The history of genetic engineering

Genetic Engineering
(1970-1990)

By the end of the 20th century, scientists were routinely trans. planting genes between organisms. shutting them down to study their functions, and manipulating them in many other ways. These technologies were being applied to the production of new foods and medicines, and many other uses could be foreseen. Bactena might be specially engineered to clean up oil spills or other types of pollution, artificial viruses might deliver healthy DNA to people suffering From genetic illnesses, and the body’s immune system could be reprogrammed to fight off cancer and other diseases. At the same time, genetic engineering is constantly presented as a scary topic in the headlines. A few examplesfrom 2007 were Franken.Broccolic The GM Seed Giants lumber into the Vcggic Latch.” from the December 19 issue of Gristmagazine; ‘Attack of the Mutant Biotech Rice,” from the July 9 issue of Fortune; and Generically Engineered Organisms Inv
ade Our Planet.” printed in the Epoch Times of March 12. What headlines usually fail to capture is the fact that genetic engineering has been a crucial tool in answering Fundamental questions about life. Genetic engineering was made possible by the development of new forms of biotechnology. This chapter describes how work carried out between the 1970s and 1990s produced an extremely Restriction enzymes are DNA cutting molecules from bacteria that are used as tools in genetic engineering. The enzymes recognize particular DNA sequences and break the strand, leaving two sticky ends. Other molecules recognize that the broken ends match and can mend them. If researchers create an artificial molecule with broken, sticky ends that match such breaks, the repair molecules may paste it into an organism’s genome.

Genetic Engineering from (1970-1990)

Genetic Engineering
(1970-1990)

By the end of the 20th century, scientists were routinely trans. planting genes between organisms. shutting them down to study their functions, and manipulating them in many other ways. These technologies were being applied to the production of new foods and medicines, and many other uses could be foreseen. Bactena might be specially engineered to clean up oil spills or other types of pollution, artificial viruses might deliver healthy DNA to people suffering From genetic illnesses, and the body’s immune system could be reprogrammed to fight off cancer and other diseases. At the same time, genetic engineering is constantly presented as a scary topic in the headlines. A few examplesfrom 2007 were Franken.Broccolic The GM Seed Giants lumber into the Vcggic Latch.” from the December 19 issue of Gristmagazine; ‘Attack of the Mutant Biotech Rice,” from the July 9 issue of Fortune; and Generically Engineered Organisms Inv
ade Our Planet.” printed in the Epoch Times of March 12. What headlines usually fail to capture is the fact that genetic engineering has been a crucial tool in answering Fundamental questions about life. Genetic engineering was made possible by the development of new forms of biotechnology. This chapter describes how work carried out between the 1970s and 1990s produced an extremely

The toxic algae and No-Till-The environmental Darling industrial agriculture and genetic engineering is less attractive

The toxic algae and No-Till-The environmental Darling industrial agriculture and genetic engineering is less attractive :  

Read attempts to defend the sustainability of industrial agriculture and genetic engineering, and you soon find yourself without tillage, or more generally, conservation tillage. It now appears that tillage can contribute to serious environmental problems.

Massive algal bloom, green, spreading across Lake Erie. NASA photo.

Tillage or tillage, is the ancient practice of turning the soil to kill weeds or incorporating plant material or manure. Tillage but often leads to increased soil erosion and loss of fertility. Erosion also contributes to the settling of phosphorus flows carrying the ground, a major cause of contamination of fresh water. So conservation tillage and direct seeding, in particular, have some real benefits, especially for industrial agriculture, which depletes soil fertility.

And soil fertility, in turn, is vital to ensure the productivity and resilience of crops.

We know that, while providing some real benefits, conservation tillage also has important limitations compared with agroecological approaches that reduce erosion, such as the growth of cover crops. Cover crops are grown to protect the soil in crops like maize are not present in the fall, winter and spring. They not only greatly reduce erosion and improve soil fertility, but also substantially reduce nitrogen loss caused by water pollution, such as dead zones in coastal areas. They can also suppress weeds and other pests, and reduce the need for synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Conservation tillage provides none of these other benefits.

Another possible benefit of conservation tillage, the largest carbon capture is unproven. There may be providing some additional carbon capture some types of soils and climates compared to conventional tillage, but that remains to be seen. Furthermore, organic and related methods may not reliably increase soil carbon sequestration.

Toxic Slime
And now, new research reveals a darker side of the till, which can actually aggravate phosphorus pollution of waterways.

I grew up in Michigan, the heart of the Great Lakes region. These lakes, the largest in the world, are a wonder of nature that are more like freshwater seas. The lakes are an excellent resource for recreation, from swimming to fishing to boating. The Great Lakes have also had important commercial fisheries whitefish and other species. There has even been the Great Lakes cruises. The presence of lakes, including the smaller lakes in the region that extends from the Canadian prairies of the Midwest through upstate New York, greatly improves the quality of life and supports tourism.

He learns that the green slime cyanobacteria (sometimes called blue-green algae) was back with a vengeance was a shock. Efforts to reduce phosphorus plant wastewater treatment and laundry detergents in the 60s and 70s led to one of the real successes of the environmental movement. Lake Erie is particularly susceptible because they are relatively shallow. But in general are vulnerable lakes, smaller lakes and reservoirs, possibly even more. So although detected in Lake Erie, also happening elsewhere. For example, Lake Winnipeg, a large lake in Canada, is also seeing increasing eutrophication.

And the problems go beyond an eyesore cause odors or missing or fish kills. Two major species of cyanobacterial neurotoxins liver or products, found in the lake to alarming levels.

Lake Erie algal bloom of 2011 set records, reaching nearly 5,000 square miles, or about 3 times that of the next largest flowering. However, records show that algal blooms have increased since the mid-1990s, after several decades of progress.

What happened? Why the drive towards cleaner water reversed?

Direct seeding and climate change: a bad combination
The increase in harmful algal blooms coincides with the increasing use of direct seeding in the corn belt. It turns out that no-till, apply phosphorus fertilizer and phosphorus in manure is concentrated in the topsoil. Although direct seeding reduces runoff and soil erosion, which leads phosphorus bound to soil particles into waterways, resulting high concentration of phosphorus in the soil surface leads to runoff dissolved reactive phosphorus. Algal blooms resulting from this are compounded by heavy rains, which wash more phosphorus in the lake, which is expected to be more frequent in the region as global warming progresses.

Besides that, the phosphorus may become scarce in the future. Large deposits are found in only a few locations worldwide. Therefore, the loss of phosphorus from agricultural soils is also a waste of a valuable resource.

Tillage may occasionally help alleviate this problem, by burying the match. But it is clear that many forms of farming, such as the use of chisel plows cultivators or not invert the soil, or methods such as tillage or ridge rotation until, and so on, will address the problem effectively. And the data are scarce on whether the other benefits of direct seeding also be reduced in the process. Furthermore, most of the maize area still do not use direct seeding or conservation tillage, so it is possible that greater adoption could make things worse.

One lesson from this is that reductionist approaches to environmental problems that almost focus on solving a problem, such as soil erosion, without understanding the agricultural ecosystem are vulnerable to lack of harmful unintended consequences. Direct seeding is a valuable practice in some aspects, but as used in industrial agriculture, which relies on heavy use of herbicides, which causes its damage to agroecosystems, such as loss of habitat of the monarch butterfly, bees and other beneficial organisms.

It is also important to remember that other agro-based practices such as cover crops can achieve the benefits of direct seeding and more. Not only that, but no-till organic can also be practiced without the use of herbicides.

But it is no coincidence that the industry no-till has been a popular practice as a rhetorical tool ag community and industry. Fits the highly simplified and unsustainable system that big ag industry wants to keep. It is one of the few large ag practices that can promote that has some environmental benefits. And unlike agroecology, which depends on the products purchased expensive. That's good for the profitability of the industry, but not so good for the rest of us.

Posted in: Agriculture & Food Tags: agriculture, climate change, cover crops, genetic engineering, GMO, industrial agriculture, Lake Erie, phosphorus, sustainable agriculture, toxic algae, water pollution
About the author: Doug Gurian-Sherman is a widely cited expert on biotechnology and sustainable agriculture. He holds a Ph.D. in plant pathology. Subscribe to entries Doug

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Want to join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Genetic engineering ... good or bad?

Genetic engineering ... good or bad? :



Have you ever heard of genetic engineering? According to dictionary.com, genetic engineering is "the use of various methods to manipulate the DNA (genetic material) of cells to change hereditary traits or produce biological products." Over the years, scientists have been researching and trying different ways to use bioengineering. So far, they have managed to create medicinal eggs and bananas, goats that produce spider web proteins in their milk, and cats, even brilliant. You may have seen the genetic engineering work itself in certain foods such as beans, corn and tomatoes that are made to last for long periods of time. Genetic engineering has created wonderful things for humanity, but what is the right thing to do?

Most of the inventions that have come out of genetic engineering is supposed to have beneficial effects, but some people think that the manipulation of nature can disrupt the balanced system of life. For example, the virus that once affected by drugs such as antibiotics are evolving to medications like antibiotics have been overused and may not be effective. In addition, genetic engineering could add more allergens into the food supply. For example, if a certain food should be raised with a common allergen such as peanuts, new product, genetically altered may cause an allergic reaction in a person with a peanut allergy.

In my opinion, genetic engineering is a good thing. Genetic engineering has created the things that people have only dreamed. Thanks to him, we might be able to find a cure for terminal illnesses and be able to make the most of the resources we have been given. We humans just have to use it responsibly. "With great power comes great responsibility", after all.

If we can find a way to keep our medicines affective and put food alerts on GM foods, along with other preventive measures put in place, we can explore and enjoy science, while being safe.

We have created "disease fighting eggs" and ecobeneficial pastures and cows with genetic engineering. Who says we can not do more? If we make sure to use it wisely, the future of genetic engineering may have an important role in the modern world ..

The Biogen Kenneth Murray dejo un Legado

The Biogen Kenneth Murray dejo un Legado :

Don Seiffert
Associate Editor MHT-
Boston Business Journal
Email
When Kenneth Murray, a professor at the University of Edinburgh in the 1970s, was involved in the founding of a company that later became Biogen Idec (Nasdaq: BIIB), was criticized by his peers as engaging in "activities repugnant. "

Phillip Sharp, a 1993 Nobel molecular biologist and co-founder of Biogen in 1978, along with Murray, told Mass High Tech that even here in the U.S., it was rare that a researcher is involved in the industry, although not was another way for drugs that are available for patients.
"There were few, if any, the MIT faculty involved in biotechnology at all" he said. "In fact, there were only invented the word."
Murray died earlier this month at age 82 at his home in Edinburgh, but the lives of patients who have saved and improved through the company he helped create will not be soon forgotten. Sharp, who is 69 years old and lives in Newton, Massachusetts, says he knew Murray in the 1970s because they were scientists working on recombinant DNA and genetics, and they met at international meetings. They, along with six others, co-founder of Biogen based on two initial drugs: interferon alpha for certain types of leukemia and hepatitis C, and hepatitis B vaccine, which is based on the investigation of Murray.
The hepatitis B vaccine Biogen was approved for use in 1982 and formed the revenue stream Biogen earlier, according to a brief biography written by Biogen. Before that, the vaccine was available, but very limited, and it had to be done with the blood of hepatitis B. Murray has found a way to create synthetically, and the resulting patent was cited in 2002 by IP Worldwide magazine as one of the 10 patents that changed the world, according to the company.

Genetic engineering standby in citrus disease battle

Genetic engineering standby in citrus disease battle : 

A pandemic is destroying Florida orange groves. The disease, citrus greening, also is spreading citrus plantations in Texas and California, threatening more than $ 3 billion a year industry.
If left unaddressed, the entire U.S. citrus industry would disappear and, as Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, "We're going to end up paying $ 5 for an orange - and we have to be one imported from somewhere else."

Citrus Greening is spread by bacteria that block nutrients trees "and the water channels and avoid the fruit ripens.

"It's like choking the tree from the inside out," said David Banda, a state molecular biologist at the University of Washington and biochemist who is collaborating with a broad interdisciplinary team to fight the disease.

The disease spreads Insects

The bacteria are hosted and spread by an insect related to aphids and whiteflies called the Asian citrus psyllid (pronounced sill-id). It is believed that the disease has spread in China in the 2000s. Citrus greening has destroyed the citrus industry in Jamaica.

The invasive psyllids citrus trees pierce with a needle-shaped nozzle, similar to the way a mosquito infects its victims. As supplies of water and nutrients from the tree, the psyllid injected disease-causing bacteria, which then spread to the rest of the plant.

To combat this aggressive disease, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has funded a multi-faceted initiative, multi-institutional participation of more than 40 researchers located in various states. Scientists are studying the ecological consequences of the disease, the biology of the citrus trees, insects and the mechanism by which the bacteria spread insect.
Want access to the latest agricultural news every day? Newspaper Sign up for email newsletter Farm West.

Pesticides have been of some use in controlling psyllids but researchers are concerned that insects develop resistance. And biocontrol - siccing good insects to prey on the poor - have proved ineffective because the psyllid just inbred predators.

That's where David Gang enters the picture.

Altering the insect

The gang laboratory at the Institute of Biological Chemistry WSU focuses on the use of new technologies such as genomics and proteomics to study the mechanisms of plant defense, particularly the chemicals that help plants survive and fight pathogens and pests. The project, funded by the USDA, Gang and colleagues isolated and sequenced the genes that are expressed in the psyllids, as they feed on citrus plants.

History Of Human Revolution : Pikaya

History Of Human Revolution


                                  Pikaya

"Pikaya" is the first elies that had Spinal Cord. It showed it's existence before 60,000 crore  years. The scientist research said that "Pikaya was the first Human Ansistor " - Dr Madurima

NEWS : Gene sequencing project finds new mutations of the blame for most subtypes of brain tumors

Gene sequencing project finds new mutations of the blame for most subtypes of brain tumors : 

MEMPHIS, Tenn., April 14, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The St. Jude Children's Research Hospital – Washington University Pediatric Cancer Genome Project has identified mutations responsible for more than half of a subtype of childhood brain tumor that takes a high toll on patients. Researchers also found evidence the tumors are susceptible to drugs already in development.

The study focused on a family of brain tumors known as low-grade gliomas (LGGs). These slow-growing cancers are found in about 700 children annually in the U.S., making them the most common childhood tumors of the brain and spinal cord. For patients whose tumors cannot be surgically removed, the long-term outlook remains bleak due to complications from the disease and its ongoing treatment. Nationwide, surgery alone cures only about one-third of patients.

Using whole genome sequencing, researchers identified genetic alterations in two genes that occurred almost exclusively in a subtype of LGG termed diffuse LGG. This subtype cannot be cured surgically because the tumor cells invade the healthy brain. Together, the mutations accounted for 53 percent of the diffuse LGG in this study. Researchers also demonstrated that one of the mutations, which had not previously been linked to brain tumors, caused tumors when introduced into the glial brain cells of mice.

The findings appear in the April 14 advance online edition of the scientific journal Nature Genetics.

"This subtype of low-grade glioma can be a nasty chronic disease, yet prior to this study we knew almost nothing about its genetic alterations," said David Ellison, M.D., Ph.D., chair of the St. Jude Department of Pathology and the study's corresponding author. The first author is Jinghui Zhang, Ph.D., an associate member of the St. Jude Department of Computational Biology.

The Pediatric Cancer Genome Project is using next-generation whole genome sequencing to determine the complete normal and cancer genomes of children and adolescents with some of the least understood and most difficult to treat cancers. Scientists believe that studying differences in the 3 billion chemical bases that make up the human genome will provide the scientific foundation for the next generation of cancer care.

"We were surprised to find that many of these tumors could be traced to a single genetic alteration," said co-author Richard K. Wilson, Ph.D., director of The Genome Institute at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. "This is a major pathway through which low-grade gliomas develop and it provides new clues to explore as we search for better treatments."

The study involved whole genome sequencing of 39 paired tumor and normal tissue samples from 38 children and adolescents with different subtypes of LGG and related tumors called low-grade glioneuronal tumors (LGGNTs). Although many cancers develop following multiple genetic abnormalities, 62 percent of the 39 tumors in this study stemmed from a single genetic alteration.

Previous studies have linked LGGs to abnormal activation of the MAPK/ERK pathway. The pathway is involved in regulating cell division and other processes that are often disrupted in cancer. Until now, however, the genetic alterations involved in driving this pathway were unknown for some types of LGG and LGGNT.

This study linked activation in the pathway to duplication of a key segment of the FGFR1 gene, which investigators discovered in brain tumors for the first time. The segment is called a tyrosine kinase domain. It functions like an on-off switch for several cell signaling pathways, including the MAPK/ERK pathway. Investigators also demonstrated that experimental drugs designed to block activity along two altered pathways worked in cells with the FGFR1 tyrosine kinase domain duplication. "The finding suggests a potential opportunity for using targeted therapies in patients whose tumors cannot be surgically removed," Ellison said.

Researchers also showed that the FGFR1 abnormality triggered an aggressive brain tumor in glial cells from mice that lacked the tumor suppressor gene Trp53. 

Whole-genome sequencing found previously undiscovered rearrangements in the MYB and MYBL1 genes in diffuse LGGs. These newly identified abnormalities were also implicated in switching on the MAPK/ERK pathway. Researchers checked an additional 100 LGGs and LGGNTs for the same FGFR1, MYB and MYBL1mutations. Overall, MYB was altered in 25 percent of the diffuse LGGs, and 24 percent had alterations in FGFR1. Researchers also turned up numerous other mutations that occurred in just a few tumors. The affected genes included BRAF, RAF1, H3F3A, ATRX, EP300, WHSC1 and CHD2.

"The Pediatric Cancer Genome Project has provided a remarkable opportunity to look at the genomic landscape of this disease and really put the alterations responsible on the map. We can now account for the genetic errors responsible for more than 90 percent of low-grade gliomas," Ellison said.  "The discovery that FGFR1 and MYB play a central role in childhood diffuse LGG also serves to distinguish the pediatric and adult forms of the disease."

The other authors are Gang Wu, Ruth Tatevossian, James Dalton, Bo Tang, Wilda Orisme, Chandanamali Punchihewa, Ibrahim Qaddoumi, Frederick Boop, Matthew Parker, Ryan Lee, Robert Huether, Xiang Chen, Erin Hedlund, Panduka Nagahawatte, Michael Rusch, Kristy Boggs, Jinjun Cheng, Jared Becksfort, Jing Ma, Guangchun Song, Yongjin Li, Lei Wei, Jianmin Wang, Sheila Shurtleff, John Easton, David Zhao, Bhavin Vadodaria, Heather Mulder, Chunlao Tang, Charles Mullighan, Amar Gajjar, Richard Kriwacki, Richard Gilbertson, James Downing and Suzanne Baker, all of St. Jude; Claudia Miller, formerly of St. Jude; Charles Lu, Cyriac Kandoth, Li Ding, Robert Fulton, Lucinda Fulton, David Dooling, Kerri Ochoa and Elaine Mardis, all of Washington University; and Denise Sheer of Queen Mary University of London.

The research was funded in part by the Pediatric Cancer Genome Project, including Kay Jewelers, a lead partner; a grant (CA096832) from the National Institutes of Health; and ALSAC.

St. Jude Children's Research Hospital St. Jude Children's Research Hospital is internationally recognized for its pioneering research and treatment of children with cancer and other life-threatening diseases. The hospital's research has helped push overall survival rates for childhood cancer from less than 20 percent when the institution opened to almost 80 percent today. It is the first and only National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center devoted solely to children, and no family ever pays St. Jude for anything. For more information, 

Washington University School of Medicine Washington University School of Medicine's 2,100 employed and volunteer faculty physicians also are the medical staff of Barnes-Jewish and St. Louis Children's hospitals. The School of Medicine is one of the leading medical research, teaching and patient care institutions in the nation, currently ranked sixth in the nation by U.S. News & World Report. Through its affiliations with Barnes-Jewish and St. Louis Children's hospitals, the School of Medicine is linked to BJC HealthCare.

NEWS : Gene sequencing helps identify drug resistant malaria

Gene sequencing helps identify drug-resistant malaria : 

Know your enemy and the fight becomes easier. Researchers have pinpointed three sub-populations of the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum that appear to be a major force in drug resistance. The findings could help efforts to track the spread of resistant malaria in future. The first signs of resistance to the front-line malarial drug artemisinin emerged in Cambodia in 2009. If this resistance spreads worldwide, it will leave people with malaria without an effective drug to treat their illness.  Olivo Miotto at the University of Oxford, and a large international team, studied the genomes of 825 malarial parasites from south-east Asia and west Africa in an effort to understand why some parasite populations become resistant.  The work identified three drug-resistant P. falciparum sub-populations in western Cambodia that were different from each other, and different from populations in eastern Cambodia, neighbouring countries and west Africa. "For the first time we have identified the emergence of sub-populations associated with a drug resistance to artemisinin," says Miotto.

         

Why Cambodia?
Cambodia is thought to be a breeding ground for resistance. Past drug therapies in the country encouraged sole use of artemisinin to treat malaria, which could have been a factor.  Demographic factors could also have played a part: the Khmer Rouge regime of the late 1970s left the country with poor infrastructure and small, isolated communities. In those circumstances, a resistant strain can replicate itself quickly through inbreeding: in west Africa there is more outbreeding, which may slow the spread of resistance there. "This research sheds light on the evolution of artemisinin resistance and suggests that the situation is more complicated than we thought," says Lisa Ranford-Cartwright from the University of Glasgow, UK, who was nt involved in the study.  A full understanding of the mechanisms that build resistance is still out of reach, but the new study does mean researchers will be able to use genetic tests to identify any geographical spread of the three resistant sub-populations in future. "Being able to detect if there is a sudden explosion of one particular type of parasite will indicate if something is going wrong," Miotto says.

Recently Report: The Genetic Revolution

                 The Genetic Revolution
On DNA Day, we celebrate the achievements that are ushering in the era of personalized genetic medicine

                                                                  The Genetic Revolution
                             60 years ago this month, researchers James Watson and Francis Crick described the double helix shape of DNA. This breakthrough allowed geneticists to study how an organism’s physical characteristics are encoded in the DNA molecule, and how living creatures pass down traits to their offspring. Ten years ago this month, researchers completed sequencing the human genome, putting the roughly 3 billion letters that make up a molecule of human DNA in order. The Human Genome Project took more than a decade and cost about US $3 billion. With this comprehensive map, researchers can more easily study how our genes determine our medical fates. On April 25, researchers celebrate DNA Day to mark the accomplishments of the past, and to marvel at the progress made since those historic milestones. Today, fast and cheap machines enable scientists to sequence the genomes of thousands of people in research projects devoted to complex diseases like cancer and heart disease. Soon, such whole-genome scans may be a routine part of medicine. IEEE Spectrum explores the new field of personalized genetic medicine with a package of articles, radio pieces, and blog posts. Happy DNA Day!

NEWS : Stress Syndrome Linked to genetic defect Pig

   Stress Syndrome Linked to genetic defect Pig :

Pig Stress Syndrome

A defect in a gene called dystrophin is the cause of a newly discovered stress syndrome in pigs, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) scientists have found. Stress-related issues like transportation cost the U.S. swine industry an estimated $50 million a year. Producers as well as researchers have long suspected that undetected stress-related syndromes are affecting the health and well-being of pigs. This notion was confirmed when scientists at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (USMARC) in Clay Center, Neb., discovered a stress syndrome in two 3-month-old male siblings that died after being transported from one facility to another. The novel syndrome is different than the classical porcine stress syndrome, which was eliminated from U.S. swine herds years ago. Molecular biologist Dan Nonneman and his colleagues in the USMARC Reproduction Research Unit mapped the stress disorder to a genetic mutation in dystrophin. Mutations in dystrophin, which cause DMD—Duchenne muscular dystrophy—are associated with muscle weakness that can lead to death. To map the disease, scientists re-mated the original parents of the affected siblings to produce additional litters. The 250 offspring, which included 49 affected piglets, were genotyped, and one chromosomal region containing the dystrophin gene was associated with the syndrome. Piglets affected by the syndrome had an abnormal heart rate when treated with an anesthesia and monitored. The heart rate of unaffected pigs undergoing the same treatments remained steady. Animals with the stress condition had half as much dystrophin protein as their unaffected siblings. Pigs suspected of having the syndrome also had three times as much creatine phosphokinase, an enzyme used to monitor heart and muscle diseases. The gene is located on the X chromosome, and the syndrome is found primarily in males that inherit the affected X chromosome from their mother. Animals seem more susceptible at two months of age, a time when piglets are transported from nursery to grower facilities. Read more about this research in the April 2013 issue of Agricultural Research magazine.
ARS is USDA's chief intramural scientific research agency, and this research supports USDA's priority of promoting international food security.

NEWS :CIHR Café Scientifique: Genetic Testing and You, April 15.

CIHR Café Scientifique: Genetic Testing and You, April 15.: 

What does it mean when you undergo genetic testing? Do you need this test? What does the information mean and how will it be used? Who do you share this information with? Can this information hurt your access to insurance, credit or a job? How can it help you? Join the discussion and hear from a panel of experts that include Timothy Caulfield, Professor, Faculty of Law and School of Public Health, University of Alberta; Bev Heim-Myers, Chair, The Canadian Coalition for Genetic Fairness; Gail Ouellette, Directrice, Regroupement québécois des maladies orphelines; and Frank Zinatelli, Vice-president and general counsel, Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association.

                                                                            Monday, April 15, 2013

NEWS : Gene patents hurt everyone

Gene patents hurt everyone :

 Most court cases involving patent law are corporate battles, with one company suing another for infringing on its intellectual property rights and, therefore, profits. Big companies fighting over big money can seem painfully irrelevant, especially when so many of us are simply struggling to get by. But the case coming before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday challenging two patents is a different animal, with enormous implications for both our health and shared humanity. The patents in question are on two human genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, commonly referred to as the “breast cancer genes.” We all have these genes in the cells of our bodies, but certain variants in some people significantly increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancer. Learning whether you have these risk-elevating mutations can be important because it gives you the opportunity to consider increased surveillance (such as cancer screenings and mammography) and even surgery to remove healthy organs. The patents give one biotechnology company, Myriad Genetics Inc., sweeping control of the two genes. Myriad’s monopoly harms women’s health, impedes cancer research and raises important ethical questions about control over the human genome. Myriad’s patents cover both the normal versions of the genes and all mutations and rearrangements within them. This monopoly has prevented other scientists and doctors from using the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes in research, medicine, diagnosis and treatment. With revenue from the patents approaching half a billion dollars a year, Myriad frequently restricts access to these genes. It sends cease-and-desist notices to prevent other researchers from working with them. Myriad’s strict patent enforcement means its test is the only available one to determine whether a woman has a genetic variant that increases her risk of cancer. Women cannot get a second opinion about the results, even when faced with a decision about removing healthy organs to reduce their cancer risk. And too many women cannot even have the test because it is too expensive. Furthermore, because Myriad’s test focuses on already-identified variants, some women, especially women of color, are more likely to get ambiguous results. They are told they have a genetic variant but that Myriad doesn’t know whether it increases their risk of cancer. The lawsuit before the Supreme Court this week has united women’s health organizations, research groups, genetic counselors and breast cancer patients. The American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation, the lead plaintiffs, make a straightforward argument (full disclosure: Breast Cancer Action is also a plaintiff; Center for Genetics and Society has signed several briefs): U.S. case law and patent statute plainly say that patents can be awarded only for human inventions. Genes are not inventions but products of nature. You can’t patent the sun; you can’t patent a new species of insect you find in a forest; you can’t patent the speed of light. And you cannot patent human genes. Beyond U.S. patent law lie broader questions: Should we treat human genes as private property to be exploited for profit rather than shared resources managed in the public interest? Should we allow corporate ownership to penetrate deeply into areas previously considered outside the commercial realm? Several international organizations have taken up these questions, declaring the human genome part of the “commons” – akin to the moon and the air we breathe. The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, ratified by the U.N. General Assembly in 1998, states that the human genome “is the heritage of humanity” and “in its natural state shall not give rise to financial gains.” In 1999, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe declared that “neither plant-, animal- nor human-derived genes, cells, tissue or organs can be considered as inventions, nor be subject to monopolies granted by patents.” The World Medical Association, an umbrella for 84 national medical associations, states that “human genes must be seen as mankind’s common heritage.”

Despite these strong declarations and the robust legal precedent for limiting patent protection to inventions, much of the human genome has been patented in a rush to profit from the incredible amount of information our genetic makeup holds, often to the detriment of our health. We believe there has been a misapplication of patent law, as acknowledged by the U.S. solicitor general’s amicus brief on our behalf. It was not always this way, and it need not stay this way. In 1955, Jonas Salk, who had invented the polio vaccine, was asked who owned the patent on the vaccine. “The people,” he replied. “There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?”

A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in this landmark case could effectively outlaw human gene patents. It would be a victory for all who put the public’s health and interests above efforts to privatize what all of us should share. And it would restore our genomic heritage, the very DNA in our bodies, to the rightful owners: the people.

CAREER: genetic Engineering

 CAREER : Genetic Engineering 
 Introduction
Genetic Engineering (GE) is a highly complicated and advanced branch of science which involves a wide range of techniques used in changing the genetic material in the DNA code in a living organism. 'Genetic Engineering' means the deliberate modification of the characters of an organism by the manipulation of its genetic material. Genetic engineering comes under the broad heading of Biotechnology. There is a great scope in this field as the demand for genetic engineers are growing in India as well as abroad.
A cell is the smallest living unit, the basic structural and functional unit of all living matter, whether a plant, an animal, humans or a fungus. While some organisms are single celled, others like plants, animals, humans etc are made up of a lot more cells. For eg humans have approximately 3 million cells. A cell is composed of a 'cell membrane' enclosing the whole cell, many 'organelles' equivalent to the organs in the body and a 'nucleus' which is the command centre of the cell. Inside the nucleus are the chromosomes which is the storage place for all genetic (hereditary) information which determines the nature and characteristics of an organism. This information is written along the thin thread, called DNA, a nucleic acid which constitutes the genes (units of heredity). The DNA governs cell growth and is responsible for the transmission of genetic information from one generation to the next. 
Genetic engineering aims to re-arrange the sequence of DNA in gene using artificial methods. The work of a genetic engineer involves extracting the DNA out of one organism, changing it using chemicals or radiation and subsequently putting it back into the same or a different organism. For eg: genes and segments of DNA from one species is taken and put into another species. They also study how traits and characteristics are transmitted through the generations, and how genetic disorders are caused. Their research involves researching the causes and discovering potential cures if any. 
 Similar Career Options
›› Entomology
›› Meteorology
›› Food Flavorist/Flavor Chemist
View More...
Genetic engineering have specialisations related to plants, animals and human beings. Genetic engineering in plants and animals may be to improve certain natural characteristics of value, to increase resistance to disease or damage and to develop new characteristics etc. It is used to change the colour, size, texture etc of plants otherwise known as GM (Genetically Modified) foods. GE in humans can be to correct severe hereditary defects by introducing normal genes into cells in place of missing or defective ones.

Eligibility & Course Areas
Educational : A qualified genetic engineer, must have a graduate / postgraduate degree in genetics or related fields such as biotechnology, molecular biology, microbiology or biochemistry OR a doctorate (PhD) from a recognised university, based on 2-3 years of his own research under the guidance of a professor/lecturer. 
The basic eligibility criteria for a graduate degree (BE / B.Tech) is 10+2 or equivalent examination, with Biology, Chemistry and Mathematics as well as genetics as part of the biology OR a bachelors degree in science or molecular biology.  
Most institutes do not offer courses in Genetic Engineering as a special discipline but as a subsidiary in biotechnology, microbiology, biochemistry streams. Undergraduate and postgraduate courses in Biotechnology offer specialisation in genetic engineering. 
Selection to the graduate courses ( BE / B.Tech ) is based on merit i.e the marks secured in the final exams of 10+2 and through entrance exams. Entrance to the IIT's is through JEE (Joint Entrance Exam) and for other institutions through  their own separate entrance exams and other state level and national level exams. Apart from the IIT's,  some other famous institutes also recognize JEE scores for selection. Selection to the postgraduate courses ( M.Sc / M.Tech) in different universities is through an All India Combined Entrance exam conducted by JNU, New Delhi and to IIT's through GATE in Two year/ 4 semester M.Tech courses and through JEE in five year integrated M.Tech courses in Biochemical engineering and Biotechnology. 

Job Prospects & Career Options
There is an increasing demand for genetic engineers in India as well as abroad. Genetic engineers are mainly absorbed in medical and pharmaceutical industries, the agricultural sector, and the research and development departments of the government and private sectors.  They can also take up teaching as an option.
Genetic engineering involves developing hybrid varieties of plants, making a plant disease resistant by transferring genes from a plant that already has the characteristic, introducing Genetically Modified foods by changing the colour, size, texture of the produce of plants such as fruits and vegetables. GE in humans can be to correct severe hereditary defects by introducing normal genes into cells in place of missing or defective ones.
 Similar Career Options
›› Entomology
›› Meteorology
›› Food Flavorist/Flavor Chemist
View More...
A team headed by Ian Wilmut and his colleagues at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, Scotland made history when they produced a lamp named Dolly, an exact genetic copy or clone of a sheep. This landmark discovery of the regeneration of an exact replica of a whole animal by transferring nuclei from the cells of that animal to unfertilized eggs of another animal, without the help of a male counterpart, has given researches a wide area open to be discovered. With this discovery, genetic engineering has become globally recognized.

CAREER :Becoming a genetic engineer: Education and Career Roadmap

Becoming a genetic engineer: Education and Career Roadmap

Genetic Engineer Requirements

Genetic engineers alter genes in order to improve the biological capabilities of humans, plants and animals. Their main goal is to help people lead quality lives. Genetic engineers who treat human patients with genetic illnesses are called gene therapists; they may be physicians who hold both medical and doctoral (Ph.D.) degrees. Other genetic engineers work in non-medical environments as biochemists and biophysicists, exploring living organisms such as plants used as food crops. The following table outlines the primary requirements employers look for in genetic engineers.

Common Requirements

Degree Level Bachelor's or master's degree for entry-level careers; doctoral degree for independent research careers  *  Degree Field(s) Biochemistry, biophysics or related fields  * Key Skills Strong understanding of scientific methods and rules, complex problem solving, critical thinking**

Computer Skills Ability to use computer aided design (CAD) software, graphics or photo imaging software, PERL, Python, analytical software programs and word processing software programs**

Technical Skills Ability to use lasers, spectrometers, light scattering equipment, binocular light compound microscopes, benchtop centrifuges or similar laboratory equipment**

Additional Requirements Excellent mathematical, deductive and inductive reasoning skills; reading, writing, and oral comprehension skills**

Step 1: Earn a Bachelor's  :DegreeA genetic engineer starts by earning a bachelor's degree, typically in a branch of the physical sciences, such as biology or chemistry. Some schools offer undergraduate programs in genetic engineering or in closely-related fields such as biological engineering. Curricula typically include rigorous courses in calculus, biology, chemistry and physics.

Step 2: Earn an Advanced Degree  :A bachelor's degree may be sufficient educational preparation for some entry-level careers in genetic engineering. However, many employers only hire candidates with advanced degrees (master's or Ph.D.). Advanced degree programs allow aspiring genetic engineers to gain valuable experience through laboratory-based research. To carry out genetic engineering research independently, one should expect to earn a doctoral degree.

Success Tip: :Be part of an internship program. While attending a graduate school, it is a good idea for students to participate in an internship program to gain experience. Universities often have fellowship and research programs that allow students to receive relevant training before leaving the academic environment. The Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES), The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other professional or governmental organizations in the field may post internship opportunities.

Step 3: Gain Work Experience :Genetic engineering is a broad field. Engineers can specialize in agriculture, healthcare and other specialties. They may work as molecular biologists, breast cancer researchers, forensic scientists and genetic counselors, among other positions. These careers can be found at universities, healthcare organizations, research and development firms, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and government agencies.

CAREER : Careers in Genetic Engineering

Careers in Genetic Engineering :
Careers in Genetic EngineeringGenetic Engineering (GE) is a highly complicated and advanced branch of science which involves a wide range of techniques used in changing the genetic material in the DNA code in a living organism. ‘Genetic Engineering’ means the deliberate modification of the characters of an organism by the manipulation of its genetic material. Genetic engineering comes under the broad heading of Biotechnology. There is a great scope in this field as the demand for genetic engineers are growing in India as well as abroad.A cell is the smallest living unit, the basic structural and functional unit of all living matter, whether a plant, an animal, humans or a fungus. While some organisms are single celled, others like plants, animals, humans etc are made up of a lot more cells. For eg humans have approximately 3 million cells. A cell is composed of a ‘cell membrane’ enclosing the whole cell, many ‘organelles’ equivalent to the organs in the body and a ‘nucleus’ which is the command centre of the cell. Inside the nucleus are the chromosomes which is the storage place for all genetic (hereditary) information which determines the nature and characteristics of an organism. This information is written along the thin thread, called DNA, a nucleic acid which constitutes the genes (units of heredity). The DNA governs cell growth and is responsible for the transmission of genetic information from one generation to the next.Genetic engineering aims to re-arrange the sequence of DNA in gene using artificial methods. The work of a genetic engineer involves extracting the DNA out of one organism, changing it using chemicals or radiation and subsequently putting it back into the same or a different organism. For eg: genes and segments of DNA from one species is taken and put into another species. They also study how traits and characteristics are transmitted through the generations, and how genetic disorders are caused. Their research involves researching the causes and discovering potential cures if any.Genetic engineering have specialisations related to plants, animals and human beings. Genetic engineering in plants and animals may be to improve certain natural characteristics of value, to increase resistance to disease or damage and to develop new characteristics etc. It is used to change the colour, size, texture etc of plants otherwise known as GM (Genetically Modified) foods. GE in humans can be to correct severe hereditary defects by introducing normal genes into cells in place of missing or defective ones.

Eligibility
Educational: A qualified genetic engineer, must have a graduate / postgraduate degree in genetics or related fields such as biotechnology, molecular biology, microbiology or biochemistry OR a doctorate (PhD) from a recognised university, based on 2-3 years of his own research under the guidance of a professor/lecturer.The basic eligibility criteria for a graduate degree (BE / B.Tech) is 10+2 or equivalent examination, with Biology, Chemistry and Mathematics as well as genetics as part of the biology OR a bachelors degree in science or molecular biology.Most institutes do not offer courses in Genetic Engineering as a special discipline but as a subsidiary in biotechnology, microbiology, biochemistry streams. Undergraduate and postgraduate courses in Biotechnology offer specialisation in genetic engineering.Selection to the graduate courses ( BE / B.Tech ) is based on merit i.e the marks secured in the final exams of 10+2 and through entrance exams. Entrance to the IIT’s is through JEE (Joint Entrance Exam) and for other institutions through their own separate entrance exams and other state level and national level exams. Apart from the IIT’s, some other famous institutes also recognize JEE scores for selection. Selection to the postgraduate courses ( M.Sc / M.Tech) in different universities is through an All India Combined Entrance exam conducted by JNU, New Delhi and to IIT’s through GATE in Two year/ 4 semester M.Tech courses and through JEE in five year integrated M.Tech courses in Biochemical engineering and Biotechnology.Personal Attributes: To be a successful genetic engineer, one must have sharp analytical mind, an aptitude for research, high levels of concentration, eye for details, lively imagination, abundant physical stamina to put in long hours of work, ability to work as a team, moreover he should have a sound moral sense.

Job Prospects and Career Option
There is an increasing demand for genetic engineers in India as well as abroad. Genetic engineers are mainly absorbed in medical and pharmaceutical industries, the agricultural sector, and the research and development departments of the government and private sectors. They can also take up teaching as an option.Genetic engineering involves developing hybrid varieties of plants, making a plant disease resistant by transferring genes from a plant that already has the characteristic, introducing Genetically Modified foods by changing the colour, size, texture of the produce of plants such as fruits and vegetables. GE in humans can be to correct severe hereditary defects by introducing normal genes into cells in place of missing or defective ones.A team headed by Ian Wilmut and his colleagues at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh, Scotland made history when they produced a lamp named Dolly, an exact genetic copy or clone of a sheep. This landmark discovery of the regeneration of an exact replica of a whole animal by transferring nuclei from the cells of that animal to unfertilized eggs of another animal, without the help of a male counterpart, has given researches a wide area open to be discovered. With this discovery, genetic engineering has become globally recognized.

NEWS : Genetic modification: Time for a more nuanced debate

Genetic modification: Time for a more nuanced debate:

Picking sides on genetic modification isn’t as easy as it used to beWhat is a person with a conscience to think about the fraught and complex issue of genetic modification (GM)? Picking sides used to be easy: if you were green, you were against GM because it was unnatural and industrial. It was a weapon of the same corporate behemoths who brought us the Green Revolution and its ensuing ecological devastation; who were using the patent system to force farmers to buy new GM seed every year – and who were exploiting their control of world commodity markets to impose “Frankenstein foods” on unsuspecting citizens.
If these were the developers and guarantors of genetic engineering, then their safety assurances were not to be trusted. If you were green, you preferred organic, low-input, agro-ecological methods of breeding and food production that maintained traditional landscapes and socio-economic structures, provided safe, tasty and nutritious food, combated climate change and protected wildlife. If you were a green activist, you risked prison to rip up GM crops.
On the other side were the free market capitalists and biological engineers, optimistic about GM, unfazed by its presence in the food chain, and in favour of field trials. For the big seed companies and their biotech partners, the business opportunities were breathtaking: a huge potential market; a range of products that had to be bought and used together, and could be protected by patent; and a political climate that favoured big agribusiness over small-scale, mixed farms. The products themselves addressed issues related to industrial agriculture only: the lack of natural predators to control pests, and the fact that industrial herbicides can also be toxic to the crops themselves.
The more nuanced aspects of this debate are beginning to find voice
Now, though, the more nuanced aspects of this debate are beginning to find voice. Leading environmentalists, including two of the UK’s highest profile ones, Jonathon Porritt and Tony Juniper, say that their minds are not closed as to the future of GM. Former anti-GMO activist, Mark Lynas, shocked delegates at the latest Oxford Farming Conference by saying, “For the record, … I apologise for having spent several years ripping up GM crops. I am also sorry that I … assisted in demonising an important technological option which [sic] can be used to benefit the environment.”
Although a group of leading environmentalists – including Porritt and Juniper – criticised Lynas for overstating his role in the anti-GM movement, many now believe that GM may be part of the solution. “We are trying to question the scourge of either/or-ism,” says Porritt. “The condition of the world is so powerless now, and the additional pressure of feeding a potential population of nine billion so great, that we have to optimise every available resource.”
These environmentalists, however, do not advocate GM as we have known it until now, with its concentration on pest resistance and herbicide tolerance in intensive monoculture. The claimed benefits of GM crops have been used, they say, to fuel the expansion of industrial agricultural techniques, which have contributed to a host of environmental and social problems, including declining soil fertility, water pollution, climate change and ecological devastation. Extinctions are running at between 100 and 1,000 times their natural rate. Agricultural bird populations in the UK have almost halved in the last 25 years. In the last 40 years, tropical biodiversity has dropped by 60 percent. The world’s richest savannah, the Cerrado, which covers 21 percent of Brazil’s land mass and is home to a staggering five percent of all known species, is being cleared faster than the Amazon rainforest to make way for soya, 80 percent of which is fed to livestock. Such alarming consequences are associated more with the industrialisation of agriculture and the global food system than with genetic modification per se.

Gary Hirshberg, founder of the leading U.S. organic dairy brand, Stonyfield Farm, says:

I’m not biased against genetic engineering. The potential is there for nutritional and other benefits to citizens; but there haven’t been any yet, and many of the promises have been disproven or have not come to pass. For example, despite predictions to the contrary by the patent holders, GM has led to substantial increases in herbicide and pesticide use. Consequently, weeds and pests develop resistance and farmers have had to move to ever stronger chemicals, in ever higher quantities. The U.S. Geological Survey reports that citizens in rural communities are now routinely breathing herbicides and finding them in the groundwater. We don’t know what the consequences will be for human health of these higher concentrations of environmental toxins, and we need to find out. At the very least, citizens need to know whether or not they are purchasing and eating these foods. Since there is no requirement to label products that contain GM, most Americans are unaware.

The answer, he says, is compulsory labelling.

Jonathon Porritt agrees: “Most people do not want to eat GM food, so when labelling is introduced, demand collapses. When producers in the U.S. were forced to label GM milk that had been produced with the aid of a genetically modified growth hormone called bST, sales plummeted and Monsanto was forced to sell the subsidiary that produced it. The horsemeat scandal [in which horsemeat has been found in many European products that are marketed as 100 percent beef] will force multiple retailers to be honest about where their meat and dairy products come from.”

Although the European Commission‘s attitude to GM seems to be softening, public attitudes in most European countries remain staunchly anti-GM, or deeply skeptical. As a result, no GM crops are grown in Europe. However, around 50 percent of grain imported to Europe for animal feed is genetically modified, and campaigners are calling for that, too, to be labelled.

If GM has let us down so badly to date, how might it contribute more positively in the future? For a start, Porritt cites the potential ability of non-leguminous crops to fix nitrogen. Fossil-based nitrogen fertilisers are a major cause of climate change and water pollution, so the potential ability of commodity crops to fix nitrogen without the use of artificial fertilisers could bring great benefits. Unfortunately, it is likely to be 20 or 30 years before they succeed, if they succeed at all, and plants cannot live on nitrogen alone; they also need phosphorous and potassium, so if they are to be grown in monoculture, or even in three-year rotation, they still risk exhausting soils.

The second advance might come in GM’s ability to improve resistance to environmental stresses, such as drought. The first such crop – a drought-resistant variety of GM maize – was launched last year by Monsanto and hopes to compete with conventionally bred drought-resistant varieties. No less than 34 such conventional varieties have been developed by a project known as Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa, which is supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. According to the International Institute for Tropical Agriculture, a research partnership dedicated to agricultural development, an estimated two million farmers in 13 African countries are already using these varieties, and have obtained higher yields, improved food security, and increased incomes.

According to Porritt, the expansion and improved productivity of small African farms is far more important than whether or not the crops they use are genetically modified. While Porritt and some of his fellow environmentalists are open to the potential benefits of GM crops, they consider genetic modification itself to be something of a red herring. Far more important is whether or not a new crop variety brings additional benefits for humans and the planet. If GM crops can prove themselves safe, effective, nutritious, eco-efficient and profitable, there is no reason why they should not be used.

Food manufacturers are also agnostic. “We don’t have a view on whether GM is a good or a bad thing in itself,” says Andrew Kuyk of the UK’s Food and Drink Federation. “We want raw materials at competitive prices that we can turn into products for our consumers. GM comes into that debate if we’re priced out of the market by it. There’s a risk of that happening in the UK and other European countries if we’re not more supportive of some of these new technologies, subject to objective scientific assessment and appropriate controls on use.”

However, Mike Childs, Head of Science, Policy and Research at Friends of the Earth, believes that the most promising solutions are not technological in nature. Childs’ top seven “hits” for a sustainable and secure food system are: eating less (and better) meat; restoring wild fisheries; cutting waste; growing a greater variety of crops (including “orphan crops”); replacing monoculture with agro-ecology; empowering women; and reducing poverty. WWF-UK also considers GM to be a red herring, too fraught with emotion and political posturing, and prefers to talk of solutions such as “less but better meat,” and waste reduction. Eating healthily, WWF-UK points out in its recent Livewell report, means eating more sustainably, too.

One thing on which everyone seems to agree is that GM is not the only technology worth developing. Perhaps the most promising alternative is Marker Assisted Selection (MAS). This is a non-GM bioengineering technique, made possible by our ability to map entire genomes. Once you have the genome of a crop fully described, you can use that information to identify traits that you want to import to the target crop from a related species. This might be a less popular commercial variety, a wild relative, or a so-called “orphan species” – an old variety that was abandoned by breeders looking for other traits. After marking the genes that express the desired traits, scientists can use conventional breeding techniques to transfer those characteristics into high yielding varieties of the same species, relatively quickly.

If technologies such as MAS can be used to promote the proliferation and improvement of organic, mixed, agro-ecological and other traditional or alternative farming systems, then there may come a day when the arguments over GM have lost their relevance, as they have for the development of medicines. For now, GM remains a highly emotive issue for those on both sides of the debate, and those left in the middle still struggle to be heard.

NEWS : Genetic engineering: Golden Rice

Genetic Engineering: Golden Rice 
Fourteen years ago, scientists developed a genetically engineered version of rice that would promote the production of vitamin A to counter blindness and other diseases in children in developing countries. In a few months, the Philippines will become the first country to start giving 'golden rice' out to its farmers. Bangladesh and Indonesia will follow suit soon, and India is seriously considering it. Good, but 14 years is rather a long time, isn't it? The number of children in developing countries who went blind from vitamin A deficiency during that time (half of whom died within 12 months of losing their sight) runs into the low millions. (The World Health Organisation estimates that between a quarter-million and a half-million children a year go blind from vitamin A deficiency.)
Golden rice contains beta-carotene, an orange-coloured pigment that is a key precursor chemical used by the body to make vitamin A. Sweet potatoes, carrots, spinach and butternut squash are naturally rich in beta-carotene, but ordinary white rice contains almost none. And rice is the most important food in the diet of about half the world's people. So what caused such a delay in getting it out to the farmers? It was created by Peter Beyer, professor of cell biology at Freiburg University in Germany, and Ingo Potrykus of the Institute of Plant Sciences in Switzerland in the late 1990s, and was ready for field trials by 2000. But the first field trials were delayed for seven years by protests from Greenpeace and other environmental groups, and crossing various regulatory hurdles took another six. Both the protests and the regulatory hurdles were based on the notion that genetically engineered plants are 'unnatural'. Which automatically raises the question: which human food crops are actually 'natural', in the sense that you will find them growing wild in nature. Answer: none.
That's why ecologist Stewart Brand has proposed the phrase 'genetically engineered' (GE) in lieu of the more common 'genetically modified' (GM) on the grounds that ALL domesticated plants have been genetically modified, by cross-breeding or by blasting seeds with radiation. None of them would survive in the wild. Gene-splicing is just a more efficient and neater way of achieving the same goals. Much of the early opposition to GE was no more than a superstitious fear of the unknown, and there was also genuine concern that it might pose health risks to consumers.
The way that GE crops were first introduced was bound to arouse opposition. In 1996, Monsanto, the world's leading biotech company, began to market GE versions of corn, soybean, cotton, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa that had been engineered to tolerate glyphosate, a very effective herbicide that the company had been selling with great success as 'Roundup' since 1974.
The patent on Roundup was expiring in 2000, allowing glyphosate to be made by rival companies. But in practice, Monsanto's patents on the new GE seeds extended its monopoly for decades more: farmers could buy glyphosate wherever they wanted, but to use it to best effect they had to buy Monsanto's herbicide-resistant seeds (called, of course, 'Roundup Ready').
Then Monsanto used relentless lobbying to get its GE seeds through the approval process and out on to the market. It succeeded in North America and most other major grain-growing areas, but not in Europe - and its strong-arm tactics created deep resentment and suspicion in many quarters. A decade and a half later, that still lingers. But it's now clear that GE crops pose no health risk. North Americans have been eating them for 15 years, whereas Europeans scarcely eat them at all, but there is no significant difference in disease and death rates that can be linked to GE food.
carbon dioxide emissions Meanwhile, crop yields have risen dramatically, herbicide and pesticide use has declined, and no-till farming that cuts carbon dioxide emissions because of ploughing has become far more common. The opposition to GE crops never came from farmers, and it's now in steep decline in the general public as well.  There are seven billion of us now, and there will be at least eight and a half billion before the human population of this planet stops growing. Moreover, as living standards rise in most formerly poor countries, diet is changing too and much more meat is consumed. To meet that demand, even more grain is needed. We are using 40 per cent of the land surface of the planet to grow our food. That is already too much, because replacing the complex natural ecology with our monocrop agriculture removes vital elements from the chemical and biological cycles that keep our climate stable. As environmentalist Jim Lovelock, the author of the Gaia hypothesis, put it: "We cannot have both our crops and a steady comfortable climate."
But perhaps we could have it both ways if we cut back to, say, 30 per cent of the planet's land surface devoted to agriculture, or 25 per cent. The point is that we must reduce the area we are farming, not increase it. The only way to do that is to raise crop yields dramatically. Genetically engineered crops may be able to meet that demand. There are no other proposed solutions on the table.

NEWS :Experts discourage genetic engineering ban

Experts discourage genetic engineering ban:
As genetic technology develops, the ability to change the genes of a fetus has moved from the realm of science fiction to a possible reality in the future.
Large-scale genetic modifications are currently banned in the United States by the Food and Drug Administration, however other countries are experimenting with the practice, said Hank Greely, the Deane F. and Kate Edelman Johnson professor of law at Stanford University. As other countries experiment with genetic engineering, the ability to change the composition of an unborn child’s DNA has raised a plethora of ethical dilemmas, with some groups calling for the practice to be prohibited all together. Although Duke researchers see issues with genetic engineering, most do not believe it should be banned altogether.
“Banning is not a productive way forward,” said Nita Farahany, professor of law, philosophy and genome sciences and policy. “Whether or not [genetic modification] should be allowed is a different discussion.”
In theory, genetic engineering of human zygotes could be used to alter the genes of a fetus that have been affected by a genetic disease. Ethical dilemmas have arisen, however, out of the fear that parents may attempt to change a fetus’ genes for aesthetic reasons or to endow the child with athletic prowess or intelligence.
“Such genetic modifications can become problematic if people start modifying fetuses for small issues that can be considered gratuitous use,” said Misha Angrist, assistant professor of the practice at the Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy.
Farahany, a member of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues, argued against a motion banning the genetic modification of fetuses at the Intelligence Squared U.S. debates on prohibiting genetically engineered babies February. Despite her motion against the ban, Farahany said she does not unequivocally support the procedure.
She noted that some forms of genetic engineering have proven to be safer than others. For example, changes in mitochondrial DNA, the genetic material that is passed from the mother to the fetus, have proven to be effective. Nonetheless, the impact on modifications in the nucleus of DNA is still unknown.
“A better way to regulate [fetal genetic modification] is to determine what procedures are appropriate and inappropriate, not ban it all together,” Farahany said.
Angrist said the fears associated with genetic engineering are not realistic concerns, but noted the difficulty in making precise predictions of its outcome. Another dilemma, he added, concerns the impact that modified genes would have on future generations.
“There are definitely concerns about germ-line genetic modifications since we would be making changes that could transfer to that fetus’ descendants,” he said. “We’d be mucking about in things we really don’t understand.”
Large-scale genetic modifications, however, will remain in the realm of science fiction for the foreseeable future in the United States since cytoplasmic transfers—which refers to the change in the arrangement of the mitochondrial and nuclear DNA—are currently banned by the FDA, Greely said. Because the FDA considers cytoplasmic transfers a drug, pharmaceutical companies would either need to challenge the FDA in court or gain the agency’s approval to test the safety and effectiveness of the drug.
“This is not a drug that will make a lot of money, and the research could be quite expensive and last for a number of years,” Greely said. “So one wouldn’t expect the private sector to decide to test [the transfers].”
On the other hand, it is unlikely to expect such research to come from the government as current politics prevents funding research of reproductive matters, he said.
Greely considers many of the arguments made by those opposed to genetic modification as “crazy and stupid” because there are many instances in which scientists have a moral obligation to prevent the spread of genetic diseases.
“Approximately 400 babies are born every year [with a mitochondrial disease],” Greely said. “If a mother wants to avoid passing a disease to her fetus, then we have to try.”

NEWS :Examples of genetic engineering: Rare but beneficial uses of modern biotechnology

Examples of genetic engineering: Rare but beneficial uses of modern biotechnology  :

After learning about human genetic engineering, many readers might want to find out about some examples of genetic engineering. Both bizarre and beneficial, the following article highlights some truly fascinating and pragmatic examples of modern genetic engineering.

The Biotechnology Forums, a website for professionals and students in biotechnology (the area that studies genetic engineering) recently explained some of these examples. The first animal example of genetic engineering is the spider goat. Yes, you read that correctly. A spider goat is able to produce the strong, stretchable silk used by spiders to create their webs. This silk web is one of the strongest natural materials known to man, stronger even than steel.

Nexia Biotechnologies Company inserted the gene from a golden orb-weaver spider into the genome of goat in such a way that the goat secretes the protein of the spider web in its milk. The milk was then used to create a what Nexia called (and trademarked) BioSteel, a material with characteristics similar to spider webs.

Beyond goats capable of secreting spider webs in their milk, there are a number of other really cool examples of genetic engineering in animals. In one redOrbit blog, this author reported about a cat that glows in the dark. The glow-in-the-dark feline has a fluorescence gene that makes it glow under an ultraviolet light. As the Biotechnology Forum outlines, here is how South Korean scientists first created the glowing cat in 2007:

“They took skin cells from Turkish Angora female cat (species that were originally tamed by Tatars, but was later transferred to Turkey and is now considered the country’s national treasure), and using the virus they inserted the genetic code for the production of red fluorescent protein. Then they put genetically modified nuclei into eggs for cloning and such cloned embryos are returned to the donor cat. It thus became the surrogate mother’s own clones.”

And why make a cat that glows in the dark? The researchers explained that this was no frivolous experiment and that potential benefits exist in medicine for treating and testing for human diseases caused by genetic disorders. And just today, researchers in Uruguay announced that they had successfully created a genetically modified glowing sheep. Though not directly applicable to medical technology, the researchers had this to say about the purpose of their research: “Our focus is generating knowledge, make it public so the scientific community can be informed and help in the long run march to generate tools so humans can live better, but we’re not out in the market to sell technology.”

Moving on, two other good example are the less-flatulent cow and the so-called Ecopig. As Mother Nature Network explains, cows produce a lot of methane gas, which is second only to carbon dioxide in contributing to the greenhouse effect. So scientists at the University of Alberta identified the bacteria responsible for producing methane and designed a breed of cows that create 25 percent less methane than the average cow. This is one genetic engineering example that directly and practically addresses one of the major problems facing modern man.

The Ecopig (aka “enviropig” or “Frankenswine”) is yet another of the many examples of genetic engineering that positively contribute to the environment. The Ecopig has been genetically altered to better digest and process phosphorus. The reason is that pig dung is high in phytate, a form of phosphorous that farmers use it as fertilizer but which over stimulates the growth of algae which can deplete oxygen in the watersheds and thus kill marine life. The Ecopig has been genetically modified by adding E. Coli and mouse DNA to the pig embryo, which reduce the pig’s phosphorous output by about 70 percent.

Each of these bizarre examples point to some of the pros of genetic engineering, highlighting how researchers are striving to bring modern science and technology to the aid of humanity and some of its most pressing problems. Whether the goat that produces spider silk or the cow that doesn’t produce as much flatulence, these animal examples of genetic engineering shows biotechnology in action.

NEWS :Genetic engineering policy needs modification

Genetic engineering policy needs modification :

Writing in the Cell Press journal Trends in Plant Science, scientists from Spain and the United Kingdom argue that the European Union will be unable to meet increased demand for food and crops in a sustainable and environmentally conscientious way without its changing policy with regard to genetically engineered (GE) crops.

The authors criticise the ‘paradoxical’ approach to agricultural policy within the EU which has, they say, distorted the economic and regulatory harmony that was aimed for into a ‘fragmented, contradictory and unworkable legislative framework’. Since the principles of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) are not supported in – or, therefore, reflected by – practice, the EU damages not only the member states, but any chance they may have of fulfilling their humanitarian commitments going forward.

Professor Paul Christou, Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA) research professor in the Department of Plant Production and Forestry Science at the University of Lleida’s Agrotecnio Centre for Research in Agrotechnology, addressed ScienceOmega.com’s questions on the paper.

What reason does the EU have to hold on to the attitude that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are not acceptable, maintaining policies to prevent their cultivation? According to Professor Christou and his co-authors, the suppression of GE crops is reflective of short-term political and economic goals as opposed to long-term sustainability in agriculture, human health, and food safety.

"It is simply political expediency, as governments are under pressure from vocal minority pseudo-environmental groups," he said. "Furthermore, the organic lobby uses GM as a negative marketing ploy to misinform EU consumers on the dubious benefits of organic products. As we explain in our article, safety is not an issue and this has been settled for good.

"Green parties and the environmental groups which support them have vested interests and political agendas; some of the so-called ‘environmental groups’ make money by campaigning against GM crops. We have all been consuming GM-derived products in processed food – as well as meat from animals fed on GM corn and soy – for over a decade in Europe, and there has not been a single incidence of any adverse effect."

Rather than fulfilling the stated aims of the European Commission, the Common Agricultural Policy has arguably had the opposite effect by reducing productivity, sustainability and competitiveness. Despite the fact that research attests to the safety of GM crops, current policy actively discriminates against farmers wishing to cultivate them, undermining competitiveness in the agricultural sector. Addressing the double standards whereby GM products can be imported but not grown here would, say the scientists, confer many benefits, including improved productivity and environmental sustainability.

"It would stop the migration of high tech companies from Europe to the US and other more open-minded regions, such as in the example of BASF moving operations to the US and cutting back on personnel and research programmes in Europe," Professor Christou argued.

"Job opportunities would be enhanced for people at all levels in the agricultural sector, thus contributing towards reducing unemployment in the EU and providing opportunities for highly paid jobs. Additionally, European consumers would benefit from reductions in the cost of buying food which is currently imported because it is not allowed to be grown in the EU."

A de facto moratorium is in place on GE maize, cotton and soybean, for example, despite the very same products being imported from overseas in order to meet demand. Particularly in terms of animal feed, the EU is dependent on imports of GE products from Brazil, the USA and Argentina, where the technology has been embraced. Genetically engineered food products have been approved for consumption by the European Food Safety Authority, and the scientific evidence has been stacking up over the past two and half decades that GM crops do not pose a threat, as Professor Christou pointed out.

"There are no other technologies that demand zero risk, and certainly none with such impressive credentials that the EU could state in a report following a 15-year study involving 400 public research institutions and costing 70 million euros that, ‘Genetically modified plants and products derived from them present no risk to human health or the environment […] these crops and products are even safer than plants and products generated through conventional processes’."

In a subsequent report covering the next decade, the EU Commission reiterated that, ‘The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research, and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies’.

The question of whether people are right to be wary of the power wielded by large agricultural biotechnology companies in this arena, Professor Christou said, has nothing to do specifically with GMOs. Large multinationals dominate in pharmaceuticals and the electronics industry alike.

"Farmers in Europe and elsewhere have been quite happy to buy their hybrid maize from multinational agribusiness for at least 50 years, receiving substantial economic benefits themselves through access to better products," Professor Christou contended. "These hybrids show better performance, higher yields and are more profitable. They were non-GM until a little over a decade ago. Now that the very same hybrids are GM the issue of control of agriculture by agricultural biotechnology companies is put forward as a major issue. It makes absolutely no sense."

Professor Christou and his colleagues recommend science-based regulation and the removal of a political component in the approval process of GM crops as a means of improving the situation. Innovation and widespread use of the best available and most appropriate technologies – not just biotechnology – will encourage productivity, sustainability and a better environment.

"Most GM crops counter some of the most damaging practices of conventional agriculture and it makes no sense for EU policy makers to preach environmental sustainability on the one hand while denying farmers the ability to implement the policies that are best suited to deliver this on the other."