Category Archives: Genetic Engineering

We lead todays i with a science exclusive likely to change the food we eat in this country: the Government is going to approve genetic engineering in UK farming.

New laws will allow crops and animals to be genetically edited to reduce disease and to increase resistance to extreme weather and pests.

Critics include animal welfare campaigners, who are worried about conditions, and Franken-food activists, concerned by the consequences of genetic fiddling.

Supporters, including many scientists, say gene editing is a simple technique that speeds up conventional selective breeding. They believe it can tackle world hunger.

Gene editing means genes are replaced by others from the same species rather than being injected from a secondspecies, as in genetic modification (GM).

There is a clear difference between the techniques for genetic editing and for GM; between the ethical questions raised; and, very soon, between the laws that will govern them in the UK.

Brexit allows the Government to diverge from Brussels in a major change to farming. Ministers hope to boost research could it transform food production in Britain and beyond? as well as accelerate the arrival of gene-edited food on our plates.

Public confidence will be key, requiring strong regulation and clear labelling. Some people wont care to discover the differences between gene editing and GM, so educating us about changes to our food will be crucial to acceptance.

Brussels is thinking of following Britains lead, the European Commission said yesterday. If gene editing is going to transform food supplies in the developing world, low-income countries will need the huge European market to also welcome their products.

Read this article:
Gene editing could tackle world hunger, but the public need to have confidence in it - iNews

ByDavid K. Johnson, Ph.D.,Kings CollegeGene manipulation to get designer babies is a step that has huge moral problems. (Image: Pan Andrii/Shutterstock)

The film Gattaca is set in a world in which gene manipulation is common. When parents decide to have children, they often do so with the help of geneticists. Diseases are weeded out, the parents best attributes are selected. One can even design a baby with a specific purpose in mind to be a best swimmer, or to be an astronaut. Children produced this way are called valids.

Some parents, however, chose to reproduce naturally, letting their childs genetic code be random. Society is arranged so these invalids are condemned to menial jobs. Only valids have access to professional employment, and background checks are constantly performed.

This is a transcript from the video series Sci-Phi: Science Fiction as Philosophy. Watch it now, on Wondrium.

The story of Gattaca follows Vincent, an invalid working as a janitor at the Gattaca Aerospace Corporation. At birth, his genetic code made him highly likely to be subject to many disorders, and he has an expected lifespan of only 30.2 years. He nevertheless dreams of being an astronaut.

He uses the genetic material of a valid named Jerome to pass himself off as a valid and, through his own efforts, he earns a spot as a navigator on a mission to Saturns moon Titan. The deception is almost exposed; but the background checker ends up looking the other way and the movie ends with Vincent blasting off on his mission to Titan.

The moral of the storythat you should not let the expectations of others determine what you think you can doseems fine. But, given that, in Gattaca, its genetics that are setting the limits, its hard to take the moral seriously. Not that genetic determinismwhich suggests that your genetic makeup determines everything about youis right; but genes do set limits. If Vincent has a congenital heart defect, he is going to die on the way to Titan and no amount of hard work and determination will change that fact.

Learn more about Aldous Huxleys Brave New World.

Still, Gattaca raises serious concerns about the development of genetic engineering technology that would allow for designer babies. One common worry is that creating designer babies are immoral because its unnatural. But such arguments fallaciously rely on what philosopher Daniel Maguire calls the biologism fallacy: the fallacious effort to wring a moral mandate out of raw biological facts.

Something being natural does not make it moral; being unnatural doesnt make it immoral.

One possible objection is that designer babies would be viewed by their parents as commodities, rather than persons, and treat them accordingly. But such worries seem to be overblown.

For instance, that parents of children born of in vitro fertilization dont treat them as property. Indeed, studies have shown that, on average, the quality of parenting in families who use in vitro fertilization is actually superior to those who reproduce naturally. And this makes sense. No family who seeks out in vitro fertilization ends up with an unwanted child.

One legitimate worry is expressed by Marcy Darnovsky from the Center for Genetics and Society in California. If the design is too specific, the childs freedom could be restricted. In Gattaca, Jerome was designed to become the worlds best swimmerand his failure to do so drove him to throw himself in front of a car. But this would not be a reason to ban designer babies. After all, some parents already do thisdemanding that their child become a doctor or play their favorite sport.

Once such practices become common, and thus our evolution as a species become dictated by, what they call, unnatural selection and nonrandom mutation, a new species would arise. But this wouldnt necessarily be a bad thing. If the genetic line of humans just ended, that would be sad. But if it leads to the birth of more intelligent humans who are less violent, more durable, and more capable of living a full lifethat is something to be celebrated.

Learn more about science fiction and the real world.

More worrisome are the short-term effects we see in Gattaca. If the technology was not universally available, you would quickly see society divided into two segmentsthe valids and the invalids, the haves and the have-notswith prime jobs and positions reserved for the valids. Worse still, initially, such technology would only be available to the very rich. This would give their children an even greater advantage in society than they already have, greatly widening the gap between the rich and the poor.

But the thing to consider is this: Would you want to live in the society Gattaca depicts? As the philosopher John Rawls says, one way to determine the fairness of a society is by determining whether you would want to enter it if you did not know which person you would be. And it seems the society depicted in Gattaca doesnt fit the bill. It seems not, because you could just as easily be a valid as an invalid. It certainly is not one that adheres to John Rawls principle of justice.

In Gattaca, some people choose to have children who are born after consulting geneticists. These children, the valids, are genetically selected to be disease free and can be engineered to be best at certain professions.

In Gattaca, people who are born with a natural mix of genes rather than being genetically modified are called invalids. They are condemned to menial jobs. Only valids have access to professional employment, and background checks are constantly performed.

One common worry is that creating designer babies is an immoral act because its unnatural. But such arguments fallaciously rely on what philosopher Daniel Maguire calls the biologism fallacy: the fallacious effort to wring a moral mandate out of raw biological facts. Something being natural does not make it moral; being unnatural doesnt make it immoral.

Go here to read the rest:
"Gattaca" and the Ethics of Genetic Selection - The Great Courses Daily News

This is the tenth post of "The Context"a biweekly series of archival storiesofferingour readers a useful background to some of the most important subjects in the news today. We hope you enjoyit.

What can you do these days with significant private funding and the latest advancements in synthetic biology? Possibly, thousands of years after the species went extinct, bring back the woolly mammoth.

A recent article in STAT highlighted the work of George Church, Winthrop professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School. For almost eight years, Church has been leading a team of researchers striving to bring back the woolly mammoth using CRIPSR gene-editing technology. Though the idea received significant news coverage when Church first publicly discussed the possibility in 2013, only recently did Colossal, a Texas-based artificial intelligence company, join with other funders to raise $15 million to support the project and make it a reality.

Church and his colleagues hope to edit the genome of Asian elephants to make them more resistant to cold temperatures and therefore able to push farther into the freezing tundra where mammoths once roamed. There, these cold-adapted elephants could knock down dark, sunlight-absorbing trees that are extending their range into the warming habitat and break up moss, transforming the tundra into light-reflecting grassland that keeps the ground colder, locking in the methane and creating a lot of plant matter to lock up carbon, too. This has the potential to help offset one of the dangerous, self-reinforcing cycles of climate change: a thawing tundra that releases gigantic quantities of greenhouse gases now trapped in the frozen, but rapidly warming, far north.

There are many questions about the practicality of the project. Will the species created present the desired traits? Would countries agree to host these tremendous creatures if Churchs group succeeds? And there are mammoth-sized ethical questions too. Elephants are not just sentient creatures, said David DeGrazia, a philosopher and bioethicist. Theyre really smart, they are really self-aware and emotionally complex. I dont think we should involve them in experiments that are not in their best interest.

At Harvard Magazine, weve written several articles about Churchs work and the implications of synthetic biology. In a recent feature story, managing editor Jon Shaw explored Churchs gene-editing work beyond the flashiest woolly mammoth headlines.

News accounts often report that he wants to revive the woolly mammoth.In fact, Church is undertaking a multi-pronged conservation projectwith synthetic biology at its corethat he hopes will benefit living Asian elephants, humans, the Arctic, and perhaps the planet.

Aside from using gene editing to bring back an extinct species, Church also wants to edit the genome of living Asian elephants to make them resistant to pathogens like the endotheliotropic herpesvirus, which leads to hemorrhagic bleeding. This kind of editing, he believes, could aid in the survival of many threatened speciesand improve immunotherapies for humans.

Shaws report also reveals business models Church has in mind for the genetically engineered mammoth: youve got tourism, meat, hair, and maybe legal ivory, he says. Though this description presents ethical quandaries, Shaw writes that Church is sanguine about the potential of biological engineering to make a better world.

Another feature on Churchs work in synthetic biology from 2014 (before much of the mammoth publicity), also shows the extraordinary life-saving potential and moral pitfalls of the field. The author, Katherine Xue, described its promise this way:

Traditional genetic engineering amounted more or less to biological cut-and-paste: scientists could, for instance, transfer a cold-tolerance gene from an Arctic fish into a tomato. Synthetic biology aims for a more radical reorganization. Its organisms are built to be biological machines, with DNA and proteins standing in for circuit components or lines of computer code. In combination, the biological parts perform functions unknown to nature: processing signals, producing new chemicals, storing information.

The applications Xue presents include remodeling the human genome to detect and destroy all viruses. Its an interesting and provocative analysis of the field.

For more on the topic, Id recommend this article exploring former assistant professor of the history of science Sophia Roosths work on de-extinction. This review of Churchs research on creating a virus-resistant bacterium also provides more fundamental information on gene editing to understand his current projects.

Visit link:
The Context: Resurrecting the Woolly Mammoth - Harvard Magazine

Ministers are set to give the go-ahead to the use of gene editing in agriculture which could see altered produce on the supermarket shelves in five years time, i can reveal.

The Government is expected to issue its response to its own consultation on the technology at the end of the month that will give the green light to the cautious exploration of genetic engineering in farming.

The move will mark the biggest divergence by the UK away from existing European laws since leaving the EU, which has banned the technique for years amid fears it is unsafe.

Brexit minister Lord Frost announced yesterday the Governments intention to repeal EU laws governing the use of genetic editing in the UK as part of a statement on Brexit opportunities in the coming years.

He told peers that Environment Secretary George Eustice would shortly set out plans to reform the regulation of gene edited organisms.

The lifting of the ban would enable more sustainable and efficient farming and help produce healthier and more nutritious food, he added.

Gene editing involves the technique of replacing genes that govern certain traits, such as water dependency, disease resistance and nutrition with better-functioning ones from the same species.

It has the potential to make crops much more nutritious and resistant to storms or pests and to considerably boost the resilience and yields of livestock, advocates say.

The NFU believes gene-edited produce could be on shop shelves within five years. Outdoor trials have been launched to grow GE wheat that knocks out acrylamide, a carcinogen that occurs when bread is toasted. It is being grown in a controlled environment in Rothamsted Research in Hertfordshire.

The technology may also allow farmers to reduce their dependence on antibiotics in dairy cattle, which can be passed on to humans.

A consultation launched by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs back in January came to a close in March, but the governments response is only due at the end of this month.

In an interview with i in March, Defra chief scientific advisor Professor Gideon Henderson said: There is a mindset that we would like to change the law on this that tendency to go ahead is there. And everything I have heard so far from diverse stakeholder groups taking in the breadth of the views suggests that there is pretty general support for it.

The decision to lift the ban on gene-editing, which is different to genetically modifying, has been criticised by animal rights groups on the grounds of animal welfare concerns.

A Defra spokesperson said: Gene editing has the ability to harness the genetic resources that mother nature has provided, such as breeding crops that perform better, benefitting farmers and reducing impacts on the environment.

Now that we have left the EU, we have the opportunity to make coherent policy decisions on gene editing based on current science and evidence. We are committed to proportionate, science-based regulation that protects people, animals and the environment and that begins with this consultation.

Read the original post:
UK set to approve gene-edited livestock and crops in major post-Brexit break with EU policy - iNews

DURHAM, NCThrowing together a bunch of unused polynucleotides that would otherwise have gone to waste, a team of geneticists and biomedical engineers at Duke University told reporters Thursday they had developed a new hybrid creature from various scraps of DNA they had lying around their lab. Over the course of our CRISPR studies, weve accumulated a lot of surplus gene fragments, so we figured, why not just mix everything up and see what happens? said lab chief Andrew Brown as he used a scalpel to scrape some stray fruit fly DNA from a beaker, explaining that genetic material for the new organism had been salvaged from used test tubes, old refrigeration units, and at least a dozen biohazard containers. In a way, its the ultimate test of your genetic engineering skillstaking whatever nucleic acids you happen to have on hand and seeing what you can whip up. Its also fun. We had all this extra mouse, sheep, moth, hermit crab, carpenter ant, and chimpanzee DNA, all of which was still perfectly good and wasnt being used for anything else. So we grabbed a pipette, took a base pair here, a base pair there, threw everything in the thermocycler, and voil! After discovering they had only managed to create a small, unremarkable organism that basically just looked like another kind of beetle, the geneticists reportedly squashed it with a tissue, threw it in the trash, and headed home for the night.

The rest is here:
Geneticists Develop Hybrid Creature From Whatever Scraps Of DNA Lying Around Lab - The Onion

PopSci isspending September relearning how to eat. As intuitive as our love of chowing down is, a lot stands between us and optimal eating. This month, wellbreak down diet myths, unlockdelicious kitchen hacks, and explore ourmost common misconceptionsabout our grub.

The food labels you see in grocery stores are getting a makeover. By January 2022, products that have been bioengineered, or have an ingredient in them thats been bioengineered, will require a disclosure telling consumers about the presence of GMOs, thanks to a mandate from Congress. You might already see this new label make its way onto select foods and brands starting this year.

The new labeling system might make people wonder, as they frequently have in the pastare GMOs safe?

Heres where the latest scientific consensus stands.

Good news: The majority of food safety experts agree that genetically modified organisms, from plants to animals, are generally safe for human consumption.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found in a 2016 review of more than 1,000 studies that GMO crops dont pose a health risk to humans.

In a press lease, the committee announced that it found no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health between current commercially available genetically engineered (GE) crops and conventionally bred crops.

The World Health Organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the European Commission reached the same conclusion. The US FDA works closely with the EPA and USDA to evaluate the safety of new GMO crops and ingredients.

The WHO has also partnered with the Food and Agriculture Organization to develop a collection of food standards and best practices that provides a guideline for assessing any potential risks of new genetically modified crops or organisms.

[Related: Avoiding GMO food might be tougher than you think]

The major issues that consumers are worried about are the same ones that experts have been actively investigating for the past two decades, says Richard Goodman, a research professor at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. These issues include the natural problems with food that would affect human safety, animal safety, allergy, toxicity.

Before an organism with a genetically modified trait can enter the market, researchers test it extensively over a few years. They verify that the DNA insertedmore on just what that is in a momentworks correctly and is stable, meaning that it doesnt jump around within the chromosome of the organism. Then, they evaluate proteins produced by the organism and check to see if they line up with their source genes or match the makeup of known allergens or toxins.

For some products, scientists also run whats known as a rat toxicity test in which a high dose of the protein produced as a result of the genetic insert is fed to a number of rats over a controlled time period to see if there are any impacts on their health. Additionally, researchers also conduct nutritional studies assessing the protein, carbohydrate, and fat levels of the genetically modified product, often in comparison to a similar product produced through conventional breeding.

The FDA formally defined a genetically modified organism as a plant, animal, or microbe that has had its genetic material, or DNA, specifically altered using technology to introduce a new trait. This also includes the transfer of a section of DNA from one organism to another. An example is when a gene from a soil bacterium (Bt) was spliced into corn DNA to create an insect-resistant corn.

Heres how organisms are typically genetically modified. In the standard method, a piece of DNA is inserted into cells, sometimes with a gene gun, and sometimes via a specialized bug called Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Now, researchers are experimenting with using CRISPR/Cas9, a system that uses RNA guides to target and cut out specific parts of the organisms genome. The DNA added in the process is embedded into the chromosome of the food thats being modified. That inserted DNA comes with tools that the organism can use to turn the simple gene code (which is in essence an instruction manual) into RNA, and finally, into a protein.

Researchers check to see that the protein doesnt look too similar to a number of toxic proteins that exist in nature like venoms, or ricin, which comes from unprocessed castor beans. They also check that the new proteins dont contain anything that would trigger an unwanted allergic reaction.

The scientists then closely monitor the modified cells to see how they grow. Eventually, individual transformed plants are selected for testing in the field. Goodman estimates that there are over a hundred different genetic modifications that have been approved by the regulatory bodies in the US in crops like rice, corn, soybeans, sugar beets, canola, and more.

However, there are some plants that are genetically edited that are exempt from USDA regulation. These include edits at levels too low to be detected, or knocking out or slightly tweaking a gene that is originally part of the plants native genome. All crop developers need to apply for exemption with the USDA in those cases.

[Related: GMO Facts: 10 Common GMO Claims Debunked]

Modifying plants is somewhat different from modifying animals. For example, the GM Atlantic salmon uses a growth factor from another species of salmon, says Goodman. It took more than 22 years to get approval for this to be used as food, and they looked at things like what are the proteins made from the different parts of the salmon.

Goodman compares some GM products, like the viral-resistant papaya developed in Hawaii in the 90s, to the biomedical industrys use of gene editing to boost immunity or correct disease-related mutations in humans. That has worked, and its pretty accurate and effective, he says. So there are similar things that people are trying to use on plants that do similar things.

Many experts argue that even though the first modern genetic modification techniques were introduced in the 1970s, it is not really any different than how humans have been traditionally breeding plants and animals. In fact, this method could be seen as a sped up and more precise version of that.

[Related: Theres No Need To Fear Gene-Edited Food]

Everything is genetically modified, says Goodman. Plus, foreign DNA in our body is nothing to fret about, he adds. For example: When you get infected with viruses or your intestines bacterial organisms die and break down, foreign DNA can leach out, and your immune system takes care of that, he says.

Some genetic modifications can make food last longer or taste better, but others can create nutritional benefits. An example of that is golden rice, which was produced by inserting two different plant genes that allowed the rice to make the precursor to vitamin A, beta carotene.

People who eat mostly rice, especially in countries where they dont have much money or dont eat a lot of vegetables, can have vitamin A deficiency, which causes immune defects, [and] problems with vision, says Goodman. If you try to supplement people who have vitamin A deficiency by giving them vitamin A, you could cause toxicity unless you really limit that. Beta carotene, if you eat too much of it, it goes out in your urine. In other words, golden rice is a better solution than stand-alone vitamins.

More significantly, Goodman says that some GMOs have reduced the amount of pesticides and herbicides put on plants. Some of those chemical pesticides end up in ground water and so forth, he adds. So, where are we better off?

Correction September 17, 2021: The article previously misstated that certain foods from plants that are edited are exempt from FDA regulation. It is the USDA that grants certain exemptions for some edited plants.Foods from plants are regulated by the FDA regardless of how they are produced.

Read the original here:
Most experts agree that GMOs are safe to eat - Popular Science

PHILADELPHIA, Sept. 17, 2021 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Century Therapeutics (NASDAQ: IPSC), an innovative biotechnology company developing induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC)-derived cell therapies in immuno-oncology, today announced that it will be added to the small-cap Russell 2000 Index as a part of the 3Q21 Russell Indexes IPO additions, effective at US market open on September 20, 2021, according to the preliminary list of IPO additions to the Russell indexes.

Centurys inclusion in the Russell 2000 Index is an important milestone that reflects our continued progress toward advancing our lead therapeutic program, CNTY-101, into the clinic and to patients in need, said Lalo Flores, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of Century Therapeutics. We are pleased to join the Russell Index and look forward to sharing our potential future growth with a broader audience of investors."

The Russell 2000 Index measures the performance of the small-cap segment of the U.S. equity market. Membership in the Russell 2000 Index, which remains in place until the next reconstitution, is based on membership in the broad market Russell 3000 Index. Russell indexes are widely used by investment managers and institutional investors for index funds and as benchmarks for active investment strategies. Approximately $10.6 trillion in assets are benchmarked against Russell's US indexes. Russell indexes are part of FTSE Russell, a leading global index provider.

For more information on the Russell 2000 Index and the Russell indexes reconstitution, visit the FTSE Russell website.

About Century Therapeutics

Century Therapeutics is harnessing the power of adult stem cells to develop curative cell therapy products for cancer that we believe will allow us to overcome the limitations of first-generation cell therapies. Our genetically engineered, iPSC-derived iNK and iT cell products are designed to specifically target hematologic and solid tumor cancers. We are leveraging our expertise in cellular reprogramming, genetic engineering, and manufacturing to develop therapies with the potential to overcome many of the challenges inherent to cell therapy and provide a significant advantage over existing cell therapy technologies. We believe our commitment to developing off-the-shelf cell therapies will expand patient access and provides an unparalleled opportunity to advance the course of cancer care. For more information, please visit http://www.centurytx.com.

Story continues

Forward-Looking Statements

This press release contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of, and made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of, The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. All statements contained in this press release, other than statements of historical facts or statements that relate to present facts or current conditions, including but not limited to, statements regarding our our clinical development plans are forward-looking statements. These statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that may cause our actual results, performance, or achievements to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terms such as may, might, will, should, expect, plan, aim, seek, anticipate, could, intend, target, project, contemplate, believe, estimate, predict, forecast, potential or continue or the negative of these terms or other similar expressions. The forward-looking statements in this press release are only predictions. We have based these forward-looking statements largely on our current expectations and projections about future events and financial trends that we believe may affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this press release and are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and assumptions, some of which cannot be predicted or quantified and some of which are beyond our control, including, among others: our ability to successfully advance our current and future product candidates through development activities, preclinical studies, and clinical trials; our reliance on the maintenance of certain key collaborative relationships for the manufacturing and development of our product candidates; the timing, scope and likelihood of regulatory filings and approvals, including final regulatory approval of our product candidates; the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our business and operations; the performance of third parties in connection with the development of our product candidates, including third parties conducting our future clinical trials as well as third-party suppliers and manufacturers; our ability to successfully commercialize our product candidates and develop sales and marketing capabilities, if our product candidates are approved; and our ability to maintain and successfully enforce adequate intellectual property protection. These and other risks and uncertainties are described more fully in the Risk Factors section of our most recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and available at http://www.sec.gov. You should not rely on these forward-looking statements as predictions of future events. The events and circumstances reflected in our forward-looking statements may not be achieved or occur, and actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Moreover, we operate in a dynamic industry and economy. New risk factors and uncertainties may emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for management to predict all risk factors and uncertainties that we may face. Except as required by applicable law, we do not plan to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statements contained herein, whether as a result of any new information, future events, changed circumstances or otherwise.

Investor Contact:

Elizabeth Krutoholowinvestor.relations@centurytx.com267.857.1080

Media Contact:

media@centurytx.com

Read the rest here:
Century Therapeutics Announces Its Addition to the Russell 2000 Index - Yahoo Finance

The UK is gearing up to diverge from the EU and make it easier to research and commercially cultivate genetically engineered crops and animals after a key advisory body said the EUs current approach is inhibiting useful innovation.

Loosening current restrictions on altered organisms could mean British farmers face barriers selling genetically engineered produce to the EU.

But the UK Regulatory Horizons Council, an independent expert advisory body set up last year to scope regulatory change in fields ranging from fusion energy to artificial intelligence in healthcare, believes the risks are worth it, in part because there are signs Brussels may be softening its stance on genetically engineered products.

Earlier this month the council released a report enthusing that a new wave of gene editing techniques has the potential to create healthier, more disease resistant crops that need less pesticide and contribute less to climate change.

The report has a sort of pro-innovation, pro-gene editing bias to it, said David Rose, professor of agricultural innovation at Reading University. It tells us that DEFRA [the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs] is minded to try to change the regulations to allow gene editing as quickly as possible.

Responding to the councils report, business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng agreed there are substantial opportunities for the UK from genetic technologies and it is by ensuring a proportionate regulatory approach that we can fully take advantage of these.

Our exit from the EU provides the perfect opportunity to achieve [benefits] for the products of genetic technologies, he said.

The prospect of loosening rules around gene editing is seen by many UK scientists as one of the few silver linings to Brexit. EU rules have been rolled over in the UK, meaning the same restrictions apply as before, but in January DEFRA opened a consultation on changing the law.

At the heart of the debate is a distinction between first generation genetic technologies, which involve introducing marker genes from other organisms to show a particular transformation has taken place, and gene editing, such as through Crispr, which can make precise modifications to a plant or animal genome, without the need to introduce any foreign DNA.

Speeding up traditional breeding

This is seen by advocates of gene editing as being a more precise, faster and targeted way of carrying out traditional breeding, as has been practiced for thousands of years.

But as things stand, a controversial 2018 European Court of Justice ruling holds that gene edited organisms should be classified as genetically modified, and so be subject to strict limits on research and commercialisation.

In DEFRAs view, organisms generated by gene editing should not be regulated as GMOs if they could have been produced by traditional breeding methods.

The report from the Regulatory Horizons Council says the UK should establish a new regulatory regime for gene editing that balances, precaution about future hazards with ambition to gain future benefits

Regulatory data requirements should be proportionate to the nature and scale of potential risks and data that do not relate to a clearly specified policy should not be collected.

Currently, running field trials of genetically engineered and modified crops in the UK is possible but can be difficult, said Nigel Halford, a crop scientist at Rothamsted Research. The application process is lengthy and expensive, with an application fee of 5,000.

Last month, Halford and colleagues won approval for what will be the first field trials of Crispr edited wheat in Europe or the UK. The wheat has been modified to produce lower levels of a particular amino acid that is known to be carcinogenic.

Applications for field trials go to the UK government, but requests for full commercial cultivation have to be approved at EU level, and are routinely rejected, Halford said. Because thats so difficult, you cant get investment from companies to support the research.

Only one GMO, a pest-resistant form of maize approved in 1998, is grown in the EU. The EU does allow imports of GM crops, but these are largely for animal feed, such as soybeans, and only a small amount is for human consumption.

The risk is that if the UK allowed widespread cultivation of gene edited crops, British farmers could lose access to EU markets.

If we deregulate such that we allowed gene editing and the EU didnt, that would be problematic for exporting, said Rose.

But according to the report, this is a risk worth taking. There may be negative impacts on trade with the EU, the report warns. However, trading opportunities with most of the rest of the world beyond the EU will be opened up and, given the current lack of EU trade in products of genetic technologies, the balance for the UK is likely to be positive.

The council also predicts that the EU may start to loosen its rules, saying, There are also increasing pressures for regulatory change within the EU that could result in their future alignment with most other countries.

It points to a Commission report released in April that concluded current legislation is not fit for purpose for certain gene editing techniques, and that it needs to be adapted to scientific and technological progress.

As net importers of food, the UK and EU will probably (most likely definitely) have to deal with a world where genetic engineering becomes the norm with respect to the food supply chain, said Murray Grant, a food security researcher at Warwick University.

Read the rest here:
UK gears up to diverge from EU on targeted genetic modifications in farming - Science Business

Remember thatscene in Jurassic Park where mosquito blood is extracted for dinosaur genes? Now turn it on its raptor skull. Instead of bringing back extinct prehistoric species, what if invasive ones like malaria-carrying mosquitoes could be wiped out?

Bloodsucking insects are hardly the only cause for concern. Invasive species like mosquitoes can potentially harm endemic species and ruin ecosystems. The Galpagos islands are being strangled by 1,700 of these unwanted invaders. Cane toads, originally brought to Australia to get rid of sugarcane beetles, are so toxic that no predators can eat them to control the population, unless you count the cane toad cannibalism that has been going on.

There could be a way to get rid of organisms that never belonged somewhere in the first place. It would be impossible to trap every single infected mosquito in an outsize bug-zapper, or load every cane toad in the cargo hold of a ship headed for the regions of South and Central America where they were brought over from. What we do have is gene drive. Isla Nublar might not exist, but there is an island similar to the fictional one where experiments could be carried out to see whether certain invasive species would end up extinct if their genes were messed with.

It seems like an incredible idea. Imagine halting the spread of malaria, preventing crops from being ravaged or saving critically endangered species from having their food sources taken away by much more common, but invasive, ones. Gene drives usedirected gene repair editing (such as CRISPR) to force certain genes into a population. CRISPR has often been used to cut DNA to correct faulty genes, but it may soon have another use. The genes in proteins tell cells how to build those proteins. The proteins in the cells of an organism heavily influence traits.

For extinction experiments, parent organisms would be given genes that code for the CRISPR proteins that cut a strand of DNA along with a gene to spread sterility throughout the invasive species. Both genes would be inserted into the DNA strand where it is intended to be cut. CRISPR would make the cut in that strand and the new gene would be inserted into it right away. Inducing sterility would give those genes the highest chance of being passed down to offspring that would end up completely sterile in a few generations and die out.

So why is something that sounds like such an easy solution, which could happen in as little as a decade and doesnt involve toxic insecticides or herbicides, being ethically questioned?

What is now known as synthetic biology after a the recentInternational Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Congress in Marseille includes methods like gene drive. It seems that each invasive species needs to be investigated first. There is the possibility that organisms carrying sterility genes could have a detrimental impact on endemic species that they are able to breed with. An invasive rat species carrying the genes may produce offspring with an endemic rat and irreversibly damage its gene pool. Biodiversity could be threatened.

There are proponents for using gene drive to get rid of an invasive species because of potential positive effects. If an invasive species is investigated and found to have absolutely no positive effects in the area it has taken over, and cannot breed successfully with anything but members of its own species, genetic engineering could actually save biodiversity. The technology cannot just be unleashed like the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park. Each invasive species needs to be carefully examined to see whether the positives outweigh the negatives before doing anything in a lab.

Unfortunately, there is no universal path for minimizing the potential detrimental effects and maximizing the potential benefits of synthetic biology for biodiversity conservation, the IUCN website says.

If humans are going to do this, we had better get it right, because unlike watching the fictional dinosaur invasion that wrecked Isla Nublar, we wont be able to press rewind.

Read more from the original source:
If we pulled a Jurassic Park and messed with genes, would we be in more danger than the movie? - SYFY WIRE

Who doesnt want a lush, green lawn? One Clemson University professor is using transgene technology to create grass strains that can thrive in adverse conditions while at the same time protecting wild plants in the environment.

Hong Luo, a professor in the College of Sciences Department of Genetics and Biochemistry, is researching the use of microRNA genes to develop a cost-effective new system for transgene self-containment in switchgrass and turfgrass. He received a four-year grant totaling $500,000 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agricultures Biotechnology Risk Assessment Research Grants Program for the work.

Using genetic engineering for trait modification in plants is pretty popular, especially in annual crops; for example, corn, soybeans and cotton, Luo said, but there has never been research into genetic-engineered products for perennial-grass species. The reason for this is the publics concern about the possible consequences of releasing them into the environment and what the consequences could be of transgenes escaping into the wild to untransformed species.

Luos solution is to use miRNA that can serve double duty in plants enhancement and male or total sterility.

The major objective of this project is to develop and evaluate a novel approach that explores the use of different miRNA genes taking advantage of their dual roles in plant reproductive development and beneficial agronomic trait improvement, he explained.

One proven way to stop the escape of transgenes into the wild is to make the plants sterile, an additional modification that usually must take place simultaneously with the introduction of genes to bring about specific trait modifications.

That process is not only complicated, but Luo said it can also cause an accumulation of unwanted foreign DNAs in modified grass strains. By contrast, Luo involves the gene miR396, which regulates both plant sterility and abiotic stress responses, in combination with three additional miRNA genes that Luo said are positive regulators of plant abiotic stress responses.

Luos work isnt aimed just at making beautiful lawns. It could also have important applications for a wide range of crops. He also noted that breakthroughs with switchgrass could impact the energy industry, as switchgrass is a species that has been explored for use in biofuel production.

Read more here:
Perennial Grass Research Means Lusher Lawns May Be in the Future | - Southern Farm Network