and replace" function in your word processing program.

Altering DNA used to be painstaking and imprecise. Now, with CRISPR and a computer, Darwin could bang out a new finch family from the Beagle business center.

Even more remarkable, whatever changes are made in the original DNA of a human embryo would endure unaltered in the germline. In layman's terms, this means that future generations would continue to have this altered gene - forever. The potential effects on the genetic makeup of humanity are extraordinary and totally unpredictable.

A real-world experiment along these lines is beginning to play out already, albeit not with humans. Using CRISPR technology, biologists have been able to engineer female mosquitos that pass defective breeding genes to all of their offspring, in effect creating a generation of sterile mosquitos that cannot propagate their species. The benefits of releasing these genetically engineered females into an area beset by Zika or malaria are easy to see.

It is striking to note that laws concerning this technology are different in every country. Some nations have banned research in the field outright. Here in America, there are strict guidelines, but no legally enforceable restrictions. Besides the odd headline, why is no one talking about this? When was the last time you heard a politician utter the words genetic engineering?

For now, much of the world appears to be operating under the policy of let's-agree-not-to-do-anything-too-crazy. Call me a cynic, but pretty much all of history proves this policy is a recipe for disaster. Stopping advances in technology is impossible; waiting too long to deal with them responsibly is all too common.

As with most new technology, only the very wealthiest citizens will have access to genetic engineering at first. Will this benefit be tolerated by the rest of the natural-born masses? Should it? Could this divide lead to outright war?

Today, in America and around the world, ambitious scientists are pushing the envelope on gene editing. Their motives may be driven by altruism, profit or curiosity. One country might want better Olympic athletes. Perhaps another country identifies the genes for scientific aptitude and tries to breed a genius who can solve global warming. No matter what prompts the advancements, the results are inevitable: a new category of humans will be born.

We should embrace this new generation with both a wary eye and open arms. But let's get our act together now so we can nail that awkward hug.

Go here to read the rest:
The Genetic Engineering Generation - Huffington Post

Human mesenchymal stem cells (Image: Rose Spear/Flickr)

New gene editing methods like CRISPR/Cas9 have given scientists unprecedented potential to edit human DNA. But how should researchers in the field actually use these methods, especially when editing traits that can be passed down to children? Should they be used to cure disease? Should they be used to enhance features that arent necessary for our survival?

Were definitely far from seeing X-men mutants and genetically modified superhumans from whatever dystopian young adult novel you may be reading, especially in the United States where lawmakers passed legislation preventing government money from funding this kind of research. That hasnt stopped researchers in other countries like China from creating gene-edited embryos, which has some scientists very concerned. Today, the National Academies of Sciences and Medicine released a major new report and recommendations to ensure any such research done stateside in the future is performed responsibly and ethically.

The implicit message is that whether we like it or not, a future of gene-edited humans is on its way.

Although scientists have been able to chop up DNA for decades, precise new tools like CRISPR/Cas9 make it easier than ever to experiment with gene-edited livestock, or using gene-edited cells to help fight cancer in humans, for instance. But CRISPRs relative ease of use has caused many to worry about the ethical implications of germline editing, or editing traits in cells that could be passed on to later generations. A commentary published in 2015 in Nature warns that gene editing humans could have unpredictable effects on future generations.

The new National Academies report is an attempt to offer guidance both for germline editing to cure disease, as well as for enhancementmaking stronger, smarter, better humansshould the funding ban in the United States lift.

The Academies ruling on germline editing for curing inherited diseases is basically that scientists need to be very careful. The group recommends only permitting such procedures with lots of oversight, so long as researchers dont have better treatment options, know for a fact the gene theyre editing causes disease, are editing the gene to match the naturally-occurring healthy version, and perform rigorous research including clinical trials and multi-generational follow-up studies. After all, they need to ensure they havent accidentally introduced some dangerous mutation that will harm future humans.

As far as editing germline cells for human enhancement, the Academies said no wayat least, not yet. They hope to see further public discussion to make sure people are okay with what we might be doing to our species. I think its basically a lets buy some time, director of New York Universitys Division of Medical Ethics Arthur Caplan told Gizmodo. Its not inappropriate to buy some time. The techniques are new and we dont know if theyre safe. Plus, the technology isnt even close to making superbabies, although that hasnt stopped ethicists from considering the moral conundrum superbabies pose.

Caplan was concerned that the report didnt more strongly recommend testing any potential gene editing procedures in animals first, or discuss who actually owns the rights to various gene editing methods and how much they will cost. Im very worried about access, he said. Whos keeping an eye on the prices that will be charged? Will this be another repeat of the drug price problems?

Ultimately, the Academies and Caplan hope to see more communication between the scientists and the public about how we as a society feel about gene editing. The reality is the scientific community hasnt really spent enough resources thinking about how to really engage the public, said Caplan. They have to do more surveys, better outreach, use the internet more. The report is quiet about that...Weve gotta get more creative than weve been.

Update 1:55PM: Some are disappointed with the Academies statement, which approves of genetic engineering despite the cautious wording. The Center for Genetics and Society sent Gizmodo a statement including the following quote:

The recommendations and conclusions of this report are unsettling and disappointing, said Marcy Darnovsky, PhD, Executive Director of the Center for Genetics and Society. Although theyre couched in apparently cautionary language, they actually constitute a green light for proceeding with efforts to modify the human germlinethat is, to engineer the genes and traits that are passed on to future children and generations.

In December 2015, the National Academies International Summit on Human Gene Editing concluded with a statement that it would be irresponsible to proceed with human germline modification unless and until a broad societal consensus had been reached. Todays report dispenses with the idea of meaningful public participation in this profoundly consequential decision, Darnovsky said. It calls for `continued public engagement [page 146] with the details, but excludes the public from participation in deciding whether human germline modification is acceptable in the first place.

Excerpt from:
Top Science Organization Cautiously Supports Genetically Engineering Humans - Gizmodo

Are you a food label reader? If so, you may have noticed some of your favorite snacks bear the phrase partially produced with genetic engineering. This makes sense, given that the soy lectin and corn syrup used in many foodsis probably isolated from plants genetically modified to be resistant to a powerful herbicide, glyphosate. Genes, originally isolated from bacteria, were inserted into crop plants, conferring glyphosate tolerance to the soybeans, corn, and other crops. Then, federal regulations followed: requiring that human food made with these plants be labeled partially produced with genetic engineering.

While these genetically modified plants have been around almost 20 years, new tools for plant biologists have yielded new traits for plants. At the Plant and Animal Genomics Conference held recentlyin San Diego, a topic of great interest was applications of the CRIPSR/Cas9 system to plants.

One brilliant approach to using CRISPR in plants is to edit the family of genes that confers susceptibility to bacterial blight in rice. Bacterial blight in rice, caused by Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae, is a huge problem in Asia and Africa.

To understand sensitivity to bacterial blight, it is necessary to first understand the biology of the disease process, explains Bing Yang, Ph.D., associate professor in genetics, developmentand cell biology at Iowa State University.

Bacteria that cause the blight have effector proteins (called TALs; transcription activator-like) that transcriptionally activate a family of genes in rice, referred to as SWEET genes. We strategized that by mutating the promoter region of the SWEET family of genes, the bacterial TAL proteins would no long be able to bind to the promoter. Being unable to bind to the promoter DNA, the bacterial TAL proteins cannot induce expression of the SWEET genes. Hence, TAL proteins could no longer bring about a state of disease susceptibility in rice, explains Dr. Yang.

CRISPR experiments can be designed to leave no fingerprint, or exogenous DNA in the plants. From a regulatory standpoint, the USDA should accept rice plants with small deletions or mutations in their genomes as safe for field tests, concludes Dr. Yang.

Using a similar approach, disease-resistant citrus trees have also been developed. In Florida, the citrus industry faces disease challenges from citrus canker and citrus greening disease caused by two bacteria, Xanthomonas citri and Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus, respectively.

"Citrus canker is also a big problem," asserts Nian Wang, Ph.D., associate professor, department of microbiology and cell science, Citrus Research and Education Center, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. "A specific effector protein from the infecting bacteria binds to the promoter region of the canker susceptibility gene CsLOB1 to induce disease symptoms. By utilizing CRISPR techniques, we can target the promoter region or the coding region of the citrus susceptibility gene to mutate it in such a way to prevent binding of bacterial transducers."

The CRISPR/Cas9 system can be applied in a manner that leave no exogenous DNA in the citrus, which is very beneficial in getting USDA approval.

"Applying the same strategy for citrus greening disease, we have begun research to identify the key virulence factors and their targets," continues Dr. Wang. "We are mutating the putative targets using the CRISPR technology. We hope to generate citrus trees resistant to citrus greening disease."

Another talk at the conference was on gene editing in cereals by Ming Luo, Ph.D., of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in Canberra, Australia. Wheat rust is a huge problem in failure of wheat crops worldwide; finding a solution to the problem would be a milestone in addressing world hunger.

A pilot study of CRISPR efficacy in rice was successful with a knockout of two closely linked genes. In contrast, the homologous CRISPR experiment in wheat did not lead to any mutations, declares Dr. Luo. In contrast, using TALEN in wheat yielded results.

While CRISPR works in rice and barley, CRISPR editing in wheat has not worked in our hands. We conclude that employing TALENs as a gene-editing tool in wheat is more efficient than CRISPR.

One drawback to the CRISPR/Cas9 system in plants concerns off-target effects. To assess these effects in plants, whole genome sequencing is the current gold standard.

Recent work in the model organism Arabidopsis, shows that the CRISPR/Cas9 system correctly targets the desired loci in plant genomes, states Cara Soyars, University of North Carolina doctoral candidate. This finding contrasts with off-target CRISPR effects in animals where off-target effects are a serious concern. Extrapolating this to other genera of plants, we postulate that modifications to the Cas9 protein to increase specificity of the binding site is not necessary in plants.

Plant genomes have many redundant genes. Hence, to effectively knockout a particular pathway of interest, many genes need to be knocked out, continues Soyars. Our lab, the Zachary Nimchuk lab, has developed a system that allows entire families of genes to be targeted in one experiment. While the system is predicted to increase the risk of off-target effects, we have shown with whole genome sequencing that there are very few or no off-target effects in Arabidopsis.

One of our studies necessitated the targeting of 14 genomic loci at once. Using the multiplexed CRISPR/Cas9 system, we had a 3392% success rate. Whole genome sequencing also revealed that chromosomal translocation events are extremely rare after genome manipulation in Arabidopsis via CRISPR/Cas9.

We really do not know why there is such a lower rate of off-target effects in plants when compared to animals, clarifies Soyars. Speculatively, plants use nonhomologous recombination; whereas animals employ homologous recombination when joining double DNA breaks. Perhaps differences in these repair mechanisms explain the difference in off target effects?

One advantage of the CRISPR/Cas9 system is the applicability across a wide range of organisms. Editing carried out for research purposes does not require the same level of stringency as those for therapeutic applications. However, any plants or animals undergoing genome editing will need to be carefully vetted.

The regulatory body overseeing this is the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), which is part of the USDA. APHIS released for comment a policy suggesting a path forward. For now, very small changes [like single base insertion or deletions (210 base pairs removed)] do not seem to be of much interest to APHIS.

The ability to make these tiny changes at a very specific place in the genome is the result of using CRISPR/Cas9 technology in plants, affirms Jeff Wolt, Ph.D., professor of agronomy at Iowa State University. In the past, genetic additions to plants included either exogenous genes or even some of the machinery to get the modifications incorporated.

Dr. Bing screened plants to select the edited gene of interest, while selecting against the inclusion of the CRISPR machinery. Dr. Bing confirmed this with lots of sequencing. His letter of inquiry to APHIS posed the question: will these rice plants be subject to regulation? APHIS responded that the material can be used without regulatory oversight.

Plant researchers are moving forward cautiously, as the all the wonderful technology from previous methods of transgenic manipulation was not fully realized due to public push-back. We need to ensure that what we are doing is well-communicated and transparent, expounds Dr. Wolt.

Plant sciences have lagged behind in adopting new technologies for genome editing for a couple of reasons, he continues. First, funding levels are generally lower for plant researchers than studies involving animals. Second, the techniques used to change the genome must go through the cell walls of plants; in animals, especially cell lines, it is much simpler to get the components of CRISPR/Cas9 into the cells.

Another reason many of the exciting applications of CRISPR in plants are not discussed as often as medical applications, explains Mark Behlke, M.D, Ph.D., CSO of Integrated DNA Technologies, is that the development of agricultural applications done by industry is confidential and is not published quickly, or at all. Also, working with crop plant genomes can be more complex than mammalian cells; as these species are often polyploid, which makes manipulation of their genomes more complicated. Furthermore, plant genomes often have huge repetitive content.

On the other hand, Dr. Behlke continues, advances in CRISPR/Cas9 technology has made genome manipulation accessible for just about any research lab in the world. One method that is especially promising is the use of a DNA-free system to perform genome engineering in plants. In this sort of system, the RNA guide is bound to recombinant Cas9 protein and added directly into cells as a ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complex, with no use of plasmids or other DNA-based expression cassettes.

A delivery method of coating gold nanoparticles with plasmids and shooting them into whole animals has worked in cattle vaccinations (biolistics). This approach is already being applied to plants, to get the Cas9 RNP complexes into cells through their tough cell walls, concludes Dr. Behlke.

Read more:
CRISPR Applications in Plants - Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News

The German governmentis none too pleased with [how easily people can conduct gene editing experiments outside of labs thanks to advances in science][Its] consumer protection office [recently]issued a statement: Any science enthusiast doing genetic engineering outside of a licensed facility, it wrote, might face a fine of 50,000 or up to three years in prison.

The statement sent a wave of shock through the DIY bio community.

The law behind the German DIY bio crackdown isnt new. The government was simply reminding so-called biohackers of a long-existing law that forbids genetic engineering experiments outside of laboratories supervised and licensed by the state.

Im pretty sure that laws will prohibit me from continuing my research at a later state, said Bruno Lederer, a German biohacker who hopes that loopholes in the law will allow his work to continue for now. I think its a shame that Id have to do illegal things in order to do independent research.

Community biology labsshouldnt have an issue getting licensed. But not every DIY scientist lives near or has the resources to join a community lab. If the DIY bio movement is about making science accessible to those outside the Ivory Tower of academia, the German governments statement represents a serious roadblock.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post:Germany Is Threatening Biohackers With Prison

Read the original here:
Biohacker crackdown? Germany threatens gene-editing hobbyists with fines, jail - Genetic Literacy Project

Former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark with a Spotted Kiwi. Image: Getty Images

That the kiwi bird still exists at all is something of a marvel. Its native New Zealand has no endemic land predators, and so the bird evolved to be flightless. Today, its nests on the forest floor are under constant attack by invasive speciesopossums, rats, feral cats and the occasional misbehaving dog.

Despite conservation efforts, there are less than 70,000 kiwi left in all of New Zealand. The country loses about 20 kiwibirds a week.

But a radical new plan imagines modern technology as the key to saving New Zealanders namesake kiwi, and other native birds threatened by invaders: scientists want to use a genetic engineering technique known as a gene drive to stamp out invasive rodents for good.

Gene drives allow scientists to override natural selection during reproduction, in theory allowing for the alteration of the genetic makeup of large populations of animals in a relatively short amount of time. A story today in theMIT Technology Review reports that scientific teams in Australia and Texas have successfully engineered mice to only birth male offspring, a bias meant to drive down mouse populations on an island. Its the first time a gene drive has ever been used in a mammal. The scientists are working with a US conservation group, but the New Zealand government has suggested its open to using genetic engineering to deal with its own invasive problem.

This is not the first time that gene drive has been proposed as a means of conservation. In Hawaii, gene drive have been floated as a solution to the disease-carrying mosquitoes that threaten native bird populations. But there, the idea has been met with fierce resistance from environmentalists and native Hawaiians, and gained little traction.

In New Zealand, the idea may find more support. Last summer, the government announced a bold plan to eradicate all wild predators by 2050. It invested $28 million in a new joint venture company, Predator Free New Zealand Ltd, with the stated goal of achieving a scientific breakthrough capable of removing at least one small mammalian predator from New Zealand entirely by 2025. The countrys Department of Conservation has suggested genetic engineering just might be that breakthrough.

To think we are going to become predator free without poisons distributed from aircraft and/or genetic engineering could be viewed as overly optimistic, New Zealand Department of Conservation scientist Josh Kemp told a New Zealand news site after the announcement.

But while gene drives are highly controversial, inspiring panic about scientists accidentally unleashing a poorly-engineered creature that wreaks ecological havoc, its still unclear whether the technology will actually work in the wild.

Gene drives thwart natural selection by creating a so-called selfish gene that gets passed down to its offspring with more consistency than the rules of inheritance would allow, eventually spreading through an entire populationin theory. But recent research has suggested that wild populations will almost certainly develop resistance to lab-engineered modifications. In late 2015, researchers reported that while a CRISPR gene drive had indeed allowed an infertility mutation in female mosquitoes to be passed on to all offspring, as the mutation increased in frequency over several generations, resistance to the gene drive also emerged.

These things are not going to get too far in terms of eradicating a population, Michael Wade, an evolutionary geneticist at Indiana University Bloomington, recently told Nature.

Of course, should scientists find a way around that hurdle, there are still plenty of obstacles. In the wild, the engineered mice might not be as successful in competing for mates. And while they may succeed in eradicating mice populations on small islands, as the scientists are initially proposing in New Zealand, tackling the rodent population of New Zealands main islands is another thing entirely. Then there is the issue of public opinion. Resistance to the idea of messing with nature has made gene drives an incredibly fraught issue. At a recent meeting of the United Nations Convention on Biodiversity in Mexico, activists asked the UN to consider a global moratorium on gene drive. In response, the UN asked that scientists take heed of social, environmental, legal, and ethical considerations to develop the technology responsibly.

The gene drive is a technology that is rapidly advancing. In the past two years, it has gone from being just a theory to a technique successfully tested in yeast, fruit flies, mosquitoes and now mice.

The modified mice engineered by scientists at Texas A&M University were only born in the past two months, according to the Technology Review. It will take several generations of breeding to determine whether the male-only trait is successfully passed on to future generations, as hoped. As of January, the second team at University of Adelaide was still working on breeding its first generation of engineered mice.

If they are successful, those mice may eventually be released on sea islands where mice have been known to prey on albatross chicks. And if it all goes well, one day, those engineered pests may save the kiwi bird, too.

[MIT Technology Review]

Read more from the original source:
Will a Radical Plan to Save New Zealand's Birds With Genetic ... - Gizmodo