Category Archives: Genetic Engineering

The MSPCAbelieves scientists ability to clone animals, to alter the genetic makeup of an animal, and to transfer pieces of genetic material from one species to another raises serious concerns for animals and humans alike.

This pagewill explore issues related to genetic engineering, transgenic animals, and cloned animals. It will examine the implications of genetic engineering on human and animal welfare and will touch on some related moral and ethical concerns that our society has so far failed to completely address.

Definitions

Problems related to the physical and psychological well-being of cloned and transgenic animals, significant ethical concerns about the direct manipulation of genetic material, and questions about the value of life itself must all be carefully weighed against the potential benefits of genetic engineering for disease research, agricultural purposes, vaccine development, pharmaceutical products, and organ transplants.

Genetic engineering is, as yet, an imperfect science that yields imperfect results.

Changes in animal growth and development brought about by genetic engineering and cloning are less predictable, more rapid, and often more debilitating than changes brought about through the traditional process of selective breeding.

This is especially apparent with cloning. Success rates are incredibly low; on average, less than 5% of cloned embryos are born and survive.

Clones are created at a great cost to animals. The clones that are successful, as well as those that do not survive and the surrogates who carry them, suffer greatly.Many of the cloned animals that do survive are plagued by severe health problems.

Offspring suffer from severe birth defects such as Large Offspring Syndrome (LOS), in which the cloned offspring are significantly larger than normal fetuses; hydrops, a typically fatal condition in which the mother or the fetus swells with fluid; respiratory distress; developmental problems; malformed organs; musculoskeletal deformities; or weakened immune systems, to name only a few.

Additionally, surrogates are subjected to repeated invasive procedures to harvest their eggs, implant embryos, or due to the offsprings birth defects surgical intervention to deliver their offspring. All of these problems occur at much higher rates than for offspring produced via traditional breeding methods.

Cloning increases existing animal welfare and environmental concerns related to animal agriculture.

In 1996, the birth of the ewe, Dolly, marked the first successful cloning of a mammal from adult cells. At the time of her birth, the researchers who created Dolly acknowledged the inefficiency of the new technology: it took 277 attempts to create this one sheep, and of these, only 29 early embryos developed, and an even smaller number of these developed into live fetuses. In the end, Dolly was the sole surviving clone. She was euthanized in 2003 at just 6 years of age, about half as old as sheep are expected to live, and with health problems more common in older sheep.

Since Dollys creation, the process of cloning has not demonstrated great improvement in efficiency or rates of success. A 2003 review of cloning in cattle found that less than 5% of cloned embryos transferred into surrogate cows survived; a 2016 study showedno noticeable increase in efficiency, with the success rate being about 1%.

Currently, research is focused on cloning for agricultural purposes. Used alone, or in concert with genetic engineering, the objective is to clone the best stock to reproduce whole herds or flocks with desired uniform characteristics of a specific trait, such as fast growth, leaner meat, or higher milk production. Cloning is often pursued to produce animals that grow faster so they can be slaughtered sooner and to raise more animals in a smaller space.

For example, transgenic fish are engineered to grow larger at a faster rate and cows injected with genetically engineered products to increase their productivity. Another example of this is the use of the genetically engineered drug, bovine growth hormone (BGH or BST) to increase milk production in dairy cows. This has also been associated with increased cases of udder disease, spontaneous abortion, lameness, and shortened lifespan. The use of BGH is controversial; many countries (such as Canada, Japan, Australia, and countries in the EU) do not allow it, and many consumers try to avoid it.A rise in transgenic animals used for agriculture will only exacerbate current animal welfare and environmental concerns with existing intensive farming operations.(For more information on farming and animal welfare, visit the MSPCAs Farm Animal Welfare page.)

Much remains unknown about thepotential environmental impacts of widespread cloning of animals. The creation of genetically identical animals leads to concerns about limited agricultural animal gene pools. The effects of creating uniform herds of animals and the resulting loss of biodiversity, have significant implications for the environment and for the ability of cloned herds to withstand diseases. This could make an impact on the entireagriculture industry and human food chain.

These issues became especiallyconcerning when, in 2008, the Federal Drug Administration not only approved the sale of meat from the offspring of cloned animals, but also did not require that it be labeled as such. There have been few published studies that examine the composition of milk, meat, or eggs from cloned animals or their progeny, including the safety of eating those products. The health problems associated with cloned animals, particularly those that appear healthy but have concealed illnesses or problems that appear unexpectedly later in life, could potentially pose risks to the safety of the food products derived from those animals.

Genetically Engineered Pets

Companion animals have also been cloned. The first cloned cat, CC, was created in 2001. CCs creation marked the beginning of the pet cloning industry, in which pet owners could pay to bank DNA from their companion dogs and cats to be cloned in the future. In 2005, the first cloned dog was created; later, the first commercially cloned dog followed at a cost of $50,000. Many consumers assume that cloning will produce a carbon copy of their beloved pet, but this is not the case. Even though the animals are genetically identical, they often do not resemble each other physically or behaviorally.

To date, the pet cloning industry has not been largely successful. However, efforts to make cloning a successful commercial venture are still being put forth.RBio (formerly RNL Bio), a Korean biotechnology company, planned to create a research center that would produce 1,000 cloned dogs annually by 2013. However, RBio, considered a black market cloner, failed to make any significant strides in itscloning endeavors and seems to have been replaced by other companies, such as South Korean-based Sooam Biotech, now the worlds leader in commercial pet cloning. Since 2006, Sooam has cloned over 800 dogs, in addition to other animals, such as cattle and pigs, for breed preservation and medical research.

While South Korean animal cloning expands, the interest in companion animal cloning in the United States continues to remain low. In 2009, the American company BioArts ceased its dog cloning services and ended its partnership with Sooam, stating in a press release that cloning procedures were still underdeveloped and that the cloning market itself was weak and unethical. Companion animal cloning causes concern not only because of the welfare issues inherent in the cloning process, but also because of its potential to contribute to pet overpopulation problem in the US, as millions of animals in shelters wait for homes.

Cloning and Medical Research

Cloning is also used to produce copies of transgenic animals that have been created to mimic certain human diseases. The transgenic animals are created, then cloned, producing a supply of animals for biomedical testing.

A 1980 U.S. Supreme Court decision to permit the patenting of a microorganism that could digest crude oil had a great impact on animal welfare and genetic engineering. Until that time, the U.S. Patent Office had prohibited the patenting of living organisms. However, following the Supreme Court decision, the Patent Office interpreted this ruling to extend to the patenting of all higher life forms, paving the way for a tremendous explosion of corporate investment in genetic engineering research.

In 1988, the first animal patent was issued to Harvard University for the Oncomouse, a transgenic mouse genetically modified to be more prone to develop cancers mimicking human disease. Since then, millions of transgenic mice have been produced. Transgenic rats, rabbits, monkeys, fish, chickens, pigs, sheep, goats, cows, horses, cats, dogs, and other animals have also been created.

Both expected and unexpected results occur in the process of inserting new genetic material into an egg cell. Defective offspring can suffer from chromosomal abnormalities that can cause cancer, fatal bleeding disorders, inability to reproduce, early uterine death, lack of ability to nurse, and such diseases as arthritis, diabetes, liver disease, and kidney disease.

The production of transgenic animals is of concern because genetic engineering is often used to create animals with diseases that cause intense suffering. Among the diseases that can be produced in genetically engineered research mice are diabetes, cancer, cystic fibrosis, sickle-cell anemia, Huntingtons disease, Alzheimers disease, and a rare but severe neurological condition called Lesch-Nyhansyndromethat causes the sufferer to self-mutilate. Animals carrying the genes for these diseases can suffer for long periods of time, both in the laboratory and while they are kept on the shelf by laboratory animal suppliers.

Another reason for the production of transgenic animals is pharming, in which sheep and goats are modified to produce pharmaceuticals in their milk. In 2009, the first drug produced by genetically engineered animals was approved by the FDA. The drug ATryn, used to prevent fatal blood clots in humans, is derived from goats into which a segment of human DNA has been inserted, causing them to produce an anticoagulant protein in their milk. This marks the first time a drug has been manufactured from a herd of animals created specifically to produce a pharmaceutical.

A company has also manufactured a drug produced in the milk of transgenic rabbits to treat a dangerous tissue swelling caused by a human protein deficiency. Yet another pharmaceutical manufacturer, PharmAnthene, was funded by the US Department of Defense to develop genetically engineered goats whose milk produces proteins used in a drug to treat nerve gas poisoning. The FDA also approved a drug whose primary proteins are also found in the milk of genetically engineered goats, who are kept at a farm in Framingham, Massachusetts. Additionally, a herd of cattle was recently developed that produces milk containing proteins that help to treat human emphysema. These animals are essentially used as pharmaceutical-production machines to manufacture only those substances they were genetically modified to produce; they are not used as part of the normal food supply chain for items such as meat or milk.

The transfer of animal tissues from one species to another raises potentially serious health issues for animals and humans alike.

Some animals are also genetically modified to produce tissues and organs to be used for human transplant purposes (xenotransplantation). Much effort is being focused in this area as the demand for human organs for transplantation far exceeds the supply, with pigs the current focus of this research. While efforts to date have been hampered by a pig protein that can cause organ rejection by the recipients immune system, efforts are underway to develop genetically modified swine with a human protein that would mitigate the chance of organ rejection.

Little is known about the ways in which diseases can be spread from one species to another, raising concerns for both animals and people, and calling into question the safety of using transgenic pigs to supply organs for human transplant purposes. Scientists have identified various viruses common in the heart, spleen, and kidneys of pigs that could infect human cells. In addition, new research is shedding light on particles called prions that, along with viruses and bacteria, may transmit fatal diseases between animals and from animals to humans.

Acknowledging the potential for transmission of viruses from animals to humans, the National Institutes of Health, a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,issued a moratorium in 2015 onxenotransplantation until the risks are better understood, ceasing funding until more research has been carried out. With the science of genetic engineering, the possibilities are endless, but so too are the risks and concerns.

Genetic engineering research has broad ethical and moral ramifications with few established societal guidelines.

While biotechnology has been quietly revolutionizing the science for decades, public debate in the United Statesover the moral, ethical, and physical effects of this research has been insufficient. To quote Colorado State University Philosopher Bernard Rollin, We cannot control technology if we do not understand it, and we cannot understand it without a careful discussion of the moral questions to which it gives rise.

Research into non-animal methods of achieving some of the same goals looks promising.

Researchers in the U.S. and elsewhere have found ways togenetically engineer cereal grains to produce human proteins. One example of this, developed in the early 2000s, is a strain of rice that can produce a human protein used to treat cystic fibrosis. Wheat, corn, and barley may also be able to be used in similar ways at dramatically lower financial and ethical costs than genetically engineering animals for this purpose.

Originally posted here:
Genetic Engineering | MSPCA-Angell

Over the last 50 years, the field of genetic engineering has developed rapidly due to the greater understanding of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) as the chemical double helix code from which genes are made. The term genetic engineering is used to describe the process by which the genetic makeup of an organism can be altered using recombinant DNA technology. This involves the use of laboratory tools to insert, alter, or cut out pieces of DNA that contain one or more genes of interest.

Developing plant varieties expressing good agronomic characteristics is the ultimate goal of plant breeders. With conventional plant breeding, however, there is little or no guarantee of obtaining any particular gene combination from the millions of crosses generated. Undesirable genes can be transferred along with desirable genes; or, while one desirable gene is gained, another is lost because the genes of both parents are mixed together and re-assorted more or less randomly in the offspring. These problems limit the improvements that plant breeders can achieve.

In contrast, genetic engineering allows the direct transfer of one or just a few genes of interest, between either closely or distantly related organisms to obtain the desired agronomic trait (Figure 1). Not all genetic engineering techniques involve inserting DNA from other organisms. Plants may also be modified by removing or switching off their own particular genes.

Source: Agricultural Biotechnology (A Lot More than Just GM Crops). http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/agricultural_biotechnology/download/.

Genes are molecules of DNA that code for distinct traits or characteristics. For instance, a particular gene sequence is responsible for the color of a flower or a plants ability to fight a disease or thrive in extreme environment.

The sharing of DNA among living forms is well documented as a natural phenomenon. For thousands of years, genes have moved from one organism to another. For example, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, a soil bacterium known as natures own genetic engineer, has the natural ability to genetically engineer plants. It causes crown gall disease in a wide range of broad-leaved plants, such as apple, pear, peach, cherry, almond, raspberry, and roses. The disease gains its name from the large tumor-like swellings (galls) that typically occur at the crown of the plant, just above soil level. Basically, the bacterium transfers part of its DNA to the plant, and this DNA integrates into the plants genome, causing the production of tumors and associated changes in plant metabolism.

Genetic engineering techniques are used only when all other techniques have been exhausted, i.e. when the trait to be introduced is not present in the germplasm of the crop; the trait is very difficult to improve by conventional breeding methods; and when it will take a very long time to introduce and/or improve such trait in the crop by conventional breeding methods (see Figure 2). Crops developed through genetic engineering are commonly known as transgenic crops or genetically modified (GM) crops.

Modern plant breeding is a multi-disciplinary and coordinated process where a large number of tools and elements of conventional breeding techniques, bioinformatics, molecular genetics, molecular biology, and genetic engineering are utilized and integrated.

Figure 2: Modern Plant Breeding

Source: DANIDA, 2002.

Although there are many diverse and complex techniques involved in genetic engineering, its basic principles are reasonably simple. There are five major steps in the development of a genetically engineered crop. But for every step, it is very important to know the biochemical and physiological mechanisms of action, regulation of gene expression, and safety of the gene and the gene product to be utilized. Even before a genetically engineered crop is made available for commercial use, it has to pass through rigorous safety and risk assessment procedures.

The first step is the extraction of DNA from the organism known to have the trait of interest. The second step is gene cloning, which will isolate the gene of interest from the entire extracted DNA, followed by mass-production of the cloned gene in a host cell. Once it is cloned, the gene of interest is designed and packaged so that it can be controlled and properly expressed once inside the host plant. The modified gene will then be mass-produced in a host cell in order to make thousands of copies. When the gene package is ready, it can then be introduced into the cells of the plant being modified through a process called transformation. The most common methods used to introduce the gene package into plant cells include biolistic transformation (using a gene gun) or Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. Once the inserted gene is stable, inherited, and expressed in subsequent generations, then the plant is considered a transgenic. Backcross breeding is the final step in the genetic engineering process, where the transgenic crop is crossed with a variety that possesses important agronomic traits, and selected in order to obtain high quality plants that express the inserted gene in a desired manner.

The length of time in developing transgenic plant depends upon the gene, crop species, available resources, and regulatory approval. It may take 6-15 years before a new transgenic hybrid is ready for commercial release.

Transgenic crops have been planted in different countries for twenty years, starting from 1996 to 2015. About 179.7 million hectares was planted in 2015 to transgenic crops with high market value, such as herbicide tolerant soybean, maize, cotton, and canola; insect resistant maize, cotton, potato, and rice; and virus resistant squash and papaya. With genetic engineering, more than one trait can be incorporated or stacked into a plant. Transgenic crops with combined traits are also available commercially. These include herbicide tolerant and insect resistant maize, soybean and cotton.

To date, commercial GM crops have delivered benefits in crop production, but there are also a number of products in the pipeline which will make more direct contributions to food quality, environmental benefits, pharmaceutical production, and non-food crops. Examples of these products include: rice with higher levels of iron and beta-carotene (an important micronutrient which is converted to vitamin A in the body); long life banana that ripens faster on the tree and can therefore be harvested earlier; tomatoes with high levels of flavonols, which are powerful antioxidants; arsenic-tolerant plants; edible vaccines from fruit and vegetables; and low lignin trees for paper making.

*August 2016

Read the original post:
Genetic Engineering and GM Crops - Pocket K | ISAAA.org

Watch the full show online! Visit the Explore More Genetic Engineering video page...

Would you want to clone your pet? Would you change your child's eye color? Do you care if your strawberry contains a gene for fish?

Explore More: Genetic Engineering tells you the story, gives you the facts, and then takes a closer look to help you unravel the core issues. Take a look at and interact with the content. Discuss what you learn with other people, form your own opinion on the subjects, but always keep an open mind.

As you go through this site, think about how genetic engineering is changing the way we live. This is a fascinating area that deserves our attention. Decisions and choices we make in our lifetime will affect how and why genetic engineering is used.

Investigate Explore More Teacher Resources WebQuests, Web links, lesson plans, teaching strategies, discussion questions, standards, and project goals help you leverage Explore More content to help student achievement and motivation. Get your students thinking with this useful collection of tools and tips! Find out more.

Original post:
Explore More: Genetic Engineering - iptv.org

Any technology that offers benefits will usually come with risks as well. In order to make wise decisions about using a technology, we must understand its potential impacts well enough to decide whether the risks are acceptably low.

What are the risks posed by the use of genetic engineering (GE) in agriculture? The answers fall mostly into two categories: risks to human health, and environmental impacts.

Photo: Roy Kaltschmidt, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories

Health risks of genetic engineering have sometimes been described in exaggerated, alarmist terms, implying that foods made from GE crops are inherently unsafe. There is no evidence, for instance, that refined products derived from GE crops, such as starch, sugar and oils, are different than those derived from conventionally bred crops.

It is also an exaggeration, however, to state that there are no health risks associated with GE. For one thing, not enough is known: research on the effects of specific genes has been limitedand tightly controlled by the industry.

But we do know of ways in which genetically engineered crops could cause health problems. For instance, genes from an allergenic plant could transfer this unwanted trait to the target plant. This phenomenon was documented in 1996, as soybeans with a Brazil nut geneadded to improve their value as animal feedproduced an allergic response in test subjects with Brazil nut allergies.

Unintended consequences like these underscore the need for effective regulation of GE products. In the absence of a rigorous approval process, there is nothing to ensure that GE crops that cause health problems will always be identified and kept off the market.

Genetically engineered crops can potentially cause environmental problems that result directly from the engineered traits. For instance, an engineered gene may cause a GE crop (or a wild relative of that crop) to become invasive or toxic to wildlife.

But the most damaging impact of GE in agriculture so far is the phenomenon of pesticide resistance. Millions of acres of U.S. farmland are now infested by weeds that have become resistant to the herbicide glyphosate. Overuse of Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" trait, which is engineered to tolerate the herbicide, has promoted the accelerated development of resistance in several weed species.

Looking for ways to fight back against these "superweeds," farmers are now turning to older, more toxic herbicides such as 2,4-D and dicamba. As if on cue, agribusiness companies have begun to develop new GE crops engineered to tolerate these older herbicideswith no guarantee that the Roundup Ready story will not repeat itself, producing a new wave of resistant weeds.

And this issue is not confined to herbicides: recent reports suggest a growing problem of corn rootworms resistant to the insecticide Bt, which some corn varieties have been engineered to produce.

As the superweed crisis illustrates, current applications of genetic engineering have become a key component of an unsustainable approach to food production: industrial agriculture, with its dependence on monoculturesupported by costly chemical inputsat the expense of the long-term health and productivity of the farm.

A different approach to farming is availablewhat UCS calls "healthy farms." This approach is not only more sustainable than industrial agriculture, but often more cost-effective. Yet as long as the marketplace of agricultural products and policies is dominated by the industrial model, prioritizing expensive products over knowledge-based agroecological approaches, healthy farm solutions face an uphill battle.

In the case of GE, better solutions include crop breeding (often assisted by molecular biology techniques) and agroecological practices such as crop rotation, cover crops, and integrated crop/livestock management.

Such healthy farm practices are the future of U.S. agricultureand policymakers can help speed the transition by supporting research and education on them. In the meantime, stronger regulation of the biotechnology industry is needed to minimize health and environmental risks from GE products.

Link:
Genetic Engineering Risks and Impacts - ucsusa.org

Interspecies gene transfer occurs naturally; interspecies hybrids produced by sexual means can lead to new species with genetic components of both pre-existing species. Interspecies hybridization played an important role in the development of domesticated plants.

Interspecies gene transfer occurs naturally; interspecies hybrids produced by sexual means can lead to new species with genetic components of both pre-existing species. Interspecies hybridization played an important role in the development of domesticated plants. Interspecies hybrids can also be produced artificiallly between sexually incompatible species. Cells of both plants and animals can be caused to fuse, producing viable hybrid cell-lines. Cultured hybrid plant cells can regenerate whole plants, so cell fusion allows crosses of sexually incompatible species. Most animal cells cannot regenerate whole individuals; however, the fusion of antibody-forming cells (which are difficult to culture) and "transformed" (cancer-like) cells, gives rise to immortal cell-lines, each producing one particular antibody, so-called monoclonal antibodies. These cell-lines can be used for the commercial production of diagnostic and antidisease antibody preparations. (Fusions involving human cells play a major role in investigations of human heredity and GENETIC DISEASE.)

In nature, the transfer of genes between sexually incompatible species also occurs; for example, genes can be carried between species during viral infection. In its most limited sense, genetic engineering exploits the possibility of such transfers between remotely related species. There are two principle methods. First, genes from one organism can be implanted within another, so that the implanted genes function in the host organism. Alternatively, the new host organism (often a micro-organism) produces quantities of the DNA segment that contains a foreign gene, which can then be analysed and modified in the test tube, before return to the species from which the gene originated. Dr Michael SMITH of the University of British Columbia was the corecipient of the 1993 NOBEL PRIZE in Chemistry for his invention of one of the most direct means to modify gene structure in the test tube, a technique known as in vitro mutagenesis.

The continuing development of modern genetic engineering depends upon a number of major technical advances: cloning, gene cloning and DNA sequencing.

Cloning is the production of a group of genetically identical cells or individuals from a single starting cell; all members of a clone are effectively genetically identical. Most single-celled organisms, many plants and a few multicellular animals form clones as a means of reproduction - "asexual" reproduction. In humans, identical twins are clones, developing after the separation of the earliest cells formed from a single fertilized egg.

Cloning is not strictly genetic engineering, since the genome normally remains unaltered, but it is a practical means to propagate engineered organisms.

In combination with test-tube fertilization and embryo transplants, Alta Genetics of Calgary is a world leader in the use of artificial twinning as a tool in the genetic engineering of cattle. Manipulating plant hormones in plant cell cultures can yield clones consisting of millions of plantlets, which may be packageable to form artificial seed.

Cloning of genetically engineered animals is generally difficult. Clones of frogs have been produced by transplanting identical nuclei from a single embryo, each to a different nucleus-free egg. This technique is not applicable to mammals. However, clones of cells derived from very young mammalian embryos (embryonic stem cells) can be used to reconstitute whole animals and are widely used for genetic engineering of mice. There is no reported instance of cloning of humans by any artificial means. Nonetheless, frequent calls for regulation of human cloning and genetic engineering occur, which stem from the same considerations that lead most commentators to reject eugenics.

Gene cloning is fundamental to genetic engineering. A segment of DNA from any donor organism is joined in the test tube to a second DNA molecule, known as a vector, to form a "recombinant " DNA molecule.

The design of appropriate vectors is an important practical area. Entry of DNA into each kind of cell is best mediated by different vectors. For BACTERIA, vectors are based on DNA molecules that move between cells in nature - bacterial VIRUSES and plasmids. Mammalian vectors usually derive from mammalian viruses. In higher plants, the favoured system is the infectious agent of crown-gall tumours.

Gene cloning in microbes has reached commercial application, notably with the marketing of human INSULIN produced by bacteria. Many similar products are now available, including growth hormones, blood-clotting factors and antiviral interferons. Gene cloning has revolutionized the understanding of genes, cells and diseases particularly of CANCER. It has raised the diagnosis of hereditary disease to high science, has contributed precise diagnostic tools for infectious disease and is fundamental to the use of DNA testing in forensic science.

The ability to clone genes led directly to the discovery of the means to analyse the precise chemical structure of DNA; that is, DNA sequencing. A worldwide co-operative project, the Human Genome Project, is now underway, with the object of cloning and sequencing the totality of human DNA, which contains perhaps 100000 or more genes. To date, at least 80% of the DNA has been cloned and localized roughly within the human chromosome set. It is predicted that the sequencing will be effectively completed in less than 20 years. However, it is clear that the biological meaning of the DNA structure will take decades, if not centuries, to decipher.

To avoid potential hazards deriving from genetic engineering, gene cloning even in bacteria is publicly regulated in Canada and the US by the scientific granting agencies and in some other countries by law. Biological containment, the deliberate hereditary debilitation of host cells and vectors, is required. In using mammals and higher plants, especially strict regulations apply, requiring physical isolation.

A great deal of work remains, both in the development of techniques and in the acquisition of fundamental knowledge needed to apply the techniques appropriately. Nonetheless, genetic engineering promises a world of tailor-made CROP plants and farm animals; cures for hereditary disease by gene replacement therapy; an analytical understanding of cancer and its treatment; and a world in which much of our present-day harsh chemical technology is replaced by milder, organism-dependent, fermentation processing.

In Canada, genetic engineering research is taking place in the laboratories of universities, industries, and federal and provincial research organizations. In the industrial sector, medical applications are being developed, for example at Ayerst Laboratories, Montral, AVENTIS PASTEUR LTD., Toronto, and theINSTITUT ARMAND-FRAPPIER, Laval-des-Rapides, Qubec.

Inco is researching applications for MINING and METALLURGY, and LABATT'S BREWERIESis applying recombinant DNA techniques to brewing technologies. A large number of Canadian companies engage in the research and development of genetically engineered products, particularly in the area of PHARMACEUTICALS and medical diagnostics. As many as half of the federally operated NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL Research Institutes have significant involvement with genetic engineering, including the Biotechnology Research Institute (Montral) and the Plant Biotechnology Institute (Saskatoon), whose mandates are largely in this area. The Veterinary Infectious Disease Organization, based at University of Saskatchewan, is using genetic engineering technology for production of new vaccines for livestock diseases.

See also ANIMAL BREEDING; PLANT BREEDING; HUMAN GENOME PROJECT; BIOTECHNOLOGY; TRANSPLANTATION.

Read more from the original source:
Genetic Engineering - The Canadian Encyclopedia

Manipulation of genes in natural organisms, such as plants, animals, and even humans, is considered genetic engineering. This is done using a variety of different techniques like molecular cloning. These processes can cause dramatic changes in the natural makeup and characteristic of the organism. There are benefits and risks associated with genetic engineering, just like most other scientific practices.

Genetic engineering offers benefits such as:

1. Better Flavor, Growth Rate and Nutrition Crops like potatoes, soybeans and tomatoes are now sometimes genetically engineered in order to improve size, crop yield, and nutritional values of the plants. These genetically engineered crops also possess the ability to grow in lands that would normally not be suitable for cultivation.

2. Pest-resistant Crops and Extended Shelf Life Engineered seeds can resist pests and having a better chance at survival in harsh weather. Biotechnology could be in increasing the shelf life of many foods.

3. Genetic Alteration to Supply New Foods Genetic engineering can also be used in producing completely new substances like proteins or other nutrients in food. This may up the benefits they have for medical uses.

4. Modification of the Human DNA Genes that are responsible for unique and desirable qualities in the human DNA can be exposed and introduced into the genes of another person. This changes the structural elements of a persons DNA. The effects of this are not know.

The following are the issues that genetic engineering can trigger:

1. May Hamper Nutritional Value Genetic engineering on food also includes the infectivity of genes in root crops. These crops might supersede the natural weeds. These can be dangerous for the natural plants. Unpleasant genetic mutations could result to an increased allergy occurrence of the crop. Some people believe that this science on foods can hamper the nutrients contained by the crops although their appearance and taste were enhanced.

2. May Introduce Risky Pathogens Horizontal gene shift could give increase to other pathogens. While it increases the immunity against diseases among the plants, the resistant genes can be transmitted to harmful pathogens.

3. May Result to Genetic Problems Gene therapy on humans can end to some side effects. While relieving one problem, the treatment may cause the onset of another issue. As a single cell is liable for various characteristics, the cell isolation process will be responsible for one trait will be complicated.

4. Unfavorable to Genetic Diversity Genetic engineering can affect the diversity among the individuals. Cloning might be unfavorable to individualism. Furthermore, such process might not be affordable for poor. Hence, it makes the gene therapy impossible for an average person.

Genetic engineering might work excellently but after all, it is a kind of process that manipulates the natural. This is altering something which has not been created originally by humans. What can you say about this?

Read the original here:
Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering | HRFnd

Redesigning the World Ethical Questions about Genetic Engineering

Ron Epstein 1

INTRODUCTION

Until the demise of the Soviet Union, we lived under the daily threat of nuclear holocaust extinguishing human life and the entire biosphere. Now it looks more likely that total destruction will be averted, and that widespread, but not universally fatal, damage will continue to occur from radiation accidents from power plants, aging nuclear submarines, and perhaps the limited use of tactical nuclear weapons by governments or terrorists.

What has gone largely unnoticed is the unprecedented lethal threat of genetic engineering to life on the planet. It now seems likely, unless a major shift in international policy occurs quickly, that the major ecosystems that support the biosphere are going to be irreversibly disrupted, and that genetically engineered viruses may very well lead to the eventual demise of almost all human life. In the course of the major transformations that are on the way, human beings will be transformed, both intentionally and unintentionally, in ways that will make us something different than what we now consider human.

Heedless of the dangers, we are rushing full speed ahead on almost all fronts. Some of the most powerful multinational chemical, pharmaceutical and agricultural corporations have staked their financial futures on genetic engineering. Enormous amounts of money are already involved, and the United States government is currently bullying the rest of the world into rapid acceptance of corporate demands concerning genetic engineering research and marketing.

WHAT IS GENETIC ENGINEERING

What are genes?

Genes are often described as 'blueprints' or 'computer programs' for our bodies and all living organisms. Although it is true that genes are specific sequences of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) that are central to the production of proteins, contrary to popular belief and the now outmoded standard genetic model, genes do not directly determine the 'traits' of an organism.1a They are a single factor among many. They provide the 'list of ingredients' which is then organized by the 'dynamical system' of the organism. That 'dynamical system' determines how the organism is going to develop. In other words, a single gene does not, in most cases, exclusively determine either a single feature of our bodies or a single aspect of our behavior. A recipe of ingredients alone does not create a dish of food. A chef must take those ingredients and subject them to complex processes which will determine whether the outcome is mediocre or of gourmet quality. So too the genes are processed through the self-organizing ('dynamical') system of the organism, so that the combination of a complex combination of genes is subjected to a variety of environmental factors which lead to the final results, whether somatic or behavioral.2

a gene is not an easily identifiable and tangible object. It is not only the DNA sequence which determines its functions in the organisms, but also its location in a specific chromosomal, cellular, physiological and evolutionary context. It is therefore difficult to predict the impact of genetic material transfer on the functioning of the extremely tightly controlled, integrated and balanced functioning of all the tens of thousands of structures and processes that make up the body of any complex organism.3

Genetic engineering refers to the artificial modification of the genetic code of a living organism. Genetic engineering changes the fundamental physical nature of the organism, sometimes in ways that would never occur in nature. Genes from one organism are inserted in another organism, most often across natural species boundaries. Some of the effects become known, but most do not. The effects of genetic engineering which we know are ususally short-term, specific and physical. The effects we do not know are often long-term, general, and also mental. Long-term effects may be either specific4 or general.

Differences between Bioengineering and Breeding

The breeding of animals and plants speeds up the natural processes of gene selection and mutation that occur in nature to select new species that have specific use to humans. Although the selecting of those species interferes with the natural selection process that would otherwise occur, the processes utilized are found in nature. For example, horses are bred to run fast without regard for how those thoroughbreds would be able to survive in the wild. There are problems with stocking streams with farmed fish because they tend to crowd out natural species, be less resistant to disease, and spread disease to wild fish.5

The breeding work of people like Luther Burbank led to the introduction of a whole range of tasty new fruits. At the University of California at Davis square tomatoes with tough skins were developed for better packing and shipping. Sometimes breeding goes awry. Killer bees are an example. Another example is the 1973 corn blight that killed a third of the crop that year. It was caused by a newly bred corn cultivar that was highly susceptible to a rare variant of a common leaf fungus.6

Bioengineers often claim that they are just speeding up the processes of natural selection and making the age-old practices of breeding more efficient. In some cases that may be true, but in most instances the gene changes that are engineered would never occur in nature, because they cross natural species barriers.

HOW GENETIC ENGINEERING IS CURRENTLY USED

Here is a brief summary of some of the more important, recent developments in genetic engineering.7

1) Most of the genetic engineering now being used commercially is in the agricultural sector. Plants are genetically engineered to be resistant to herbicides, to have built in pesticide resistance, and to convert nitrogen directly from the soil. Insects are being genetically engineered to attack crop predators. Research is ongoing in growing agricultural products directly in the laboratory using genetically engineered bacteria. Also envisioned is a major commercial role for genetically engineered plants as chemical factories. For example, organic plastics are already being produced in this manner.8

2) Genetically engineered animals are being developed as living factories for the production of pharmaceuticals and as sources of organs for transplantation into humans. (New animals created through the process of cross-species gene transfer are called xenographs. The transplanting of organs across species is called xenotransplantation.) A combination of genetic engineering and cloning is leading to the development of animals for meat with less fat, etc. Fish are being genetically engineered to grow larger and more rapidly.

3) Many pharmaceutical drugs, including insulin, are already genetically engineered in the laboratory. Many enzymes used in the food industry, including rennet used in cheese production, are also available in genetically engineered form and are in widespread use.

4) Medical researchers are genetically engineering disease carrying insects so that their disease potency is destroyed. They are genetically engineering human skin9 and soon hope to do the same with entire organs and other body parts.

5) Genetic screening is already used to screen for some hereditary conditions. Research is ongoing in the use of gene therapy in the attempt to correct some of these conditions. Other research is focusing on techniques to make genetic changes directly in human embryos. Most recen
tly research has also been focused on combining cloning with genetic enginering. In so-called germline therapy, the genetic changes are passed on from generation to generation and are permanent.

6) In mining, genetically engineered organisms are being developed to extract gold, copper, etc. from the substances in which it is embedded. Other organisms may someday live on the methane gas that is a lethal danger to miners. Still others have been genetically engineered to clean up oil spills, to neutralize dangerous pollutants, and to absorb radioactivity. Genetically engineered bacteria are being developed to transform waste products into ethanol for fuel.

SOME DISTINGUISHED SCIENTISTS' OPINIONS

In the 1950's, the media was full of information about the great new scientific miracle that was going to make it possible to kill all of the noxious insects in the world, to wipe out insect-born diseases and feed the world's starving masses. That was DDT. In the 1990's, the media is full of information about the coming wonders of genetic engineering. Everywhere are claims that genetic engineering will feed the starving, help eliminate disease, and so forth. The question is the price tag. The ideas and evidence presented below are intended to help evaluate that central question.

Many prominent scientists have warned against the dangers of genetic engineering. George Wald, Nobel Prize-winning biologist and Harvard professor, wrote:

Recombinant DNA technology [genetic engineering] faces our society with problems unprecedented not only in the history of science, but of life on the Earth. It places in human hands the capacity to redesign living organisms, the products of some three billion years of evolution.

Such intervention must not be confused with previous intrusions upon the natural order of living organisms; animal and plant breeding, for example; or the artificial induction of mutations, as with X-rays. All such earlier procedures worked within single or closely related species. The nub of the new technology is to move genes back and forth, not only across species lines, but across any boundaries that now divide living organisms The results will be essentially new organisms. Self-perpetuating and hence permanent. Once created, they cannot be recalled

Up to now living organisms have evolved very slowly, and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in. Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism or their neighbors.

It is all too big and is happening too fast. So this, the central problem, remains almost unconsidered. It presents probably the largest ethical problem that science has ever had to face. Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain For going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise but dangerous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics.10

Erwin Chargoff, an eminent geneticist who is sometimes called the father of modern microbiology, commented:

The principle question to be answered is whether we have the right to put an additional fearful load on generations not yet born. I use the adjective 'additional' in view of the unresolved and equally fearful problem of the disposal of nuclear waste. Our time is cursed with the necessity for feeble men, masquerading as experts, to make enormously far-reaching decisions. Is there anything more far-reaching than the creation of forms of life? You can stop splitting the atom; you can stop visiting the moon; you can stop using aerosals; you may even decide not to kill entire populations by the use of a few bombs. But you cannot recall a new form of life. Once you have constructed a viable E. coli cell carry a plasmid DNA into which a piece of eukaryotic DNA has been spliced, it will survive you and your children and your children's children. An irreversible attack on the biosphere is something so unheard-of, so unthinkable to previous generations, that I could only wish that mine had not been guilty of it.11

It appears that the recombination experiments in which a piece of animal DNA is incorporated into the DNA of a microbial plasmid are being performed without a full appreciation of what is going on. Is the position of one gene with respect to its neighbors on the DNA chain accidental or do they control and regulate each other? Are we wise in getting ready to mix up what nature has kept apart, namely the genomes of eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells.

The worst is that we shall never know. Bacteria and viruses have always formed a most effective biological underground. The guerrilla warfare through which they act on higher forms of life is only imperfectly understood. By adding to this arsenal freakish forms of life-prokyarotes propagating eukaryotic genes-we shall be throwing a veil of uncertainties over the life of coming generations. Have we the right to counteract, irreversibly, the evolutionary wisdom of millions of years, in order to satisfy the ambition and curiosity of a few scientists?

This world is given to us on loan. We come and we go; and after a time we leave earth and air and water to others who come after us. My generation, or perhaps the one preceding mine, has been the first to engage, under the leadership of the exact sciences, in a destructive colonial warfare against nature. The future will curse us for it.12

In contrast, here are two examples of prominent scientists who support genetic engineering. Co-discoverer of the DNA code and Nobel Laureate Dr. James D. Watson takes this approach:

On the possible diseases created by recombinant DNA, Watson wrote in March 1979: 'I would not spend a penny trying to see if they exist' (Watson 1979:113). Watson's position is that we must go ahead until we experience serious disadvantages. We must take the risk of even a catastrophe that might be hidden in recombinant DNA technology. According to him that is how learning works: until a tiger devours you, you don't know that the jungle is dangerous.13

What is wrong with Watson's analogy? If Watson wants to go off into the jungle and put himself at risk of being eaten by a tiger, that is his business. What gives him the right to drag us all with him and put us at risk of being eaten? When genetically engineered organisms are released into the environment, they put us all at risk, not just their creators.

The above statement by a great scientist clearly shows that we cannot depend on the high priests of science to make our ethical decisions for us. Too much is at stake. Not all geneticists are so cavalier or unclear about the risks. Unfortunately the ones who see or care about the potential problems are in the minority. That is not really surprising, because many who did see some of the basic problems would either switch fields or not enter it in the first place. Many of those who are in it have found a fascinating playground, not only in which to earn a livelihood, but also one with high-stake prizes of fame and fortune.

Watson himself saw some of the problems clearly when he stated:

This [genetic engineering] is a matter far too important to be left solely in the hands of the scientific and medical communities. The belief thatscience always moves forward represents a
form of laissez-faire nonsense dismally reminiscent of the credo that American business if left to itself will solve everybody's problems. Just as the success of a corporate body in making money need not set the human condition ahead, neither does every scientific advance automatically make our lives more 'meaningful'.14

Although not a geneticist, Stephen Hawking, the world-renowned physicist and cosmologist and Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University in England (a post once held by Sir Isaac Newton), has commented often and publicly on the future role of genetic engineering. For example:

Hawking, known mostly for his theories about the Big Bang and black holes, is focusing a lot these days on how humanity fits into the future of the universe--if indeed it fits at all. One possibility he suggests is that once an intelligent life form reaches the stage we're at now, it proceeds to destroy itself. He's an optimist, however, preferring the notion that people will alter DNA, redesigning the race to minimize our aggressive nature and give us a better chance at long-term survival. ``Humans will change their genetic makeup to give them more intelligence and better memory,'' he said.15

Hawking assumes that, even though humans are about to destroy themselves, they have the wisdom to know how to redesign themselves. If that were the case, why would we be about to destroy ourselves in the first place? Is Hawking assuming that genes control IQ and memory, and that they are equivalent to wisdom, or is Hawking claiming there is a wisdom gene? All these assumptions are extremely dubious. The whole notion that we can completely understand what it means to be human with a small part of our intellect, which is in turn a small part of who we are is, in its very nature, extremely suspect. If we attempt to transform ourselves in the image of a small part of ourselves, what we transform ourselves into will certainly be something smaller or at least a serious distortion of our human nature.

Those questions aside, Hawking does make explicit that, for the first time in history, natural evolution has come to an end and has been replaced by humans meddling with their own genetic makeup. With genetic engineering science has moved from exploring the natural world and its mechanisms to redesigning them. This is a radical departure in the notion of what we mean by science. As Nobel Prize winning biologist Professor George Wald was quoted above as saying: "Our morality up to now has been to go ahead without restriction to learn all that we can about nature. Restructuring nature was not part of the bargain."16

Hawking's views illustrate that even brilliant scientists, whose understanding of science should be impeccable, can get caught in the web of scientism. "Scientism"17 refers to the extending of science beyond the use of the scientific method and wrongly attempting to use it as the foundation for belief systems. Scientism promotes the myth that science is the sole source of truth about ourselves and the world we live in.

Most scientific research is dependent on artificial closed system models, yet the cosmos is an open system. Therefore, there are a priori limitations to the relevance of scientific data to the open system of the natural world. What seems to be the case in the laboratory may or may not be valid in the natural world.17a Therefore, we cannot know through scientific methodology the full extent of the possible effects of genetic alterations in living creatures.18

If science is understood in terms of hypotheses from data collected according to scientific method, then the claims of Hawking in the name of science extend far beyond what science actually is. He is caught in an unconscious web of presuppositions and values that deeply affect both his hypotheses and his interpretation of data. It is not only Hawking who is caught in this web but all of us, regardless of our philosophical positions, because scientism is part of our cultural background that is very hard to shake. We all have to keep in mind that there is more to the world than what our current crop of scientific instruments can detect.

Hawking's notions are at least altruistic. Perhaps more dangerous in the short run are projected commercial applications of so-called 'designer genes': gene alterations to change the physical appearance of our offspring to more closely match cultural values and styles. When we change the eye-color, height, weight, and other bodily characteristics of our offspring, how do we know what else is also being changed? Genes are not isolated units that have simple one-to-one correspondences.19

SOME SPECIFIC DIFFICULTIES WITH GENETIC ENGINEERING

Here are a few examples of current efforts in genetic engineering that may cause us to think twice about its rosy benefits.

The Potential of Genetic Engineering for Disrupting the Natural Ecosystems of the Biosphere

At a time when an estimated 50,000 species are already expected to become extinct every year, any further interference with the natural balance of ecosystems could cause havoc. Genetically engineered organisms, with their completely new and unnatural combinations of genes, have a unique power to disrupt our environment. Since they are living, they are capable of reproducing, mutating and moving within the environment. As these new life forms move into existing habitats they could destroy nature as we know it, causing long term and irreversible changes to our natural world.20

Any child who has had an aquarium knows that the fish, plants, snails, and food have to be kept in balance to keep the water clear and the fish healthy. Natural ecosystems are more complex but operate in a similar manner. Nature, whether we consider it to be conscious or without consciousness, is a self-organizing system with its own mechanisms.21 In order to guarantee the long-term viability of the system, those mechanisms insure that important equilibria are maintained. Lately the extremes of human environmental pollution and other human activities have been putting deep strains on those mechanisms. Nonetheless, just as we can clearly see when the aquarium is out of kilter, we can learn to sensitize ourselves to Nature's warnings and know when we are endangering Nature's mechanisms for maintaining equilibria. We can see an aquarium clearly. Unfortunately, because of the limitations of our senses in detecting unnatural and often invisible change, we may not become aware of serious dangers to the environment until widespread damage has already been done.

Deep ecology22 and Gaia theory have brought to general awareness the interactive and interdependent quality of environmental systems.22a No longer do we believe that isolated events occur in nature. Each event is part of a vast web of inter-causality, and as such has widespread consequences within that ecosystem.

If we accept the notion that the biosphere has its own corrective mechanisms, then we have to look at how they work and the limitations of their design. The more extreme the disruption to the self-organizing systems of the biosphere, the stronger the corrective measures are necessary. The notion that the systems can ultimately deal with any threat, however extreme, is without scientific basis. No evidence exists that the life and welfare of human beings have priority in those self-organizing systems. Nor does any evidence exist that anything in those systems is equipped to deal with all the threats that genetically engineered organisms may pose. Why? The organisms are not in th
e experience of the systems, because they could never occur naturally as a threat. The basic problem is a denial on the part of many geneticists that genetically engineered organisms are radical, new, and unnatural forms of life, which, as such, have no place in the evolutionarily balanced biosphere.

Viruses

Plant, animal and human viruses play a major role in the ecosystems that comprise the biosphere. They are thought by some to be one of the primary factors in evolutionary change. Viruses have the ability to enter the genetic material of their hosts, to break apart, and then to recombine with the genetic material of the host to create new viruses. Those new viruses then infect new hosts, and, in the process, transfer new genetic material to the new host. When the host reproduces, genetic change has occurred.

If cells are genetically engineered, when viruses enter the cells, whether human, animal, or plant, then some of the genetically engineered material can be transferred to the newly created viruses and spread to the viruses' new hosts. We can assume that ordinary viruses, no matter how deadly, if naturally produced, have a role to play in an ecosystem and are regulated by that ecosystem. Difficulties can occur when humans carry them out of their natural ecosystems; nonetheless, all ecosystems in the biosphere may presumably share certain defense characteristics. Since viruses that contain genetically engineered material could never naturally arise in an ecosystem, there is no guarantee of natural defenses against them. They then can lead to widespread death of humans, animals or plants, thereby temporarily or even permanently damaging the ecosystem. Widespread die-off of a plant species is not an isolated event but can affect its whole ecosystem. For many, this may be a rather theoretical concern. The distinct possibility of the widespread die-off of human beings from genetically engineered viruses may command more attention.23

Biowarfare

Secret work is going forward in many countries to develop genetically engineered bacteria and viruses for biological warfare. International terrorists have already begun seriously considering their use. They are almost impossible to regulate, because the same equipment and technology that are used commercially can easily and quickly be transferred to military application.

The former Soviet Union had 32,000 scientists working on biowarfare, including military applications of genetic engineering. No one knows where most of them have gone, or what they have taken with them. Among the more interesting probable developments of their research were smallpox viruses engineered either with equine encephalitis or with Ebola virus. In one laboratory, despite the most stringent containment standards, a virulent strain of pneumonia, which had been stolen from the United State military, infected wild rats living in the building, which then escaped into the wild.24

There is also suggestive evidence that much of the so-called Gulf War Syndrome may have been caused by a genetically engineered biowarfare agent which is contagious after a relatively long incubation period. Fortunately that particular organism seems to respond to antibiotic treatment.25 What is going to happen when the organisms are purposely engineered to resist all known treatment?

Nobel laureate in genetics and president emeritus of Rockefeller University Joshua Lederberg has been in the forefront of those concerned about international control of biological weapons. Yet when I wrote Dr. Lederberg for information about ethical problems in the use of genetic engineering in biowarfare, he replied, "I don't see how we'd be talking about the ethics of genetic engineering, any more than that of iron smelting - which can be used to build bridges or guns."26 Like most scientists, Lederberg fails to acknowledge that scientific researchers have a responsibility for the use to which their discoveries are put. Thus he also fails to recognize that once the genie is out of the bottle, you cannot coax it back in. In other words, research in genetic engineering naturally leads to its employment for biowarfare, so that before any research in genetic engineering is undertaken, its potential use in biowarfare should be clearly evaluated. After they became aware of the horrors of nuclear war, many of the scientists who worked in the Manhattan project, which developed the first atomic bomb, underwent terrible anguish and soul-searching. It is surprising that more geneticists do not see the parallels.

After reading about the dangers of genetic engineering in biowarfare, the president of the United States, Bill Clinton, became extremely concerned, and, in the spring of 1998, made civil defense countermeasures a priority. Yet, his administration has systematically opposed all but the most rudimentary safety regulations and restrictions for the biotech industry. By doing so, Clinton has unwittingly created a climate in which the production of the weapons he is trying to defend against has become very easy for both governments and terrorists.27

Plants

New crops may breed with wild relatives or cross breed with related species. The "foreign" genes could spread throughout the environment causing unpredicted changes which will be unstoppable once they have begun. Entirely new diseases may develop in crops or wild plants. Foreign genes are designed to be carried into other organisms by viruses which can break through species barriers, and overcome an organism's natural defenses. This makes them more infectious than naturally existing parasites, so any new viruses could be even more potent than those already known.

Ordinary weeds could become "Super-weeds": Plants engineered to be herbicide resistant could become so invasive they are a weed problem themselves, or they could spread their resistance to wild weeds making them more invasive. Fragile plants may be driven to extinction, reducing nature's precious biodiversity. Insects could be impossible to control. Making plants resistant to chemical poisons could lead to a crisis of "super pests" if they also take on the resistance to pesticides.

The countryside may suffer even greater use of herbicides and pesticides: Because farmers will be able to use these toxic chemicals with impunity their use may increase threatening more pollution of water supplies and degradation of soils.

Plants developed to produce their own pesticide could harm non-target species such as birds, moths and butterflies. No one - including the genetic scientists - knows for sure the effect releasing new life forms will have on the environment. They do know that all of the above are possible and irreversible, but they still want to carry out their experiment. THEY get giant profits. All WE get is a new and uncertain environment - an end to the world as we know it.29

When genetically engineered crops are grown for a specific purpose, they cannot be easily isolated both from spreading into the wild and from cross-pollinating with wild relatives. It has already been shown30 that cross-pollination can take place almost a mile away from the genetically engineered plantings. As has already occurred with noxious weeds and exotics, human beings, animals and birds may accidentally carry the genetically engineered seeds far vaster distances. Spillage in transport and at processing factories is also inevitable. The genetically engineered plants can then force out plant competitors and thus radically change the balance of ecosystems or even destroy
them.

Under current United States government regulations, companies that are doing field-testing of genetically engineered organisms need not inform the public of what genes have been added to the organisms they are testing. They can be declared trade secrets, so that the public safety is left to the judgment of corporate scientists and government regulators many of whom switch back and forth between working for the government and working for the corporations they supposedly regulate.31 Those who come from academic positions often have large financial stakes in biotech companies, 32 and major universities are making agreements with biotech corporations that compromise academic freedom and give patent rights to the corporations. As universities become increasingly dependent on major corporations for funding, the majority of university scientists will no longer be able to function as independent, objective experts in matters concerning genetic engineering and public safety.32a

Scientists have already demonstrated the transfer of transgenes and marker genes to both bacterial pathogens and to soil fungi. That means genetically engineered organisms are going to enter the soil and spread to whatever grows in it. Genetically engineered material can migrate from the roots of plants into soil bacteria, in at least one case radically inhibiting the ability of the soil to grow plants.33 Once the bacteria are free in the soil, no natural barriers inhibit their spread. With ordinary soil pollution, the pollution can be confined and removed (unless it reaches the ground-water). If genetically engineered soil bacteria spreads into the wild, the ability of the soil to support plant life may seriously diminish.33a It does not take much imagination to see what the disastrous consequences might be.

Water and air are also subject to poisoning by genetically engineered viruses and bacteria.

The development of new genetically engineered crops with herbicide resistance will affect the environment through the increased use of chemical herbicides. Monsanto and other major international chemical, pharmaceutical, and agricultural corporations have staked their financial futures on genetically engineered herbicide-resistant plants.33b

Recently scientists have found a way to genetically engineer plants so that their seeds lose their viability unless sprayed with patented formulae, most of which turn out to have antibiotics as their primary ingredient. The idea is to keep farmers from collecting genetically engineered seed, thus forcing them to buy it every year. The corporations involved are unconcerned about the gene escaping into the wild, with obvious disastrous results, even though that is a clear scientific possibility.34

So that we would not have to be dependent on petroleum-based plastics, some scientists have genetically engineered plants that produce plastic within their stem structures. They claim that it biodegrades in about six months.35 If the genes escape into the wild, through cross-pollination with wild relatives or by other means, then we face the prospect of natural areas littered with the plastic spines of decayed leaves. However aesthetically repugnant that may seem, the plastic also poses a real danger. It has the potential for disrupting entire food-chains. It can be eaten by invertebrates, which are in turn eaten, and so forth. If primary foods are inedible or poisonous, then whole food-chains can die off.36

Another bright idea was to genetically engineer plants with scorpion toxin, so that insects feeding on the plants would be killed. Even though a prominent geneticist warned that the genes could be horizontally transferred to the insects themselves, so that they might be able to inject the toxin into humans, the research and field testing is continuing.37

Animals

The genetic engineering of new types of insects, fish, birds and animals has the potential of upsetting natural ecosystems. They can displace natural species and upset the balance of other species through behavior patterns that are a result of their genetic transformation.

One of the more problematic ethical uses of animals is the creation of xenographs, already mentioned above, which often involve the insertion of human genes. (See the section immediately below.) Whether or not the genes inserted to create new animals are human ones, the xenographs are created for human use and patented for corporate profit with little or no regard for the suffering of the animals, their felings and thoughts, or their natural life-patterns.

Use of Human Genes

As more and more human genes are being inserted into non-human organisms to create new forms of life that are genetically partly human, new ethical questions arise. What percent of human genes does an organism have to contain before it is considered human? For instance, how many human genes would a green pepper38 have to contain before one would have qualms about eating it? For meat-eaters, the same question could be posed about eating pork. If human beings have special ethical status, does the presence of human genes in an organism change its ethical status? What about a mouse genetically engineered to produce human sperm39 that is then used in the conception of a human child?

Several companies are working on developing pigs that have organs containing human genes in order to facilitate the use of the organs in humans. The basic idea is something like this. You can have your own personal organ donor pig with your genes implanted. When one of your organs gives out, you can use the pig's.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a set of xenotransplant guidelines in September of 1996 that allows animal to human transplants, and puts the responsibility for health and safety at the level of local hospitals and medical review boards. A group of 44 top virologists, primate researchers, and AIDS specialists have attacked the FDA guidelines, saying, "based on knowledge of past cross-species transmissions, including AIDS, Herpes B virus, Ebola, and other viruses, the use of animals has not been adequately justified for use in a handful of patients when the potential costs could be in the hundreds, thousands or millions of human lives should a new infectious agent be transmitted."40

England has outlawed such transplants as too dangerous.41

Humans

Genetically engineered material can enter the body through food or bacteria or viruses. The dangers of lethal viruses containing genetically engineered material and created by natural processes have been mentioned above.

The dangers of generating pathogens by vector mobilization and recombination are real. Over a period of ten years, 6 scientists working with the genetic engineering of cancer-related oncogenes at the Pasteur Institutes in France have contracted cancer.42

Non-human engineered genes can also be introduced into the body through the use of genetically engineered vaccines and other medicines, and through the use of animal parts genetically engineered with human genes to combat rejection problems.

Gene therapy, for the correction of defective human genes that cause certain genetic diseases, involves the intentional introduction of new genes into the body in an attempt to modify the genetic structure of the body. It is based on a simplistic and flawed model of gene function which assumes a one-to-one correspondence between individual gene and individual function. Since horizontal interaction43 among genes has been demonstrated, introduction of a new gene ca
n have unforeseen effects. Another problem, already mentioned, is the slippery slope that leads to the notion of designer genes. We are already on that slope with the experimental administration of genetically engineered growth hormone to healthy children, simply because they are shorter than average and their parents would like them to be taller.44

A few years ago a biotech corporation applied to the European Patent Office for a patent on a so-called 'pharm-woman,' the idea being to genetically engineer human females so that their breast-milk would contain specialized pharmaceuticals.44a Work is also ongoing to use genetic engineering to grow human breasts in the laboratory. It doesn't take much imagination to realize that not only would they be used for breast replacement needed due to cancer surgery, but also to foster a vigorous commercial demand by women in search of the "perfect" breasts.45 A geneticist has recently proposed genetically engineering headless humans to be used for body parts. Some prominent geneticists have supported his idea.46

Genetically Engineered Food

Many scientists have claimed that the ingestion of genetically engineered food is harmless because the genetically engineered materials are destroyed by stomach acids. Recent research47 suggests that genetically engineered materials are not completely destroyed by stomach acids and that significant portions reach the bloodstream and also the brain-cells. Furthermore, it has been shown that the natural defense mechanisms of body cells are not entirely effective in keeping the genetically engineered substances out of the cells.48

Some dangers of eating genetically engineered foods are already documented. Risks to human health include the probable increase in the level of toxins in foods and in the number of disease-causing organisms that are resistant to antibiotics.49 The purposeful increase in toxins in foods to make them insect-resistant is the reversal of thousands of years of selective breeding of food-plants. For example when plants are genetically engineered to resist predators, often the plant defense systems involve the synthesis of natural carcinogens.50

Industrial mistakes or carelessness in production of genetically engineered food ingredients can also cause serious problems. The l-tryptophan food supplement, an amino acid that was marketed as a natural tranquilizer and sleeping pill, was genetically engineered. It killed thirty-seven people and permanently disabled 1,500 others with an incurable nervous system condition known as eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS).51

Dr. John Fagan has summarized some major risks of eating genetically engineered food as follows:

the new proteins produced in genetically engineered foods could: a) themselves, act as allergens or toxins, b) alter the metabolism of the food producing organism, causing it to produce new allergens or toxins, or c) causing it to be reduced in nutritional value.a) Mutations can damage genes naturally present in the DNA of an organism, leading to altered metabolism and to the production of toxins, and to reduced nutritional value of the food. b) Mutations can alter the expression of normal genes, leading to the production of allergens and toxins, and to reduced nutritional value of the food. c) Mutations can interfere with other essential, but yet unknown, functions of an organisms DNA.52

Basically what we have at present is a situation in which genetically engineered foods are beginning to flood the market, and no one knows what all their effects on humans will be. We are all becoming guinea pigs. Because genetically engineered food remains unlabeled, should serious problems arise, it will be extremely difficult to trace them to their source. Lack of labeling will also help to shield the corporations that are responsible from liability.

MORE BASIC ETHICAL PROBLEMS

See original here:

Redesigning the World: Ethical Questions About Genetic ...

TV.NaturalNews.com is a free video website featuring thousands of videos on holistic health, nutrition, fitness, recipes, natural remedies and much more.

CounterThink Cartoons are free to view and download. They cover topics like health, environment and freedom.

The Consumer Wellness Center is a non-profit organization offering nutrition education grants to programs that help children and expectant mothers around the world.

Food Investigations is a series of mini-documentaries exposing the truth about dangerous ingredients in the food supply.

Webseed.com offers alternative health programs, documentaries and more.

The Honest Food Guide is a free, downloadable public health and nutrition chart that dares to tell the truth about what foods we should really be eating.

HealingFoodReference.com offers a free online reference database of healing foods, phytonutrients and plant-based medicines that prevent or treat diseases and health conditions.

HerbReference.com is a free, online reference library that lists medicinal herbs and their health benefits.

NutrientReference.com is a free online reference database of phytonutrients (natural medicines found in foods) and their health benefits. Lists diseases, foods, herbs and more.

Go here to read the rest:

Genetic engineering news, articles and information:

Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering, also known as recombinant DNA technology, means altering the genes in a living organism to produce a Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) with a new genotype. Various kinds of genetic modification are possible: inserting a foreign gene from one species into another, forming a transgenic organism; altering an existing gene so that its product is changed; or changing gene expression so that it is translated more often or not at all.

Genetic engineering is a very young discipline, and is only possible due to the development of techniques from the 1960s onwards. Watson and Crick have made these techniques possible from our greater understanding of DNA and how it functions following the discovery of its structure in 1953. Although the final goal of genetic engineering is usually the expression of a gene in a host, in fact most of the techniques and time in genetic engineering are spent isolating a gene and then cloning it. This table lists the techniques that we shall look at in detail.

1

cDNA

To make a DNA copy of mRNA

2

To cut DNA at specific points, making small fragments

3

DNA Ligase

To join DNA fragments together

4

Vectors

To carry DNA into cells and ensure replication

5

Plasmids

Common kind of vector

6

Gene Transfer

To deliver a gene to a living cells

7

Genetic Markers

To identify cells that have been transformed

8

To make exact copies of bacterial colonies on an agar plate

9

PCR

To amplify very small samples of DNA

10

DNA probes

To identify and label a piece of DNA containing a certain sequence

11

Shotgun *

To find a particular gene in a whole genome

12

Antisense genes *

To stop the expression of a gene in a cell

13

Gene Synthesis

To make a gene from scratch

14

Electrophoresis

To separate fragments of DNA

* Additional information that is not directly included in AS Biology. However it can help to consolidate other techniques.

Complementary DNA (cDNA) is DNA made from mRNA. This makes use of the enzyme reverse transcriptase, which does the reverse of transcription: it synthesises DNA from an RNA template. It is produced naturally by a group of viruses called the retroviruses (which include HIV), and it helps them to invade cells. In genetic engineering reverse transcriptase is used to make an artificial gene of cDNA as shown in this diagram.

Complementary DNA has helped to solve different problems in genetic engineering:

It makes genes much easier to find. There are some 70 000 genes in the human genome, and finding one gene out of this many is a very difficult (though not impossible) task. However a given cell only expresses a few genes, so only makes a few different kinds of mRNA molecule. For example the b cells of the pancreas make insulin, so make lots of mRNA molecules coding for insulin. This mRNA can be isolated from these cells and used to make cDNA of the insulin gene.

These are enzymes that cut DNA at specific sites. They are properly called restriction endonucleases because they cut the bonds in the middle of the polynucleotide chain. Some restriction enzymes cut straight across both chains, forming blunt ends, but most enzymes make a staggered cut in the two strands, forming sticky ends.

The cut ends are sticky because they have short stretches of single-stranded DNA with complementary sequences. These sticky ends will stick (or anneal) to another piece of DNA by complementary base pairing, but only if they have both been cut with the same restriction enzyme. Restriction enzymes are highly specific, and will only cut DNA at specific base sequences, 4-8 base pairs long, called recognition sequences.

Restriction enzymes are produced naturally by bacteria as a defence against viruses (they restrict viral growth), but they are enormously useful in genetic engineering for cutting DNA at precise places ("molecular scissors"). Short lengths of DNA cut out by restriction enzymes are called restriction fragments. There are thousands of different restriction enzymes known, with over a hundred different recognition sequences. Restriction enzymes are named after the bacteria species they came from, so EcoR1 is from E. coli strain R, and HindIII is from Haemophilis influenzae.

This enzyme repairs broken DNA by joining two nucleotides in a DNA strand. It is commonly used in genetic engineering to do the reverse of a restriction enzyme, i.e. to join together complementary restriction fragments.

The sticky ends allow two complementary restriction fragments to anneal, but only by weak hydrogen bonds, which can quite easily be broken, say by gentle heating. The backbone is still incomplete.

DNA ligase completes the DNA backbone by forming covalent bonds. Restriction enzymes and DNA ligase can therefore be used together to join lengths of DNA from different sources.

In biology a vector is something that carries things between species. For example the mosquito is a disease vector because it carries the malaria parasite into humans. In genetic engineering a vector is a length of DNA that carries the gene we want into a host cell. A vector is needed because a length of DNA containing a gene on its own wont actually do anything inside a host cell. Since it is not part of the cells normal genome it wont be replicated when the cell divides, it wont be expressed, and in fact it will probably be broken down pretty quickly. A vector gets round these problems by having these properties:

It is big enough to hold the gene we want (plus a few others), but not too big.

It is circular (or more accurately a closed loop), so that it is less likely to be broken down (particularly in prokaryotic cells where DNA is always circular).

It contains control sequences, such as a replication origin and a transcription promoter, so that the gene will be replicated, expressed, or incorporated into the cells normal genome.

It contain marker genes, so that cells containing the vector can be identified.

Many different vectors have been made for different purposes in genetic engineering by modifying naturally-occurring DNA molecules, and these are now available off the shelf. For example a cloning vector contains sequences that cause the gene to be copied (perhaps many times) inside a cell, but not expressed. An expression vector contains sequences causing the gene to be expressed inside a cell, preferably in response to an e
xternal stimulus, such as a particular chemical in the medium. Different kinds of vector are also available for different lengths of DNA insert:

Type of vector

Max length of DNA insert

10 kbp

Virus or phage

30 kbp

Bacterial Artificial Chromosome (BAC)

500 kbp

Plasmids are by far the most common kind of vector, so we shall look at how they are used in some detail. Plasmids are short circular bits of DNA found naturally in bacterial cells. A typical plasmid contains 3-5 genes and there are usually around 10 copies of a plasmid in a bacterial cell. Plasmids are copied separately from the main bacterial DNA when the cell divides, so the plasmid genes are passed on to all daughter cells. They are also used naturally for exchange of genes between bacterial cells (the nearest they get to sex), so bacterial cells will readily take up a plasmid. Because they are so small, they are easy to handle in a test tube, and foreign genes can quite easily be incorporated into them using restriction enzymes and DNA ligase.

One of the most common plasmids used is the R-plasmid (or pBR322). This plasmid contains a replication origin, several recognition sequences for different restriction enzymes (with names like PstI and EcoRI), and two marker genes, which confer resistance to different antibiotics (ampicillin and tetracycline).

The diagram below shows how DNA fragments can be incorporated into a plasmid using restriction and ligase enzymes. The restriction enzyme used here (PstI) cuts the plasmid in the middle of one of the markergenes (well see why this is useful later). The foreign DNA anneals with the plasmid and is joined covalently by DNA ligase to form a hybrid vector (in other words a mixture or hybrid of bacterial and foreign DNA). Several other products are also formed: some plasmids will simply re-anneal with themselves to re-form the original plasmid, and some DNA fragments will join together to form chains or circles. Theses different products cannot easily be separated, but it doesnt matter, as the marker genes can be used later to identify the correct hybrid vector.

Vectors containing the genes we want must be incorporated into living cells so that they can be replicated or expressed. The cells receiving the vector are called host cells, and once they have successfully incorporated the vector they are said to be transformed. Vectors are large molecules which do not readily cross cell membranes, so the membranes must be made permeable in some way. There are different ways of doing this depending on the type of host cell.

Heat Shock. Cells are incubated with the vector in a solution containing calcium ions at 0C. The temperature is then suddenly raised to about 40C. This heat shock causes some of the cells to take up the vector, though no one knows why. This works well for bacterial and animal cells.

Electroporation. Cells are subjected to a high-voltage pulse, which temporarily disrupts the membrane and allows the vector to enter the cell. This is the most efficient method of delivering genes to bacterial cells.

Viruses. The vector is first incorporated into a virus, which is then used to infect cells, carrying the foreign gene along with its own genetic material. Since viruses rely on getting their DNA into host cells for their survival they have evolved many successful methods, and so are an obvious choice for gene delivery. The virus must first be genetically engineered to make it safe, so that it cant reproduce itself or make toxins. Three viruses are commonly used:

1. Bacteriophages (or phages) are viruses that infect bacteria. They are a very effective way of delivering large genes into bacteria cells in culture.

2. Adenoviruses are human viruses that causes respiratory diseases including the common cold. Their genetic material is double-stranded DNA, and they are ideal for delivering genes to living patients in gene therapy. Their DNA is not incorporated into the hosts chromosomes, so it is not replicated, but their genes are expressed.

The adenovirus is genetically altered so that its coat proteins are not synthesised, so new virus particles cannot be assembled and the host cell is not killed.

3. Retroviruses are a group of human viruses that include HIV. They are enclosed in a lipid membrane and their genetic material is double-stranded RNA. On infection this RNA is copied to DNA and the DNA is incorporated into the hosts chromosome. This means that the foreign genes are replicated into every daughter cell.

After a certain time, the dormant DNA is switched on, and the genes are expressed in all the host cells.

Plant Tumours. This method has been used successfully to transform plant cells, which are perhaps the hardest to do. The gene is first inserted into the Ti plasmid of the soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens, and then plants are infected with the bacterium. The bacterium inserts the Ti plasmid into the plant cells' chromosomal DNA and causes a "crown gall" tumour. These tumour cells can be cultured in the laboratory and whole new plants grown from them by micropropagation. Every cell of these plants contains the foreign gene.

Gene Gun. This extraordinary technique fires microscopic gold particles coated with the foreign DNA at the cells using a compressed air gun. It is designed to overcome the problem of the strong cell wall in plant tissue, since the particles can penetrate the cell wall and the cell and nuclear membranes, and deliver the DNA to the nucleus, where it is sometimes expressed.

Micro-Injection. A cell is held on a pipette under a microscope and the foreign DNA is injected directly into the nucleus using an incredibly fine micro-pipette. This method is used where there are only a very few cells available, such as fertilised animal egg cells. In the rare successful cases the fertilised egg is implanted into the uterus of a surrogate mother and it will develop into a normal animal, with the DNA incorporated into the chromosomes of every cell.

Liposomes. Vectors can be encased in liposomes, which are small membrane vesicles (see module 1). The liposomes fuse with the cell membrane (and sometimes the nuclear membrane too), delivering the DNA into the cell. This works for many types of cell, but is particularly useful for delivering genes to cell in vivo (such as in gene therapy).

These are needed to identify cells that have successfully taken up a vector and so become transformed. With most of the techniques above less than 1% of the cells actually take up the vector, so a marker is needed to distinguish these cells from all the others. Well look at how to do this with bacterial host cells, as thats the most common technique.

A common marker, used in the R-plasmid, is a gene for resistance to an antibiotic such as tetracycline. Bacterial cells taking up this plasmid can make this gene product and so are resistant to this antibiotic. So if the cells are grown on a medium containing tetracycline all the normal untransformed cells, together with cells that ha
ve taken up DNA thats not in a plasmid (99%) will die. Only the 1% transformed cells will survive, and these can then be grown and cloned on another plate.

Replica plating is a simple technique for making an exact copy of an agar plate. A pad of sterile cloth the same size as the plate is pressed on the surface of an agar plate with bacteria growing on it. Some cells from each colony will stick to the cloth. If the cloth is then pressed onto a new agar plate, some cells will be deposited and colonies will grow in exactly the same positions on the new plate. This technique has a number of uses, but the most common use in genetic engineering is to help solve another problem in identifying transformed cells.

Read the original post:

Genetic Engineering - BiologyMad

Latest Articles

A technique to change or eliminate entire populations of organisms could be used against virus-carrying mosquitoes. It could also have unintended consequences.

By AMY HARMON

Residents there heard a proposal Monday from an M.I.T. scientist to use genetically engineered mice to stop the spread of the tick-borne disease.

By AMY HARMON

A common bacterium contains molecules that target RNA, not DNA. If it can be harnessed for use in humans, the process may lead to new forms of bioengineering.

By CARL ZIMMER

The formal announcement of the plans, which leaked last month, seeks to raise $100 million this year. The total price tag could exceed $1 billion.

By ANDREW POLLACK

One of the scientists credited with starting the gene editing revolution discusses her landmark discovery and how science has driven her.

By GINA KOLATA

Ritual, a start-up, is introducing a multivitamin that is vegan, mostly free of genetically engineered ingredients and tailored to todays diets.

By STEPHANIE STROM

The transaction, if consummated, would create an industry giant whose products include pain medications, genetically modified crops and pesticides.

By MICHAEL J. de la MERCED and CHAD BRAY

Without disclosing details, Monsanto said its board was reviewing a proposal that would create a giant with a combined annual revenue of $67 billion.

By MICHAEL J. de la MERCED

The report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine is not expected to end the highly polarized debate over the technology.

By ANDREW POLLACK

Bioengineered food products are safe. So why do we try to hide the facts about them?

By JASON KELLY

The project poses ethical issues about whether humans could be created without parents.

By ANDREW POLLACK

Testing of the oats found permissible amounts of glyphosate, but plaintiffs say the results are proof of false marketing claims.

By STEPHANIE STROM

The magazines Ethicist columnist on whether to reveal someones H.I.V. status, and when its O.K. to accept money from a company with practices you dont respect.

By KWAME ANTHONY APPIAH

Facing tough competition from newer yogurt makers, the company is establishing animal welfare and conservation standards for its milk suppliers.

By STEPHANIE STROM

Genetic engineering may emerge as an important tool to avert extinctions. But ecosystems are complex, and this tinkering might not unfold as planned.

By HILLARY ROSNER

Efforts to expand use of biotechnology to crops other than corn, soybeans, cotton and canola have been hindered by opposition from consumer and environmental groups.

By ANDREW POLLACK

A genetically modified mosquito might eradicate the mosquito species that carries the Zika virus but must first survive a cumbersome approval process.

By NINA FEDOROFF and JOHN BLOCK

A Senate bill that would prevent states from requiring food labels to note the presence of genetically modified ingredients failed on Wednesday.

By STEPHANIE STROM

The senators will consider whether the government should require labeling on foods containing genetically engineered ingredients, an issue that has split the food industry.

By JENNIFER STEINHAUER and STEPHANIE STROM

A trial in the Florida Keys has been tentatively approved, but public comment must be assessed first by the agency.

By ANDREW POLLACK

A technique to change or eliminate entire populations of organisms could be used against virus-carrying mosquitoes. It could also have unintended consequences.

By AMY HARMON

Residents there heard a proposal Monday from an M.I.T. scientist to use genetically engineered mice to stop the spread of the tick-borne disease.

By AMY HARMON

A common bacterium contains molecules that target RNA, not DNA. If it can be harnessed for use in humans, the process may lead to new forms of bioengineering.

By CARL ZIMMER

The formal announcement of the plans, which leaked last month, seeks to raise $100 million this year. The total price tag could exceed $1 billion.

By ANDREW POLLACK

One of the scientists credited with starting the gene editing revolution discusses her landmark discovery and how science has driven her.

By GINA KOLATA

Ritual, a start-up, is introducing a multivitamin that is vegan, mostly free of genetically engineered ingredients and tailored to todays diets.

By STEPHANIE STROM

The transaction, if consummated, would create an industry giant whose products include pain medications, genetically modified crops and pesticides.

By MICHAEL J. de la MERCED and CHAD BRAY

Without disclosing details, Monsanto said its board was reviewing a proposal that would create a giant with a combined annual revenue of $67 billion.

By MICHAEL J. de la MERCED

The report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine is not expected to end the highly polarized debate over the technology.

By ANDREW POLLACK

Bioengineered food products are safe. So why do we try to hide the facts about them?

By JASON KELLY

The project poses ethical issues about whether humans could be created without parents.

By ANDREW POLLACK

Testing of the oats found permissible amounts of glyphosate, but plaintiffs say the
results are proof of false marketing claims.

By STEPHANIE STROM

The magazines Ethicist columnist on whether to reveal someones H.I.V. status, and when its O.K. to accept money from a company with practices you dont respect.

By KWAME ANTHONY APPIAH

Facing tough competition from newer yogurt makers, the company is establishing animal welfare and conservation standards for its milk suppliers.

By STEPHANIE STROM

Genetic engineering may emerge as an important tool to avert extinctions. But ecosystems are complex, and this tinkering might not unfold as planned.

By HILLARY ROSNER

Efforts to expand use of biotechnology to crops other than corn, soybeans, cotton and canola have been hindered by opposition from consumer and environmental groups.

By ANDREW POLLACK

A genetically modified mosquito might eradicate the mosquito species that carries the Zika virus but must first survive a cumbersome approval process.

By NINA FEDOROFF and JOHN BLOCK

A Senate bill that would prevent states from requiring food labels to note the presence of genetically modified ingredients failed on Wednesday.

By STEPHANIE STROM

The senators will consider whether the government should require labeling on foods containing genetically engineered ingredients, an issue that has split the food industry.

By JENNIFER STEINHAUER and STEPHANIE STROM

A trial in the Florida Keys has been tentatively approved, but public comment must be assessed first by the agency.

By ANDREW POLLACK

See the original post here:

Genetic Engineering - The New York Times