Category Archives: Transhuman News

The environment ministry in India will make the final call after the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee recently gave a positive recommendation for the commercial cultivation of GM mustard. Whether the crop is commercially cultivated could depend on the Supreme Court, which is hearing a case seeking a moratorium on its commercial release. The government has stated it will abide by the courts decision (although that remains to be seen and some question the courts impartiality). The final hearing will probably take place in July. The casebefore the Supreme Court was brought by Aruna Rodrigues who accuses various officials and the regulatory authorities of unremitting fraud and regulatory delinquency.

The importance of GM mustard should not be underestimated. It is central to the whole debate about the future of agriculture in India and the wider development paradigm. GM mustard is a Trojan horse that would help pave the way for ripping up the economic and social fabric of India and recast for the benefit of powerful Western corporations, not least Bayer-Monsanto (seeGM Mustard in Indiato read my numerous articles on this issue).

GM mustard is being promoted on the basis of the lie that it will increase yield. However, the government itself admits theres no evidence that it will do so.In aletterto Anil Dave, Indias environment minister, presented below, advocate Prashant Bhushan says that conclusions were drawn and disseminated to mean that GM Mustard DMH 11 is a superior hybrid-making technology that will out-yield Indias best non-GMO hybrids and varieties. But he adds that non-GMO hybrids and varieties out-yield HT DMH 11 hands down.

Bhushan reminds the Indian government that it has admitted that there is no evidence that GM mustard out-yields non-GM. In an affidavit to the Supreme Court, the government stated,

No such claim has been made in any of the submitted documents that DMH 11 out-performs Non-GMO hybrids.

ANNEX

Resi. Office. Chamber

B-16,Sector-14,Noida C-67, Sector-14, Noida 301, New Lawyers Chamber

Dist. Gautam BudhNagar Dist. Gautam BudhNagar SupremeCourt Of India

(U.P.) 201 301 (U.P.) 201 301, fax: 0120-4512694 New Delhi

Ph : 0120-2512632, 2512693 Ph: 0120-2512523, 2512695 Ph: 011- 23070301,23070645.

Dated: May 13, 2017

Shri Anil DaveThe Honble Minister of MoEF and Climate Change Paryavaran Bhavan Lodhi Road New Delhi

COMMERCIAL APPROVAL BY THE GEAC OF HT MUSTARD HYBRID DMH 11ON 11 MAY 2017

Dear Shri Dave

I express a deep disquiet and anxiety at the opaque and unscientific regulatory oversight of this GM mustard, which is also an herbicide tolerant (GM) crop. It has resulted yesterday, in its undoubtedly flawed approval for Commercialisation by the GEAC. I write to request you to please withhold your approval of such a move on three grounds.

The firstis that the CJ, based on the assurance given by the AG Mukul Rohatgi that the Union of India will not release DMH 11without the prior approval of the Supreme Court,accordingly, gave a verbal Order of an interim injunction till the case is heard comprehensively and the issue of HT mustard in substance. This was widely reported in the newspapers, two examples of which are referenced ().

The secondis the grave matter of the independence, surety and rigourof the oversight of the biosafety of HT Mustard DMH 11, which is critical for Indias agriculture in mustard, its food safety (both as a vegetable and seed oil), and furthermore, and of outstanding importance, the certain contamination that will occur of Indias mustard germplasm. These matters are of course, of central concern to your Ministrys regulating function and mandate for India.

The thirdis the requirement and my personal plea to you, to take note of the lessons of history of GMO regulation in India, embedded as it is in the most serious conflicts of interest and lack of expertise, where regulation has become farcical. For this reason,self-assessed safety dossiersby crop developers are kept secret by our Regulators and governing Ministries. Four official reports attest to the prevailing, utterly dismal state of regulation.

May any government treat its citizens with such willful disregard, despite Constitutional provisions?

The Bt brinjal Biosafety-Dossier remained unpublished for 16 months despite a SC order, but eventually, the Regulators had to comply with its full publication (with the raw data), which then revealed its fraudulence when examined and appraised by independent scientists of international stature. Studies said to be done were not done, as many as 36 of 37 environmental studies, leaving aside other risk assessment protocols. The moratorium which followed was also in large part influenced by the fact thatIndia is the worlds Centre of brinjal diversitywith 2500 varieties and wild species, which would certainly be contaminated. This is what the 37thPSC of 2012 (on GMOs) had to say on Bt brinjal and regulation. I quote very briefly. I would urge you to read the full recommendations of just 3 pages:

-Convinced that these developments are not merely slippages due to oversight or human error but indicative of collusion of a worst kind,they have recommended a THOROUGH PROBE INTO THE BT. BRINJALmatter from the beginning up to the imposing of moratorium on its commercialization by the then Minister of Environment and Forests (I/C) on 9 February, 2010 by a team of independent scientists and environmentalists.(Recommendation Para No. 2.79).

The Committee after critically analyzingthe evidence the gross inadequacy of the regulatory mechanism, the absence of chronic toxicology studies and long term environment impact assessment of transgenic agricultural crops; the virtual non-existent nature of the oversight bodies like National Biodiversity Authority, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Right Authority, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, etc., recommended that till all the concerns voiced in their Report are fully addressed -, to put in place all regulatory, monitoring, oversight, surveillance and other structures,further research and development on transgenics in agricultural crops should only be done in strict containment and FIELD TRIALS UNDER ANY GARB SHOULD BE DISCONTINUED FORTHWITH.(Recommendation Para Nos. 8.116, 8.121 & 8.125)

Noting with concern the grossly inadequate and antiquated regulatory mechanism for assessment and approval of transgenics in food crops; the serious conflict of interest of various stakeholders involved in the regulatory mechanism; the total lack of post commercialization, monitoring and surveillance, the Committee have felt thatin such a situation what the Country needs is not a bio-technology regulatory legislationbut anall-encompassing umbrella legislation on bio-safety-The Committee have also cautioned the Government that in their tearing hurry to open the economy to private prospectors, they should NOT MAKE THE SAME FATE BEFALL ON THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR, as has happened to the communications, pharma, mineral wealth and several other sectors in which the Governmentsfacilitative benevolence preceded setting up of sufficient checks and balances and regulatory mechanisms,thereby, leading to colossal, unfettered loot and plunder of national wealth in some form or the other, incalculable damage to environment, bio-diversity, flora and fauna and unimaginable suffering to the common man.(Recommendation Para No. 3.47 & 3.48)

But till date, the GM mustard dossier remains unpublished in willful Contempt of Court. Prof Pental is the Chair of the DBTs Agricultural Biotechnology Task Force. SR Rao, Member GEAC is over-all in-charge of the DBTs Agri Biotech programmes.The DBT also funds Pentals GM mustard.

Does anything more need to be said to underscore the implications of thiscosyarrangement of partnership in the Regulatory oversight of HT mustard DMH 11 and GMOs in general?

Data that has leaked around the edges demonstrate that we have ample reason to be greatly concerned of gross cover-up and misconduct. Furthermore, this HT mustard DMH 11 and its two HT variants are doubly barred by the unanimous 5-member TEC recommendations: ie this is an HT crop and a crop in a Centre of genetic diversity.

The further contents of this letter below, make clear in the simplest possible way, from, and it has to be said, curious admissions of your Apex Regulator and the Union of India in their Reply Affidavit submitted to the SC, which effectively demolish wholesale, any sound basis for the release of HT DMH 11 for commercial cultivation. I make 3 short points, to alert you to the veracity of this statement, as you will not be briefed correctly on these matters by your Regulators and indeed by the Ministries of S & T and Agriculture, both of which promote HT DMH 11 and even fund it (DBT) as stated above:

(a) HT hybrid mustard DMH 11 has failed the first criteria of a test risk protocol of a GM crop:Is the GM Crop required in the first place?The answer inNobased on the admission of the Union of India itself in their Reply Affidavit in the SC.They said:

No such claim has been made in any of the submitted documents that DMH 11 out-performs Non-GMO hybrids. The comparison has only been made between hybrid DMH 11, NC (national Check) Varuna and the appropriate ZC (zonal checks) MSY of 2670 Kg/ha has been recorded over three years of BRL trials which is 28% and 37% more than the NC & ZC respectively (At 88, pg.56).

Unfortunately, the whole truth uncovered, is that no valid comparators were used and the field trials themselves stand voided on the basis of serious anomalies and violations in field testing, inconclusive results and even statistical fraud.Yet, conclusions were drawn and disseminated to mean that DMH 11 is a superiorhybrid-making technologythat will out-yield Indias best Non-GMO hybrids and varieties. The fact is, Non-GMO hybrids and varieties out-yield HT DMH 11 hands down.

(b) We know, based on the AGs assertion in Court that the Union of India holds that this GM mustard will displace imported edible oil-seeds in a significant way (reduce our oilseeds bill). However, such an assertion in the light of the above submission is to say the least ludicrous, entirely lacking any semblance of logic. Moreover, the nearest equivalent to Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) is rape-seed oil (Canola), imported from Canada (which is essentially GMO) and represents just 2% of Indias edible oil imports! Rs 68,000 Cr is the total import oil-seeds bill,not Canolaalone, as the AG mistakenly stated in Court. Can this be the basis for the Commercialisation of HT mustard DMH 11?

It gets murkier still when the U of I also admits that:

Heterosis is due to the careful selection of parents and not due to the three transgenes The developers have nowhere claimed that the yield increase is due to the three transgenes(At 65, page 45)

This is exactly the issue that there is no trait for yield in HT DMH 11. It is good indeed that on this point we are all in agreement. Yet, somehow, the opposite story prevails, the story to the media, and the PMO. The stand of the Niti Aayog is particularly curious in that their National Agri policy requires GMOs in agriculture to meet Indias food security as they are better yielding! Where in this statement is the basic science governing the trait for yield in GMOs and Mustard in particular? It is very troubling that the Niti Aayog has failed to do some basichomework.

(c) Therefore, we draw the conclusion that the stated regulatory intent is toderegulate HT DMH 11 as a policy agenda based on no science,and to convert Indias mustard agriculture, in a massive and dangerous experiment, to (GM) HThybridmustard, (variants of DMH 11). Imagine our consternation when your Regulator admitted to precisely this:

Once the GE mustard events Varuna bn 3.6 and EH2 modbs 2.99 are approved and deregulated, these would be immediately used by the National net-work programme Once a robust pollination control mechanism is in place,yield of hybrids can be further improved by breeding betterparental lines(at 63, pg. 43).

The statement is pure spin, dissimulation. Unless deconstructed, it conveys that HT Hybrid DMH11 is a superior hybrid-making technology (which it is not); that will (alone) provide 25 to 30% higher yield and even better, (not true, as admitted), because on the contrary, Indias best Non-GMO hybrids and varieties are already significantly outperforming HT DMH 11. Unfortunately and regrettably, the plain truth is that decades of good work already being done by our agri institutions and the DRMRin Non-GM hybrid technology and superior-yielding varieties will be laid waste in this dangerous plan for the country via HT Hybrid DMH 11 and its variants.

AND OUR GERMPLASM WILL BE THOROUGHLY CONTAMINATED AND IN A CENTRE OF MUSTARD DIVERSITY.

India is a centre of diversity in mustard with9720 Accessionsin our gene banks(The NBPGR). With a commercialised GM crop, contamination of non-GMO is certain. That is the evidence.

In closing, Id like to emphasise that GMO contamination is neither remediable nor reversible and is the outstanding concern. The genes in HT hybrid DMH 11 are toxic genes: being an HT crop also means that DMH 11 is a pesticidal crop. Its nationality doesnt change the science. It stays this way whether foreign or Indian! How do we get carried away on such a band-wagon?

The issue also is that with GMO contamination, our mustard will be changed at the molecular level. Any toxicity that there is will remain in perpetuity. Are we prepared to be the agents for such monumental risk and put India and its people in jeopardy without any recourse and remedy?

For these reasons among others, and there are decidedly others, I would urge you on behalf of our Nation not to endorse this outrageous and anti-national approval, but reject it in the public interest. You will be doing India a noble service in posterity.

Thank you, Yours sincerely,

Signed/

Prashant Bhushan

* * *

Notes

LiveLaw News Network: No GM Mustard Without SC Approval October 24, 2016;

http://www.dnaindia.comreport-will-not-release-gm-mustard-crop-commercially-without-supreme-court-s-permission-centre-

Directorate of Rape-Seed Mustard

Read the original:
India: Genetic Engineering, the Commercialization of GM Mustard and the Future of Agriculture - Center for Research on Globalization

TechCrunch

Synthego's genetic toolkit aims to make CRISPR more accessible TechCrunch 80 percent of users getting into CRISPR have never done genetic engineering at all. So we simplified the process, said Synthego founder Paul Dabrowski on stage at Disrupt today. It's a beautiful interface but there's a lot of heavy lifting in the ... Synthego aims to simplify CRISPR editing for genetic researchersEngadget all 5 news articles »

Excerpt from:
Synthego's genetic toolkit aims to make CRISPR more accessible - TechCrunch

Stories about a mysterious tool that can cut out and replace genes have crept out from behind the lab walls and entered boldly into the public spotlight. Nowadays, CRISPR is everywhere. And we cant help but let our imaginations wander, especially when the questions posed by this novel gene editing technology come straight out of a sci-fi movie.

Can we edit out bad genes that cause diseases in humans and replace them with healthy ones? Might parents be able to design babies to their liking, with a certain hair or eye color, personality, or intelligence level? Could we engineer animals so they cant pass on deadly diseases to us? Can we even add or remove epigenetic marks on genes of our choice to control the expression of lifes code and, perhaps, our very behavior?

The precise power of the CRISPR-Cas9 system has created exciting yet controversial opportunities for genetic and epigenetic editing. Although we certainly dont have all the answers, the intriguing questions require further exploration and a deeper look into the near and distant possibilities for our society. As endless as the opportunities may appear to scientists and laypeople alike, some are more realistic than others. Its crucial we trim the hype from the realistic capabilities of CRISPR, as we usher in what some may call the golden age of genetic engineering.

The start of CRISPR

You know when you pick up a suspense novel, and read the first chapter, and you get a little chill, and you know, Oh, this is going to be good? It was like that. Jennifer Doudna, Ph.D. Credit:The New York Times.

Since the beginning of CRISPRs recent discovery as a precise and simple gene editing method, interest in its potential to improve our quality of life has skyrocketed, and with no end in sight. A similar excitement was expressed by one of the co-inventors of CRISPR, Jennifer Doudna from University of California Berkeley.

In 2011, Doudna was approached at a microbiology conference in Puerto Rico by a researcher from Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology, Emmanuelle Charpentier. The two started a conversation that laid the ground work for arguably one of the greatest collaborations, which spurred the invention of CRISPR.

I had this feeling. You know when you pick up a suspense novel, and read the first chapter, and you get a little chill, and you know, Oh, this is going to be good? It was like that, Doudna told The New York Times in 2015.

Surprisingly, the investigation of CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats) in bacteria is not a new thing. Researchers have been exploring these repeated sequences since the 1980s, but their function was unknown at the time. Then, scientists slowly started to uncover clues about their purpose, which pointed to a built-in adaptive immune system that bacteria used to combat invaders such as viruses.

Within the past few years, researchers like Jennifer Doudna and Emanuelle Charpentier, along with postdoc researcher Martin Jinek, have been tapping into the gene-editing possibilities of the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Meanwhile, Feng Zhang from the Broad Institute and MIT was eager to show that the system worked in mouse and human cells, which he accomplished in his paper published in 2013. He even created an alternative genome engineering method called CRISPR-Cpf1, which may improve the tools precision and power.

Recently, the two groups of researchers entered a fiery battle for a CRISPR patent and the scientific community called for a moratorium on using CRISPR to edit the human germline for fear of unknown repercussions as a result of making heritable changes that could shift the gene pool. It will surely be intriguing to follow the progression of this gene editing system and its uncertain what the future holds.

How it works

The CRISPR-Cas9 system targets precise gene sequences and removes, adds to, or changes them with the help of two components: an enzyme called Cas9 and guide RNA (gRNA). Its based on the naturally occurring ability of bacteria to recognize and destroy invading viruses via a genetic memory.

SEE ALSO: The Epigenetics Behind the Flu

Cas9 acts as the scissor that snips the DNA and the RNA guide is a tailor-made sequence that ensures Cas9 is cutting in the right place. Researchers are able to program the guide RNA with any sequence of the genetic code they desire in order to lead Cas9 to the proper location.

Other techniques for editing DNA, such as TALENs and zinc finger nucleases were explored by researchers around the same time, but these methods have a much lower level of precision and are significantly more cumbersome. Unlike other techniques, CRISPR can even target multiple genes at once. The beauty of this gene editing system is how relatively simple, accessible, and incredibly precise it is. However, even among the accomplishments there are certainly limitations.

CRISPR accomplishments

As young as the technology is, scientists have been working feverishly with the CRISPR-Cas9 system in several applications. In one study published in PNAS, a group of researchers edited out a gene sequence in mosquitos and replaced it with a DNA segment that rendered them resistant to the parasite that causes malaria, known as Plasmodium falciparum. This could prevent mosquitos from transmitting the disease to humans entirely. Interestingly, when these malaria-resistant genetically modified mosquitos mated, they passed on the resistance to nearly 99% of their offspring. This was true even if a modified mosquito bred with a normal one.

A study conducted by a Chinese research team led by geneticist Lei Qu at Yulin University also demonstrated the successful use of CRISPR to bulk up livestock. They manipulated goats DNA to make them more muscular and produce more wool, in the hopes of bolstering the goat meat and cashmere sweater industry in Shaanxi, China. We believed gene-modified livestock will be commercialized after we demonstrate [that it] is safe, Qu predicted in an article by Scientific American.

Another group of researchers were able to edit out a genetic mutation in mice that causes a disease known as retinitis pigmentosa (RP), which can ultimately lead to blindness. Although not yet approved for use in humans, they were able to restore the mices vision and are hopeful for its therapeutic application in people. They recently published their results in Nature.

Not only can scientists edit genes using CRISPR, but they may be able to change the epigenome using CRISPR as well. Many diseases are not caused by a single genetic mutation but rather disturbed gene expression profiles. Harnessing the ability to edit epigenetic marks could drastically broaden our ability to cure a much wider range of disorders. In theory, perhaps editing our epigenome could allow us to cherry-pick more desirable behaviors.

Researchers can also utilize the power of next generation sequencing to perform chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing (ChIP-seq) with a CRISPR/Cas9 antibody. The precise, high throughput capability of this method is especially promising because of the target efficiency of the Cas9 enzyme in conjunction with multiple guide RNAs, which can be used simultaneously for multiplexing. Not only can ChIP-seq be useful as an unbiased method for detecting on-target effects of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing system, but it might also be used to pinpoint how the system might miss the mark, which would be helpful when developing the system for therapeutic application.

Recently, researchers used the CRISPR-Cas9 system to add acetyl groups to histones, carrying enzymes to certain locations on the genome. Histone modifications, including histone acetylation and histone methylation, have the ability to remodel chromatin to make genes more or less accessible, influencing their expression. Other research suggests we may modify DNA methylation with CRISPR-Cas9, which could prove invaluable for understanding and treating disorders that are linked to this epigenetic modification, such as cancer, lupus, muscular dystrophy, and many others.

Although these studies have been conducted in animal models and the only CRISPR-Cas9 research on non-viable human embryos was performed in China, there is much more to be learned about the effects of CRISPR in humans and how it might be used towards creating what has gained a lot of attention recently superior designer babies.

Continue to the next page to read about designer babies and future directions.

Follow this link:
Cut Out the Hype: Gene Editing With CRISPR and the Truth about Superhuman 'Designer Babies' - WhatIsEpigenetics.com (blog)