Tuesday, 30 April 2013
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)