StemCell Therapy

For us in the West, the ferocious debate over genetic engineering isnt a matter of life and death. We argue about the safety of Impossible Burgers and the potential risks associated with new breeding techniques like CRISPR gene editing, but nobody will go hungry or die of malnutrition pending the outcome of these arguments. Sadly, the same isnt true in the developing world.

The tragic tale of global vitamin A deficiency (VAD) and the life-saving (but still unavailable) solution known as Golden Rice has been told millions of times, 246 million according to Google. But to briefly recap: roughly 250 million people, mostly preschool children in southeast Asia, are vitamin A deficient. Between 250,000 and 500,000 of them go blind every yearand half die within 12 months of losing their sight. Genetically engineered Golden Rice, fortified with the vitamin A precursor beta carotene, could alleviate much of this suffering without otherwise harming human health or the environment, according to a mountain of studies.

So why are so many people still dying of a preventable condition?

Thats the rather frustrating part of the story science writer Ed Regis examines in his new book Golden Rice: The Imperiled Birth of a GMO Superfood. In just over 200 pages, Regis gives a crash course on genetic engineering and explains the messy history of Golden Rice, disabusing the reader of many popular myths along the way. Environmental activist group Greenpeace, for example, is often identified in the press as the primary obstacle to releasing Golden Rice. Despite all its lobbying, however, the NGO has had a relatively minor impact on the crops development.

Instead of pointing the finger at Greenpeace, Regis says the blame lies mostly with overly cautious governments, many of which regulate GMOs as if they were biological weapons. Hoping to avoid the unintended (and so far undiscovered) consequences of growing genetically engineered crops, regulators unintentionally rob people of their eyesight and often their lives.

In a Q&A session with Genetic Literacy Project editor Cameron English, Regis offers a birds eye view of the ongoing controversy and highlights some lesser-known but still significant aspects of the Golden Rice story.

Cameron English: Golden Rice seems simple conceptually. As you point out, scientists just had to direct the plants existing biochemical machinery to synthesize beta carotene in the rice grain, as it does in the rest of the plant. Why did this prove so challenging to achieve in the lab?

For one thing, it had never been done beforerewriting a plants genes to make it express a trait that it normally did not have. Nobody was sure that it was even possible. There were different ways of accomplishing that goal, and there were a lot of technical difficulties in doing the actual hands-on lab work, and getting everything lined up correctly at the genetic level so that beta carotene would appear in the rice grain. There were incredible numbers of false starts, dead ends, and unforeseen technical problems to overcome, and it took years of trial and error for the inventors to get it all working properly. It was just a hard problem, both scientifically, in theory, and technologically, in practice.

CE: You write that Golden Rice could make VAD a thing of the past in developing Asian countries. Why is this biotech crop a better solution than alternative proposals, like distributing vitamin supplements?

Supplement programs have been tried, and of course they do some good, but the problem is that such programs require a substantial and permanent infrastructure. They require a supply chain, personnel to distribute the stuff, record keeping, and the like, plus sufficient and continuous funding to keep it all going across time. Also, there is no way to guarantee that supplements will reach every last person who needs them.

Golden Rice, by contrast, requires none of that. The seeds will be given at no cost to small landowner farmers, and the rice will be no more expensive to consumers than plain and ordinary white rice. Plus, theres the principle that Plants reproduce, pills dont. Once Golden Rice is introduced, its a system that just goes of itself. The product replaces what people already eat on a daily basis with something that could save their sight and lives in the process.

CE: Tell us the story about night blindness you recount from Catherine Prices book. Does that anecdote underscore the problem that Golden Rice could solve?

We in the rich, developed Western countries know practically nothing about [VAD]. We have virtually no experience of it because we get the micronutrients we need from ordinary foods and vitamin supplements. One of the first symptoms of vitamin A deficiency is night blindness, which means pretty much what it says. But to convey this as an actual, lived experience I quote from Catherine Prices excellent book, Vitamania, in which she describes what happens to vitamin A deficient children in poor, developing countries.

While they lead an active life during the day, they gradually withdraw and stop playing as twilight approaches. With the fall of night, they basically just sit in place and wait for help, because they have lost their sight in darkness, and their life grinds to a halt. In countries such as the Philippines, where people eat rice as a staple, at every meal, Golden Rice could prevent this from happening, and even reverse the symptoms in children already affected by VAD.

CE: You point out that Greenpeace struggled with a moral dilemma before forcefully coming out against Golden Rice. Tells about that situation.

In 2001, the year after the Golden Rice protype was announced in Science, a Greenpeace official by the name of Benedikt Haerlin visited Ingo Potrykus, the co-inventor, at his home in Switzerland. Haerlin discussed whether or not to make the provitamin A rice an exception to Greenpeaces otherwise absolute and rigid opposition to any and all genetically engineered foods. He had initially acknowledged that there was a moral difference between GMOs that were merely agriculturally superiorin being pesticide- or herbicide-resistant, for exampleand a GMO that was so nutritionally beneficial that it actually had the potential to save peoples lives and sight.

But apparently that distinction made no difference because in the end both Haerlin himself and Greenpeace as an organization soon took the view that Golden Rice had to be opposed, even stopped, no matter what its possible health benefits might be.

CE: Greenpeace also claimed that poverty and insufficiently diverse diet were the root causes of vitamin A deficiency. Therefore, they said, developing biofortified crops was misguided. That sounds like a reasonable argument, so whats wrong with Greenpeaces analysis here?

This is like arguing that until we find a cure for cancer we should not treat patients by means of surgery, chemotherapy or radiation therapy. This is totally illogical on the face of it. And the same is true of the argument that since poverty is the cause of the problem that therefore the only solution is to eradicate it. Everyones in favor of eradicating poverty, but there are things we can do in the interim while advancing that far-off and utopian goal, which arguably will take some time to accomplish. Biofortified Golden Rice, along with supplementation and a more diverse diet, can help prevent vitamin A deficiency. If a solution, or a set of solutions, is available, lets implement them while also striving to reduce poverty. Both can be done together, you dont have to choose between one and the other.

CE: Many people believe that Greenpeace and other anti-GMO groups are the main roadblock to getting Golden Rice into the hands of farmers. But you write that the activists dont deserve that much credit. What else has kept Golden Rice off the market?

Greenpeaces long history of anti-GMO rhetoric, diatribes, street demonstrations, protests, dressing up in monster crop costumes, and all the rest of it actually did nothing to halt research and development of Golden Rice. There are two reasons why it took 20 years to bring Golden Rice to the point where it won approval for release in four countries: Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Canada. The first is that it takes a long time to breed increasingly higher concentrations of beta carotene (or any other valuable trait) into new strains of rice (or any other plant). Plant breeding is not like a chemistry experiment that you can repeat immediately as many times as you want. Rather, plant growth is an inherently slow and glacial process that cant be [sped] up meaningfully except under certain special laboratory conditions that are expensive and hard to foster and sustain.

The second reason is the retarding force of government regulations on GMO crop development. Those regulations, which cover plant breeding, experimentation, and field trials, among other things, are so oppressively burdensome and costly that they make compliance inordinately time-consuming and expensive.

CE: Whats the Cartagena Protocol and how has it affected the development of Golden Rice?

The Cartagena Protocol was an international agreement, sponsored and developed by the United Nations, which aimed to ensure the safe handling, transport and use of living modified organisms (LMOs) resulting from modern biotechnology that may have adverse effects on biological diversity, taking into account also risks to human health.

On the face of it, this precautionary approach is plausible, even innocuous. In actual practice, the protocol amounts to a sweeping set of guidelines, requirements, and procedures pertaining to GMOs that were legally binding on the nations that were parties to the agreement, coupled with a set of mechanisms to enforce and ensure compliance. These oppressive and stifling rules and regulations soon turned into a nightmare for GMO developers, and did more than anything else to slow down the progress of Golden Rice.

Ingo Potrykus, the co-inventor of Golden Rice, has estimated that adherence to government regulations on GMOs resulting from the Cartagena Protocol and the precautionary principle, caused a delay of up to ten years in the development of the final product. That is a tragedy, caused by the very governments that are supposed to protect our health, but in this case did the opposite.

CE: Once a prototype of Golden Rice was developed, the prestigious science journal Nature refused to publish the study documenting the successful experiment. Why do you think Nature reacted that way, and what does it tell us about the cultural climate during the period when Golden Rice was first developed?

Well, I cant speak for the Nature editors, so in this case youre asking the wrong person. In my book, I quote what Ingo Potrykus had to say about the matter, which was:

The Nature editor did not even consider it worth showing the manuscript to a referee, and sent it back immediately. Even supportive letters from famous European scientists did not help. From other publications in Nature at that time we got the impression that Nature was more interested in cases which would rather question instead of support the value of genetic engineering technology.

And I will leave it at that.

CE: The classic objection to GMOs, including Golden Rice, is that theyre unnatural. Would you summarize your response to that claim in the book?

In the book I show that in fact most of the foods that we eat are unnatural in the sense that they are products of years of artificial selection, often using techniques other than conventional crossbreeding.

In particular I cite the example of Rio Red grapefruit, which is sold all over America and is not considered a GMO, despite the fact that its genes have been scrambled over the years by artificial means including radiation mutation breeding, in the form of thermal neutron (thN) bombardment, which was done at the Brookhaven National Laboratory. This highly mutant and genetically modified grapefruit variety is on file at the Joint FAO/IAEA Mutant Variety Database, at the headquarters of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in Vienna, Austria. You can hardly get more unnatural than Rio Red grapefruit.

By contrast, there is a plant whose roots in the ground are potatoes, but whose above ground fruit are tomatoes. This is the so-called TomTato, and was created by exclusively conventional means, i.e., grafting, which goes back thousands of years. But which of the two is more unnaturalthe Rio Red grapefruit or the freakish TomTato? And why does it matter?

CE: There are a lot of transgenic crops being developed, so why did Golden Rice become such a lightening rod for controversy in the GMO debate?

Because if it gets approved, works, and ends up saving lives and sight, it will lead to greater acceptance of GMO foods in general, which is the very last thing that GMO opponents want. That cannot be said of any other GMO.

CE: Bangladesh appears poised to release Golden Rice before the end of 2019. Are you hopeful that farmers will soon have access to it, or do you foresee more political and regulatory obstacles getting in the way?

In the words of Jack Reacher (the hero of Lee Childs crime novels), Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Seeing what has happened to Golden Rice over the course of 20 years, nothing would surprise me going forward. I would sort of be more surprised if Bangladesh approved it and it was grown and people ate it than if it were banned outright in the countries where its needed most. That is the most infuriating part of the whole story.

Ed Regisis a science writer whose work has appeared inScientific American,Harpers,Wired,Nature,Discover, and theNew York Times,among other publications. He is the author of ten books, includingWhat Is Life? Investigating the Nature of Life in the Age of Synthetic Biology.

Cameron J. English is the GLPs senior agricultural genetics and special projects editor. He co-hosts the Biotech Facts and Fallacies podcast. Follow him on Twitter @camjenglish

More here:
How misguided regulation has kept a GMO 'superfood' off the market: Q&A with Golden Rice author Ed Regis - Genetic Literacy Project

Ryo Takahashi, CEO

Ryo Takahashi (MBA 20) speaks with Professor Michael Sandel.

Bracing for a Brave New World

Scenes of genetic selection in Gattaca (1997), the telescreen surveillance state depicted in Orwells 1984 (1948), and the apprehension of criminals before they commit a crime as depicted in Minority Report (2002) may seem like distant dystopian science fiction.

Until recently. The rate of progress in technology has surpassed not only our ability to regulate its uses, but also our ability to engage in meaningful discourse on how technology ought to be used.

Recent advances in human trials for gene-editing technologies such as CRISPR, the deployment of emotion recognition in surveillance systems, and innovations in predictive policing technology all suggest that we are getting progressively closer to the use of such technologies, once the work of dystopian fiction, without adequately thinking through the potential consequences.

Growing interest over the promises and perils of technology has led to Professors Douglas Melton and Michael Sandel to offer Tech Ethics, a university-wide course being taught this year at HBSs Klarman Hall.

This is a new version of a course that Doug Melton and I have taught on and off over the past 10 years or so, said Professor Sandel.

The course was originally called Ethics and Biotechnology. The original focus of the course was on the ethics of stem cell research, genetic engineering, and the ethical implications of the genetic and biotech revolution.

Since then, the course has evolved and we have added topics related to AI, robots, algorithms, and big data, given the growing importance of those areas.

When we were debating questions of stem cell research and parents genetically creating designer babies, these were fascinating but somewhat distant from students personal experience. But when we talk about the ethics of the internet, or of the behaviors of technology companies, these are very immediate questions, because these are technologies that students interact with every hour of every day. This has heightened interest in the course.

Inviting debate on ethical issues

To date, the course has focused on topics as far-ranging as gene editing and genetic enhancement, algorithmic fairness and discrimination, the role of big data and social media, and genetically altered athletes and animals. Issues such as fairness, paternalism, freedom, and agency of the individual have oftentimes been at the core of many debates.

Sandel urges students who enroll in the course to come ready to think through and explore issues, as opposed to coming in with fixed opinions.

As democratic citizens, we have to be asking these questions today. If we dont think through the ethical implications of new technologies, we will be at their mercy. Technology is a tool. But its something we can use responsibly only if we reflect on how the tools should be used.

How can the tools be made to advance the common good, rather than to acquire a momentum of their own that winds up undermining democratic elections, or transforming the relations of parents to children, or leading to global warming if we dont think through our relation to nature? asks Sandel.

A course for all students

Each week, the course draws students from Harvards various schools, ranging from undergraduates to students pursuing professional degrees, including from Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School.

When I saw the course, I knew immediately that I want to take it, said Alex Mao (MBA 20).

I enrolled in Tech Ethics because I want to hear what other people think. On some issues I have a firm opinion whereas on others Im eager to hear others perspectives. We need to think about the implications of these technologies since its moving so quickly.

Previous versions of the course were for undergraduates, said Sandel.

Over time, it became clear to us that tech ethics is a subject that has become central to the various professionsof business, law, medicine, public health, government and public policy, the divinity school, etc.

Thats why we decided to make the course open to all students across the university, he said.

Klarman Hall seemed like the perfect venue for such an endeavor.

In a conversation with President Bacow about our ambition to launch a university-wide course, he strongly encouraged us to do it across the river, in this gorgeous new auditorium at HBS. He felt it would symbolize the idea of drawing together students from across the University into a shared, One Harvard academic community.

I was unsure whether undergrads would travel across the river for a course. We didnt know until the first day of class, when more than 1,000 students packed Klarman Hall, he said.

Given whats at stake, the long march may well be worth it.

Ryo Takahashi (MBA 20), originally from Japan, is a management consultant and writer. Prior to Harvard Business School, he worked as a Project Manager at the World Economic Forum (WEF) and was a Senior Associate at McKinsey & Company. Prior to these roles he worked at the Economist and the Japan Times. His writing has appeared in Time magazine, the Economist, the Japan Times, and the World Economic Forum, among other outlets. He received his B.A. in Economics (with Distinction) from The University of Tokyo and was also a Rotary Scholar to the London School of Economics.

Follow this link:
A Brave New World: Tech Ethics Course Encourages Students to Mull the Implications of New Technologies - Harbus Online

For the last few years, writers and scientists have marveled at the potential for gene editing to allow farmers to grow more food on less land and allow more of the earth to grow carbon-sucking forests and savannas.

The main advantage of gene editing is precision. Its right there in the name: Instead of dealing with the randomness of breeding, or the rough power-tool work implied by the term genetic engineering, the editing suggests that scientists could now change the letters of genetic code with the same ease that a writer corrects typos.

But in late July, FDA scientists found a chunk of bacterial DNA in gene-edited calves, prompting people to wonder if this precision tool wasnt as precise as advertised. That hopeful vision of a gene-edited future verdant with pesticide-free, carbon-sequestering crops flickered.

On Monday, the scientists studying these gene-edited cattle published a paper in the journal Nature Biotechnology explaining what happened. Essentially, this new paper tells us that gene editing precisely tweaked specific letters of DNA, exactly what it was supposed to do. But scientists also used older, cruder tools, and one of those caused the genetic typo. Even so, the end result might be that gene-editing slides into the muck of controversy over GMOs.

To be clear, the cows at the center of this study have nothing to do with creating more productive, pest-resistant foods. The scientists had edited their genes in stem cells, which grew into calves without horns. Farmers usually remove the horns to prevent cattle from injuring each other goring is a real danger.

When I visited the University of California Davis in 2015, I saw a pair of these black-and-white bull calves standing and chewing in an outdoor pen, like ordinary but adorable bovines. Unlike other calves, however, they wouldnt have to suffer through a painful dehorning operation, in which a veterinarian burns out their horn buds.

Some cows are naturally hornless: Angus and Hereford breeds, for instance. But those are beef cattle. For dairy you want Holsteins or Jerseys, and these champion milk producers are more carefully bred than the winners of the Westminster dog show. If you started crossing muscled Herefords with black-and-white Holsteins, it would take decades of breeding to move the hornless trait into the dairy line then weed out all the beefy traits.

What if you just plucked a single gene and moved it into dairy cows? With gene editing, you could tweak dairy cows without messing up their finely tuned milk-producing DNA so that they would no longer have to endure dehorning. The Minnesota-based company Recombinetics tried this using a technique called TALENS (you might have heard of CRISPR this is just a different version of the same thing).

To run with the editing metaphor, Recombinetics basically took out the DNA that laid out instructions for HORN and replaced it with 202 letters of DNA that said HORNLESS. But first, they attached it to a bacterial plasmid think of it as a sub-cellular copy machine that would reproduce this strand over and over again (HORNLESS, HORNLESS, HORNLESS!). Then they injected all those copies into a cow cell that gave one of those copies a much better chance of bumping into the one spot in the DNA that read HORN. This is where things went wrong. Instead of just replacing HORN with HORNLESS, the plasmid also folded into the cells DNA so that it read something like HORNLESS-COPYMACHINE-HORNLESS. That genetic information went into an egg, which went into a cows uterus, and, in 2015, grew into a hornless calf. No one noticed until years later.

The calves I saw at Davis were there to be studied by Alison Van Eenennaam, an animal geneticist. Funded by a U.S. Department of Agriculture program to assess the risks of biotech, her team first verified that the hornless trait was being passed down through generations of cattle. Basically, we found that Mendel knew his shit, said Van Eenennaam (thats Gregor Mendel, the scientist from the 1800s who described how traits are inherited).

With this new paper, Van Eenennaams team showed that the bacterial plasmid had also been passed down to some of the calves, again following the rules of genetics 101. It doesnt seem to be causing a problem its fairly normal for DNA from germs and viruses to work its way into genomes (the human genome is about 8 percent virus DNA), and critters can usually just roll with it. But because these cattle had DNA from a bacteria, it meant they were genetically modified organisms, or GMOs in the eyes of government regulators. That, in turn, meant they would have to undergo years of testing. A giant corporation like Bayer could afford that, but not a small startup like Recombinetics. The FDA is now treating gene-edited animals like new drugs, requiring multiple rounds of safety testing, which effectively puts an end to the quest to make hornless dairy cows. Longtime opponents of biotechnology think that would be a good thing. Friends of the Earth recently released a report with Janet Cotter, who runs the consultancy Logos Environmental, condemning gene edited animals.

The scientific evidence shows that gene editing, particularly in animals, is far from precise. Cotter said in a statement. Instead, it can produce unintended changes to genetic material and disrupt genetic processes. Such effects could have far reaching consequences for food safety, so these applications will require a rigorous assessment if they are to be used in agriculture.

It would be easy enough to screen out plasmids before putting gene-edited eggs into a cows womb. Thats a routine procedure, said Van Eenennaam. But she worries that wont quell fears that gene editing is sloppier than expected. Treating gene-edited animals like drugs is not proportionate with the risk, Van Eenennaam said, and would prevent breakthroughs that might help us meet the challenge of climate change, whether its cows that dont belch methane, or corals that can survive heat., Van Eenennaam said.

The debate has pretty much blocked the technology in animals through my whole career. I was hoping gene-editing would be different, she said. I have students who are excited about gene editing for disease-resistance but now I feel like its Ground Hog Day. Here we go again.

As a nonprofit news outlet, we rely on reader support to help fund our award-winning journalism. Were one of the few news outlets dedicated exclusively to people-focused environmental coverage, and we believe our content should remain free and accessible to all. If you dig our mission and agree news should never sit behind a paywall, donate today to help support our work. Chip in what you can.

See the original post here:
Gene editing could help save the planet if scientists can avoid the typos - Grist

Death was conquered, via an elaborate cloning technique, and everything looked as if things were finally turning around for Charles Xaviers friends and foes.

And then Powers of X explicitly states that things will always turn out badly for mutants.

Its much worse than that. We always lose, Moira MacTaggart tells Xavier midway through the series, and she should know; by this point in the narrative, she has lived and died nine different times, trying alternative ways to maintain the survival of the mutant race without success. (As the final issue of Powers of X reveals, Moira has lived for a thousand years in one timeline and it still ended with the mutantkind being outstripped by a humanity augmented by its own invention.

Mutants are an evolutionary response to an environment. You are naturally occurring. The next step in human evolution, a character from 1,000 years in the future explains in the issue. But what happens when humanity stops being beholden to its environment? When man controls the building blocks of biology and technology Evolution is no match for genetic engineering. What good was one mutant adapting to its environment when we could make ten super men?

Turning the franchises long-running theme on its head, the core conflict of the X-Men property isnt homo superior (mutant) versus homo sapien (man), but homo superior versus homo novissima (post-human, or genetically engineered human) a battle that, its suggested, mutantkind will lose no matter what.

Armed with this knowledge, Moira has manipulated events throughout the franchise and certain people to try and equip mutantkind as best she can in the upcoming conflict, leading to a united Xavier and Magneto announcing that she has honed them into perfect tools for an imperfect age that would change things moving forward.

The new era of X-Men comics, therefore, is one in which the majority of characters believe that theyre living in a golden age of mutantkind, but theyre actually part of the latest in a series of conflicts for survival that they are, perhaps, destined to lose. How this thread will continue through the multiple Dawn of X spinoff titles remains to be seen, but with Powers of X author Jonathan Hickman writing the ongoing X-Men series launching in the wake of this reveal, one thing is for certain: This isnt an idea that is going to go away anytime soon.

Powers of X No. 6 is available now in comic book stores and digitally.

View original post here:
Marvel's 'Powers of X' Ends With Surprising Revelation - Hollywood Reporter

This story is part of The 2010s: A Decade in Review, a series on the memes, people, products, movies and so much more that have influenced the 2010s.

The first decade of the 21st century introduced us to sweeping mobile and social revolutions largely driven by names like Jobs, Zuckerberg and Bezos. In the second decade that's now closing, things got a little more complicated. During those years, a new collection of faces have joined the earlier tech titans to continue moving us into the future. Here's CNET's list of the top technology innovators and all-around unavoidable personalities of the 2010s.

A person wears a Guy Fawkes mask, which today is a trademark and symbol for the online hacktivist group Anonymous. From 2012.

More a decentralized collective than a personality, Anonymous was the name claimed by the loose affiliation of hackers who brought "hacktivism" into the mainstream. During the first half of the decade, Anonymous launched attacks against targets like ISIS, the governments of the US and Tunisia, and corporations such as Sony and PayPal. The group's tactics included distributed denial-of-service attacks that overwhelm a target's website and knock it offline and compromising private databases to access and later leak confidential information, such as the personal details of members of the Ku Klux Klan.

In 2019, the group's prominence has faded somewhat -- last year it said it would debunk the QAnon conspiracy theory -- but concerns about hacking remain in the forefront, in part because one large collective of unknown activists put it there.

Julian Assange of WikiLeaks during a livestreamed press conference in 2017.

The founder of online portal WikiLeaks, Assange had a mission to reveal the secrets of the powerful. It made him an instant hero to many and a wanted man to others (in May the US government charged him with violating the Espionage Act). WikiLeaks started the decade by publishing documents obtained by whistleblower Chelsea Manning between 2010 and 2011, and it supported NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden after he sought refuge in Russia in 2013. To avoid extradition to Sweden on charges of rape -- the charges were dropped in 2017, but the case has since been reopened -- Assange took refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he remained for seven years.

Despite its founder being stuck in the same building for much of the decade, WikiLeaks still managed to play a role in the 2016 US presidential election by publishing leaked emails that were detrimental to Hillary Clinton and the next year releasing thousands of documents showing how the CIA can hack into phones. The Assange saga is far from over, though. In 2019 he was booted from the embassy by the Ecuadorian government and arrested by London police. He remains in British custody and could be extradited to the US.

Now playing: Watch this: Step inside Julian Assange's office

3:25

GM CEO Mary Barra says the self-driving technology can help relieve driver stress.

The General Motors CEO became the first woman to lead a major carmaker when she took over in 2014 and has been consistently ranked among the world's most powerful women over the past decade by Forbes and Fortune.

Her tenure has been marked by GM's push to keep up and even eclipse Tesla's efforts to bring electric and driverless cars into the mainstream. The Chevy Volt EV actually brought a sub-$40,000 EV to market ahead of Tesla's Model 3, and GM has also invested in ride-sharing technology to help ensure it stays relevant in the future.

Under Barra, GM is also one of just two global businesses to completely do away with its gender pay gap, according to a study by Equileap.

Bezos speaking at an Amazon press event in 2018.

Even after losing a quarter of his Amazon shares in his divorce settlementin April, Bezos remains the world's richest person, worth more than $107 billion as of this month, according to Forbes. Throughout the decade, he spread his money around,buying the Washington Post in 2013 and growing his company phenomenally. Amazon is now a vast empire that's not only become the world's warehouse, but that also encompasses the Amazon Web Services cloud computing platform, game streaming platform Twitch, a fleet of freight aircraft, music streaming,branded convenience stores, the Kindle e-reader, the Whole Foods Market grocery chain and a space startup meant to give Elon Musk and SpaceX some competition. Its Prime subscription service delivers goods in hours, and serves up a huge gallery of movies, TV programs and audiobooks.

Amazon also makes plenty of products of its own, including its Alexa-powered home assistants and Ring security system, both of which have forced the company torespond to privacy concerns over its increasing expansion into homes. And the company continues to face criticism over working conditions and pay for its employees.

Now playing: Watch this: Jeff Bezos reveals plans for the moon and beyond

3:33

danah boyd

She may not be a household name, but danah boyd (who prefers to spell her name with lowercase) has become a leading thinker and researcher on the effects of technology on society and our children. In her 2014 book It's Complicated, she argued that social media provides an important space for youth to express themselves and to engage with each other and with society.

She's also a principal researcher for Microsoft and has broadened her research to focus on the relationship between social inequality and technology through her research institute Data and Society. In awarding her its 2019 Pioneer award, the Electronic Frontier Foundation called boyd a "trailblazing technology scholar."

Richard Branson at a Virgin Mobile event.

The billionaire magnate is willing to try just about anything, it seems. Branson's Virgin brand has dabbled in everything from media to hotels to health care, and in the last decade it has also made some far-out bets. In recent years, Branson has invested in Elon Musk's futuristic hyperloop transport technology and is working on Virgin Orbit, which could launch satellites using a combination of rockets and a high-altitude launcher plane. In the coming months, Virgin Galactic mayfinally begin launching tourists (including Branson himself) into orbit using a similar approach from the New Mexico desert.

By 2040, there will be 1 million more young women of color with coding skills if Kimberly Bryant meets her ambitious goal. The electrical engineer and Vanderbilt grad founded Black Girls Code in 2011 with the goal of reaching 1 million girls by midcentury. That could transform places like Silicon Valley, where only 2% of women working in tech are people of color, according to a 2018 report from the Kapor Center. Bryant's work has been widely recognized -- by the White House, the Smithsonian and others -- helping to bring in funding for the mission and increasing the chances that the next Steve Jobs is a woman of color.

Mark Cuban at CNET's Next Big Thing panel at CES 2013

During the 2010s, Cuban became much more than just one of the billionaires from the original dot-com boom of the late 1990s. He completed his crossover to become a major figure in the worlds of sports, entertainment and even politics.

Cuban's riches can be traced to successful exits from old, old-school internet properties like Broadcast.com, but he's since leveraged those early moves into a career as an NBA franchise owner, a TV personality (most notably on Shark Tank) and an investor in dozens of companies including Dropbox, Magnolia Pictures and Alyssa's Cookies. He was even floated as a potential presidential candidate in 2016 and 2020, but says he won't run without his family's permission.

Tim Cook at WWDC 2019.

It was a difficult job to take the mantle after Steve Jobs died in 2011, but Cook has maintained Apple's dominance over the past several years. Cook may not be the showman of his predecessor, but the brand is as far-reaching as ever. The iPhone still rules the mobile roost alongside Android, and under his guidance the company has launched forays into areas like the Apple Watch, content production, Apple Arcade and even finance with the Apple Card.

While it might be a stretch to call Cook a gay icon (he came out in a 2014 essay), he's certainly one of the most powerful LGBTQ people in the world, and his worldview has informed his drive to make Apple more ethical, diverse and values-driven, according to author Leander Kahney.

A pre-beard Dorsey.

Assuming the role of Twitter's CEO in 2015, Dorsey's been the face of one of the most highly trafficked and often toxic online platforms. Over the past decade, Twitter helped give rise to revolution in the Middle East, including the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and also gave us the platform that @RealDonaldTrump has used more effectively than any other American politician to rally support and spin news events. Twitter has also enabled floods of hate speech, fake news and misinformation. Though the company has tried to combat them with new rules and technology, it's only subject to more criticism when the regulations are unevenly enforced.

As he tries to guide Twitter's central role in reshaping global media, Dorsey's also CEO of payments company Square, giving him an outsized influence in how information and money move around the world now and in the coming years.

Jennifer Doudna

One of the key innovations of the 2010s goes by the unwieldy name CRISPR/Cas9, and Doudna is a pioneer in its use to edit DNA. This new tool holds the potential to revolutionize biology, medicine, agriculture and other fields.

Doudna's lab at the University of California, Berkeley has also spun off a for-profit venture to commercialize CRISPR applications, and Doudna has become a leader in the ongoing ethical discussions around the future of genetic engineering.

Susan Fowler at the Women Transforming Technology conference

The #MeToo movement swept through the tech world and other industries beginning in 2017, thanks in large part to Fowler's personal blog chronicling sexual harassment and abuse within Uber, where she worked as a software engineer. The fallout resulted in a shakeup of Uber's power structure and the demotion of founder and CEO Travis Kalanick. Fowler's memoir, Whisteblower, is due out in 2020, and she has a new role writing for the New York Times opinion section.

This power couple has taken the money that Bill made producing the software suites we all love to complain about and turned it into a philanthropic empire. The $50 billion Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has poured millions into global health and development efforts, as well as education in the US. Bill says the foundation played a major role in a drastic reduction of the child mortality rate, saving over 100 million lives. Bill has also stayed relevant through the reading lists he releases regularly, and Melinda debuted as an author herself with a book about empowering women around the world.

Elizabeth Holmes in a still from The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley.

Like Pixelon's Michael Fenne (real name: David Kim Stanley) almost two decades earlier, Holmes serves as a cautionary tale for what can go wrong when the hype becomes unmoored from reality in tech.

In the span of a few years, Holmes took Theranos and a never-quite-ready-for-primetime blood-testing technology from a subject of interest to one of investment, investigation and now, potentially Holmes' own incarceration as she faces charges of criminal fraud.

The decade began with Jobs' introduction of the iPad in January 2010, nearly two years before he died in October 2011. Apple, whose iPhone helped change the way we live, has continued to be one of the most iconic and valuable brands in the history of capitalism. His legacy has been a topic of near constant discussion since his passing, including treatments in multiple Hollywood movies and major books from the likes of Walter Isaacson and Jobs' daughter Lisa Nicole Brennan-Jobs.

John Legere

T-Mobile's CEO could be the most interesting person in the wireless industry. Over the past decade, he's masterfully played the role of underdog fighting against telecom giants like AT&T and Verizon. Nearly everything the exec does seems calculated to turn heads, whether it's lacing a press conference with profanity, launching barbs at the competition on social media or dressing in the company's trademark magenta. But Legere also produced results, greatly increasing T-Mobile's customer base over the years, revamping the carrier's customer service and bucking industry trends by keeping unlimited data plans. Despite it all, Legere's future going into 2020 is uncertain, with talk he might be replaced should a pending merger with rival Sprint finally go through.

Travis Kalanick exits federal court after taking the stand during the Waymo v. Uber trial over allegedly stolen driverless car trade secrets.

The Uber founder embodies the success-at-all-costs mentality that has driven many other Silicon Valley success stories. He led a ride-sharing revolution that quickly spread around the world and made Uber the prototypical startup "unicorn." But allegations of sexual harassment (brought by whistleblower and engineer Susan Fowler) and Kalanick's own abrasive leadership style would soon see him pushed out as the company's leader in June 2017, although he still retains a seat on the board.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk

Musk wants to save the planet with electric cars and solar panels, take us to Mars, connect our brains to computers and shoot us around the world in pressurized tubes at near the speed of sound with his hyperloop-creating Boring Company. Most of this visionary's big visions are still in progress, but his credibility comes from simultaneously disrupting both the automotive and commercial space industries over the past decade with the success of Tesla and SpaceX. The world tends to watch his every move, which he often gleefully shares on social media. Musk's tweets have brought him trouble, especially when they move Tesla's stock price and invite lawsuits and the ire of the SEC or appear to smear a diver trying to rescue a Thai soccer team trapped in a cave.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella speaks at a company event.

This Indian immigrant with a degree in electrical engineering turned out to be the right man for the job of making Microsoft cool again. Or at least making it cooler. Since becoming CEO in 2014, Nadella has helped increase Microsoft's bottom line and make it a trillion-dollar company. He's overseen a transformation that has done away with the company's cutthroat reputation, both toward competitors and internally, though in 2014 he apologized after making controversial comments about women's pay in an interview. Nadella has also advanced forward-looking acquisitions in artificial intelligence, gaming and brand names like Github, LinkedIn and Mojang, creator of Minecraft.

Very few people seem to know who Nakamoto really is. The presumed pseudonym is attached to the person or persons responsible for the development of bitcoin, which launched a cryptocurrency revolution that started slowly in 2009 but picked up steam over the decade that followed.

A once-worthless digital currency, bitcoin has been valued at up to $20,000 per coin. It inspired the development of countless other cryptos and an entirely new industry around its underlying technology, blockchain. Although some have claimed to be the real Nakamoto and others have been falsely outed as the actual Satoshi, his true identity remains unclear.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai

Google has gone from "Don't be evil" to increasingly having to convince consumers and regulators that it isn't. When the company transformed into Alphabet in 2015 and the Google name was attached to its internet-focused subsidiary (including Android, YouTube and search), Pichai became the new face of Google as CEO. During his first four years, the Googleplex has continued to dominate everything from search to mobile operating systems to online cat videos, while making big moves with new hardware like Google Home and a fleet of Pixel devices. It hasn't been all sunshine, though. Pichai has also had to navigate the proliferation of hate speech and disinformation on YouTube, deal with walkouts over sexual harassment allegations directed at Google executives and confront criticism over a possible censored search service in China. That's to say nothing of the James Damore saga over the company's diversity policies. Still, Pichai and Google seem likely to remain on top for the foreseeable future.

Zoe Quinn.

Years before #MeToo, Gamergate gave us all a preview of the widespread bad behavior and abuse by people in positions of power that would soon be exposed across a number of industries. Quinn, along with fellow game developer Brianna Wu and culture critic Anita Sarkeesian, was among the first to be harassed and threatened by mobs of online trolls that would eventually coalesce around the #gamergate hashtag. It was an early warning sign of how bad things would become online.

Quinn, who uses they/them pronouns, turned their experience and insights into the 2017 book Crash Override: How Gamergate (Nearly) Destroyed My Life, and How We Can Win the Fight Against Online Hate. They have continued to be vocal about instances of abuse within the gaming industry while also churning out new comics (for both Marvel and DC) and collaborating on indie games.

IBM CEO Gini Rometty

CEO of IBM is another job title that doesn't seem as cool as it was 50 years ago. But since taking over in 2012, Rometty has moved the company from dinosaur status to focusing on the future. IBM today is invested deeply in nascent technologies like artificial intelligence, blockchain and quantum computing.

Sheryl Sandberg in 2015.

Sandberg was the fresh face Facebook often needed when Mark Zuckerberg spent too much time in the spotlight. While she deserves some credit for building Facebook up to the global force it is today, her 2013 business and leadership memoir Lean In made her a household name. Facebook and Sandberg have since received a healthy dose of criticism for the platform's myriad scandals, ranging from privacy concerns to the spread of misinformation, but they continue to stand their ground.

Former Instagram executive Adam Mosseri, flanked by Mike Krieger on the left and Kevin Systrom on the right.

As social media scandals increasingly give platforms like Facebook and Twitter a bad rep, Instagram seems to remain an almost-pristine place for all our best moments, no matter if they're earnest or fake AF, a la Fyre Festival. The disastrous music festival was promoted using Instagram and harnessed the power of its many "influencers" and the FOMO it engenders perhaps better than any other platform. Systrom and Krieger co-founded the photo-sharing site in 2010 and the service was snapped up by Facebook in 2012 for $1 billion. Systrom stayed on as CEO through 2018, growing the service to almost a billion registered users. While the platform has faced criticism over censorship in several countries and other practices like "shadowbanning" (in which posts are hidden from the view of others without it being apparent to the user), Instagram has remained relatively scandal-free compared to its parent company in recent years.

Peter Thiel in 2014.

Like Musk, Thiel made his first big pile of money from the sale of PayPal, which he co-founded, to eBay in 2002. The hits continued when he became Facebook's first outside investor in 2004 and went on to make early investments in Airbnb, LinkedIn, Yelp, Spotify and SpaceX, just to name a few.

Over the past decade, though, he's become better known for his political and social stances, particularly his growing disdain for Silicon Valley and his fervent support of President Trump. He also backed a lawsuit filed in 2012 over wrestler Hulk Hogan's sex tape that ultimately bankrupted gossip site Gawker, allegedly over a grudge he held against the site for a 2007 article outing him as gay. Thiel's Libertarian views have also inspired projects like the Seasteading Institute, which aims to create a society at sea, beyond the reach of any government.

Desktops are still alive and kicking, according to HP CEO Meg Whitman.

The former CEO behind the early growth of eBay is always doing something interesting. After losing a bid for governor of California in 2010, Whitman spent the first half of the decade leading and splitting up Hewlett-Packard into two businesses. After leaving HP in 2017, she turned her energies to new efforts focused on younger consumers than the typical HP customer. She's now CEO of upcoming short-form video service Quibi and an investor and board member at Los Angeles esports startup Immortals.

Mark Zuckerberg discusses Oculus at an event last month.

The decade opened with Jesse Eisenberg playing Zuck in the 2010 film The Social Network, and in recent years the Facebook founder probably would have been happy to have an actor continue to play him as CEO. As we've debated the power of Facebook and how much it knows about us, Zuckerberg has confronted multiple scandals and sat for hours of grilling by Congress over the proliferation of fake news on his platform. Through it all, Facebook has arguably been at the center of everything during the past 10 years, whether it's influencing the Brexit vote and the 2016 presidential election or the revelations that data research firm Cambridge Analytica had harvested the data of millions of Facebook users without their consent. Now presidential candidates talk of breaking up the social networking behemoth even as Zuckerberg hopes to move forward into the brave new world of VR with the help of companies like Oculus that it has swallowed over the past decade.

Originally published Oct. 10, 5 a.m. PT.

$699

CNET may get a commission from retail offers.

Original post:
From Elon Musk to Jeff Bezos, these 30 personalities defined the 2010s - CNET

The word agriculture conjures up an array of images: endless fields of corn stalks, amber waves of grain, the deserts of Africa Africa? While thoughts of the African landscape may tend to invoke a dry and empty countryside, scientists at Washington University in St. Louis are working to develop self-sustaining plants that could eventually turn the Sahara into a sea of green.

Himadri B. Pakrasi, the Glassberg Greensfelder Distinguished University Professor in the department of biology in Arts & Sciences and director of the International Center for Energy, Environment and Sustainability (InCEES), and Costas D. Maranas, professor of chemical engineering at Penn State, were recently awarded a $1.2-million grant from the National Science Foundation for their collaborative study of systems biology. Specifically, the Pakrasi and Maranas labs hope to decode the inner workings of cyanobacteria for the ultimate purpose of producing nitrogen-fixing crop plants.

For more than a century, farmers around the world have relied heavily on chemical fertilizers to help grow their plants and crops. Fertilizers contain nitrogen, an essential building block for all life forms to grow, and an element that is abundant in the earths atmosphere. However, creating man-made fertilizers is an energy intensive process that contributes to greenhouse gases and leads to run-off issues that severely damage the environment. A solution to this problem is to engineer plants to absorb nitrogen from the atmosphere and convert it into fertilizer, a process known as nitrogen fixation, so that the plants would become self-sufficient.

If you have engineered seeds that you give to an African farmer, that farmer can then plant the seeds, which gives rise to a field of crops that would not need chemically synthesized fertilizer to grow, Pakrasi said. This has huge agricultural implications not just for the affluent, Western world,but to the areas hardest hit by climate change.

Easier said than done. Nitrogen fixation cannot take place in the cells of most photosynthetic organisms plants that convert sunlight into energy because when plants are undergoing photosynthesis, a byproduct is oxygen. And oxygen is like a poison when it mixes with nitrogenease, the enzyme that enables nitrogen fixation. However, there is an organism that can accommodate both photosynthesis and nitrogen fixation in the same cell: cyanobacteria.

Just like human beings, cyanobacteria have a robust circadian rhythm a 24-hour biological cycle during which they photosynthesize in the day and fix nitrogen at night. Scientists have long studied these bluish-green creatures, but do not have a detailed understanding of how circadian rhythms allow cyanobacteria to adjust its metabolism for both nitrogen fixation and photosynthesis to take place in the same cell. With advances in genetic modification tools, it is now possible to probe deeper into the details of this process.

There are still missing parts of the cyanobacterial puzzle, Pakrasi said. The only way to identify what those missing parts are is to actually go into the cyanobacterium and tease apart the machinery. And thats what this grant will allow us to do.

In other words, the Pakrasi lab will perform a series of genetic modifications to the cyanobacteria and generate new data. The Maranas lab will then take the data and develop a predictive model for the inner working of the cyanobacterium. This iterative process will take some time, but the research is imperative to combating the climate changes facing the planet, Pakrasi said.

Its kind of like building an electric pickup truck, Pakrasi said. How do you go from a gasoline fueled car to a Tesla pickup truck? The basic technology for making a gas fueled car is already known, but were moving to a new paradigm of production in the form of a Tesla truck. Once we figure it out, we can deploy the new technology to our partners all over the world.

Read more:
NSF funds research on nitrogen fixation - Washington University in St. Louis Newsroom

We have the choice to attack one of our oldest enemies with genetic engineering. But should we do it?

Support us on Patreon so we can make more videos (and get cool stuff in return): https://www.patreon.com/Kurzgesagt?ty=h

Steady: https://steadyhq.com/de/kurzgesagtMerchandise: https://shop.kurzgesagt.org Newsletter: http://eepurl.com/cRUQxzFacebook: http://bit.ly/1NB6U5OTwitter: http://bit.ly/2DDeT83Instagram: http://bit.ly/2DEN7r3Discord: https://discord.gg/cB7ycdv

The Voice of Kurzgesagt: Steve Taylor: http://voice-pool.com/en/english/Get the music of the video here: soundcloud: http://bit.ly/2cJQIskbandcamp: http://bit.ly/2dj4np0http://www.epic-mountain.com

Big thanks to James Gurney and Roya Haghighat-Khah for their help and advice with this video!

THANKS A LOT TO OUR LOVELY PATRONS FOR SUPPORTING US:

Lucien Delbert, Mike C, Ricardo Chavarria, Juha Wellman, Zachary Jordan, Patrick Chang, Adrian Mihali, Nicodemos Nicodemou, Lacey Larson, Austin Earnest, Andre Wee, Koroslak, Alex Brady, Roberto Cano, Andreas Stokholm, Plamen Ivanov, E Smith, Kieran Hunter-East, Christopher Trinh, Tony Kwok, Adam Rabenstein, Andrew Whitehurst, Alena Vlachova, Mackenzie Broadbent, Andreas Hertle, Martin Petersen, Kasturi Raghavan, Gregory Griffin, KiaTheDead, Aaron Stevens, Jimmy C, Benedikt Jaletzke, Jonathan Bowler, Zdravko aek, Wouter Stokhof, Zealotus, Long Vu, Fatman13, Jeremy Dumet, Miles Spoor, Mirton I, Al Fl, Jonathan Carter, Stanislaw Wasowicz, Marek Turcani, Francisco Santos, Justin Choi, Dagoberto Chapa, Chip Salzenberg, TinFung, Bob Bergeron, Peer, Justin Elstrott, Rachid Malik, Octavio Astillo, Romain Isnel, Rich Sekmistrz, Kuosora, Mozart Petter, Justin Jeffries, Nicola Licheri, Bahram Malaekeh, Florent Petterschmitt, David Mark, Gaby Germanos, Shweta Bharadwai, Lux Stamm, Marc Johann, Joe, Nefaur Khandker, Anders Madsen, Sarah Yoshi, monoxide, Brandon Meador, Dovydas Bartkevicius, Tyler Vigen, Michael Niella, Gordon Timilty, Slava Dzyba, Bagel Krippen Chandra, KodinCage, Miikka Harjuntausta, Magid Elgady, Vince Houmes, Irae Carvalho, Josh Talbot, Mr.Z, Pawel Urbanek, Russ Clarke, Lucas Tostes, Oscar Chamaria, Zachary Langdon, Steve Bollenbaugh, Xiaogiang Zheng, Peter LoPinto, Jenny Nordenborg, Evan Faas, Greg Fowler, Cicmil Mladen, Canut Durgun, Malovich, Cedric, Dave Anderson, Jones, Elliot, Denis Dube, David Allen, Dawson Reid, Jake Zwirdowski, Denis Leu

SOURCES AND FURTHER READING:

Harvard FAQs on gene drive:http://bit.ly/1TYNIAo

Research paper on using CRISPR for malaria gene drive:http://bit.ly/2cGXNqp

Nature article on engineered mosquitos:http://go.nature.com/1Ij39yS

STAT new article on using gene drive against Zika:http://bit.ly/2ctw24X

Tech review article on using gene drive against malaria:http://bit.ly/1V0Qpr7

Smithsonian on deadliness of mosquitos:http://bit.ly/1sqQ1D7

Science article about the risks of the technology:http://bit.ly/2dgtpCt

New Yorker on Pros and Cons:http://bit.ly/1PTKGlt

Gates note on death rate through mosquitos:http://bit.ly/1UdvIqI

Status quo on field trial in the U.S.:http://bit.ly/2b16ufu

Evolution working against gene drive technology:http://theatln.tc/2cmMjau

Research paper on evolution of resistance against gene drive:http://bit.ly/2cGWPKO

Science news on possible safety feature for gene drive:http://bit.ly/29I0Z26

Help us caption & translate this video!

http://www.youtube.com/timedtext_cs_p...

Read more:
Genetic Engineering and Diseases Gene Drive & Malaria ...

ingeniera gentica (es); (kk-kz); Kejuruteraan genetik (ms); (kk-cn); (bg); genetik mhendislii (tr); (zh-hk); Genteknik (sv); (uk); Genetika inenerligi (tk); (zh-hant); (zh-cn); Genetik injeneriya (uz); (kk); Gentekniko (eo); genetick inenrstv (cs); Genetiki inenjering (bs); (bn); gnie gntique (fr); Genetiko inenjerstvo (hr); K thut di truyn (vi); (kk-arab); Genetka njenerligi (kk-latn); genetiese manipulasie (af); (sr); Engenharia gentica (pt-br); (zh-sg); Gentechnik (lb); genmodifisering (nn); genslyd (nb); Rkayasa genetik (su); (kk-cyrl); (zh-hans); (lzh); (ckb); genetic engineering (en); (ar); Teknologiezh c'henetek (br); (zh-tw); (pa); (yue); Genetka njenerligi (kk-tr); Genetik mhndisliyi (az); Genetiki inenjering (sr-el); ingeniaritza genetiko (eu); (he); Inxeniera xentica (ast); Enginyeria gentica (ca); Gentechnik (de-ch); Jinetik injinierin (jam); (gan-hans); Inxhinieria gjenetike (sq); (hy); (zh); Gensplejsning (da); (ka); (ja); genetische technologie (nl); (be); (ky); (gan-hant); (si); Technologia genetica (la); rekayasa genetika (id); (hi); (wuu); Angenharie gentica (mwl); Endazyariya bmayk (ku-latn); Genetic engineering (en-ca); (th); (ta); ingegneria genetica (it); (mn); Innealtireacht ghiniteach (ga); Rekonbinezon jenetik (ht); geenitehnoloogia (et); genetic engineering (en-gb); Geenitekniikka (fi); (ur); (gan); Endazyariya bmayk (ku); Ncignira gintica (scn); engenharia gentica (pt); (fa); gnu inenierija (lv); genetic ingineerin (sco); Gen ininerija (lt); Genetsko inenirstvo (sl); Inhenyeriyang henetiko (tl); Inginerie genetic (ro); (ru); Inhenyerya henetika (war); inynieria genetyczna (pl); (ml); Genetiki inenjering (sh); (ba); Gentechnik (de); (sr-ec); Genetyske technology (fy); Enxeara xentica (gl); (ko); (el); (ku-arab) tecnologa de la manipulacin y transferencia de ADN (es); ensemble des outils de manipulation du gnome (fr); direkte manipulering av genomet til ein organisme ved hjelp av bioteknologi (nn); (he); directe modificatie van het genoom van een organisme (nl); , (ba); Methoden und Verfahren der Biotechnologie (de); biotekniikan haara (fi); direct manipulation of an organism's genome using biotechnology (en); zintne par gnu prmainanu un prstdanu (lv); settore delle biotecnologie che si occupa della manipolazione dei geni (it) Tecnologa del ADN recombinante, Modificacion genetica, Ingeniera gnica, Biogentica, Manipulacin gentica, Biotecnologa gentica, Tecnologia del ADN recombinante (es); (ky); ingenieritza genetikoa (eu); (ru); (ba); Gentechnisch, Rekombinante DNA-Technologie, Gentechnologisch, Genmodifikation, Gentechnologie, Genmanipulation, Graue Gentechnik (de); Inxhinieringu gjenetik (sq); , , , , , , , , (zh); Genmanipulation, Gensplejset (da); Gen mhendislii, Genetik manplasyon, Gen mhendislii gelimeleri, Genetik mhendislik, Genetik modifikasyon, Gen ekleme, DNA klonlamas (tr); , , , , , , DNA, (ja); Gentekniken (sv); (uk); Geenimuuntelu, Geenimanipulointi, Geenimanipulaatio, Geeniteknologia, Geenimuokkaus (fi); , (kk); Genetika inenierio (eo); genetick manipulace, genov inenrstv, genetick modifikace (cs); (ta); Tecnologia DNA ricombinante, Manipolazione genetica (it); manipulation gntique, ingnierie gntique, ingnierie du gnome (fr); Genetski inenjering (hr); Ingigniria ginetica, Ngignira gintica (scn); Modificao gentica, Modificao celular, Modificao da celula, engenharia genetica (pt); Geneticko inzenjerstvo, , (sr); , , (ko); Rekayasa gen, Rekayasa genetik, Rekayasa biologi (id); genspleising, genslyd, genteknikk (nn); Genetic engineering (ml); GGO, Frankenstein-voedsel, GMO, genmodificatie, genetische modificatie, gentechnologie, gmo's, transgeen, genetische verbetering, genentechnologie, genetisch gemodificeerd organisme, gentech, genetische manipulatie, ggo's (nl); Manipulacin xentica, Enxeera xentica (gl); geenitehnika, geenimanipulatsioon (et); Genetic engineering (gan); K thut di truyn (vi); genetic modification, genetic manipulation (en); , , , , , Genetic engineering, , , , , (ar); Genetic engineering, (ur); Genmanipulering, Genmanipulasjon, Genetisk modifisering, Genspleising, Genmodifisering (nb)

Here is the original post:
Category:Genetic engineering - Wikimedia Commons

10 Reasons to Oppose Genetic Engineering

2. Health risksGenetic engineering can make foods that were once safe to eat a threat to people with allergies. Because this process is unpredictable, new substances can develop in engineered foods. The FDA knows this and does some testing, but there are no guarantees.

Besides the new allergies, inserting genes into plants and animals can cause existing genes to react in unknown ways, including reduced nutritional values and changes in organism quality.

4. Biodiversity in dangerEngineering specific traits into select species threatens the planets biodiversity by upsetting the natural balance. Engineered organisms spread uncontained into the wild. They also spread their genes into the gene pool. Once engineered organisms are released, there will be no recalls, and as they continue to upset nature, it may be impossible to undo the damage.

5. Genetic engineering is about corporate control of agricultureThe reason to engineer and patent a seed is to make money off of a captive market. Although some family farmers in the US are using this technology, they are not the driving force behind its creation. Genetically engineered crops further lock farmers into a cycle of dependence on quick fix techno schemes with royalty fees and debts to the bank.

6. Organic Agriculture is at RiskGenetically engineered plants do not recognize buffer zones and containment fields. They will drift and they will be carried wherever fate will have it. Contamination of conventional and organic crops isn't a matter of if, its a matter of when. These new creations have proven impossible to contain outside of a lab.

So who will be liable when this contamination occurs? Not the Biotech companies. Currently there are few if any laws assigning liability to life's new architects. The laws that do exist are concerned with intellectual property rights. It seems the court want to be certain you pay for every GE seed that grows, whether you planted it or not.

8. Increase in insecticide and herbicide useWhen plants are engineered to resist insecticides, farmers spray more insecticide on the plants. Couple that with pests building up insecticide resistance because of the larger usage and you have a company selling more chemicals, an environment more polluted, and a farmer more dependent.

9. Monopolization of food productionThe spread of genetic engineering coincides with widening legal possibilities to patent plants and their genes. Patents on food bear the intrinsic danger that a few transnational corporations obtain exclusive control over the whole chain of food production, from the gene to the dish. Initial conflicts over patent rights in Northern America show how, in the future, farmers may lose some of the rights concerning their crops. Patents on life are not compatible with the concept of intellectual property rights. They confer rights which go far beyond what the "inventor" has really accomplished.

Source: Basic outline and text adapted and borrowed from The Church's Statement on Genetic Engineering 2003.

Original post:
10 Reasons to Oppose Genetic Engineering - NW RAGE

The regulation of genetic engineering varies widely by country. Countries such as the United States, Canada, Lebanon and Egypt use substantial equivalence as the starting point when assessing safety, while many countries such as those in the European Union, Brazil and China authorize GMO cultivation on a case-by-case basis. Many countries allow the import of GM food with authorization, but either do not allow its cultivation (Russia, Norway, Israel) or have provisions for cultivation, but no GM products are yet produced (Japan, South Korea). Most countries that do not allow for GMO cultivation do permit research.[1]One of the key issues concerning regulators is whether GM products should be labeled. Labeling of GMO products in the marketplace is required in 64 countries.[2] Labeling can be mandatory up to a threshold GM content level (which varies between countries) or voluntary. A study investigating voluntary labeling in South Africa found that 31% of products labeled as GMO-free had a GM content above 1.0%.[3] In Canada and the USA labeling of GM food is voluntary,[4] while in Europe all food (including processed food) or feed which contains greater than 0.9% of approved GMOs must be labelled.[5]

There is a scientific consensus[6][7][8][9] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[10][11][12][13][14] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[15][16][17] Nonetheless, members of the public are much less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[18][19][20][21] The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[22][23][24][25]

There is no evidence to support the idea that the consumption of approved GM food has a detrimental effect on human health.[26][27][28] Some scientists and advocacy groups, such as Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund, have however called for additional and more rigorous testing for GM food.[27]

The development of a regulatory framework concerning genetic engineering began in 1975, at Asilomar, California. The first use of Recombinant DNA (rDNA) technology had just been successfully accomplished by Stanley Cohen and Herbert Boyer two years previously and the scientific community recognized that as well as benefits this technology could also pose some risks.[29] The Asilomar meeting recommended a set of guidelines regarding the cautious use of recombinant technology and any products resulting from that technology.[30] The Asilomar recommendations were voluntary, but in 1976 the US National Institute of Health (NIH) formed a rDNA advisory committee.[31] This was followed by other regulatory offices (the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA)), effectively making all rDNA research tightly regulated in the USA.[32]

In 1982 the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) released a report into the potential hazards of releasing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment as the first transgenic plants were being developed.[33] As the technology improved and genetically organisms moved from model organisms to potential commercial products the USA established a committee at the Office of Science and Technology (OSTP) to develop mechanisms to regulate the developing technology.[32] In 1986 the OSTP assigned regulatory approval of genetically modified plants in the US to the USDA, FDA and EPA.[34]

The basic concepts for the safety assessment of foods derived from GMOs have been developed in close collaboration under the auspices of the OECD, the World Health Organization (WHO) and Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). A first joint FAO/WHO consultation in 1990 resulted in the publication of the report Strategies for Assessing the Safety of Foods Produced by Biotechnology in 1991.[35] Building on that, an international consensus was reached by the OECDs Group of National Experts on Safety in Biotechnology, for assessing biotechnology in general, including field testing GM crops.[36] That Group met again in Bergen, Norway in 1992 and reached consensus on principles for evaluating the safety of GM food; its report, The safety evaluation of foods derived by modern technology concepts and principles was published in 1993.[37] That report recommends conducting the safety assessment of a GM food on a case-by-case basis through comparison to an existing food with a long history of safe use. This basic concept has been refined in subsequent workshops and consultations organized by the OECD, WHO, and FAO, and the OECD in particular has taken the lead in acquiring data and developing standards for conventional foods to be used in assessing substantial equivalence.[38][39]

The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was adopted on 29 January 2000 and entered into force on 11 September 2003.[40] It is an international treaty that governs the transfer, handling, and use of genetically modified (GM) organisms. It is focused on movement of GMOs between countries and has been called a de facto trade agreement.[41] One hundred and fifty-seven countries are members of the Protocol and many use it as a reference point for their own regulations.[42] Also in 2003 the Codex Alimentarius Commission of the FAO/WHO adopted a set of "Principles and Guidelines on foods derived from biotechnology" to help countries coordinate and standardize regulation of GM food to help ensure public safety and facilitate international trade.[43] and updated its guidelines for import and export of food in 2004,[44]

The European Union first introduced laws requiring GMO's to be labelled in 1997.[45] In 2013, Connecticut became the first state to enact a labeling law in the USA, although it would not take effect until other states followed suit.[46]

Institutions that conduct certain types of scientific research must obtain permission from government authorities and ethical committees before they conduct any experiments. Universities and research institutes generally have a special committee that is responsible for approving any experiments that involve genetic engineering. Many experiments also need permission from a national regulatory group or legislation. All staff must be trained in the use of GMOs and in some laboratories a biological control safety officer is appointed. All laboratories must gain approval from their regulatory agency to work with GMOs and all experiments must be documented.[47] As of 2008 there have been no major accidents with GMOs in the lab.[48]

The legislation covering GMOS was initially covered by adapting existing regulations in place for chemicals or other purposes, with many countries later developing specific policies aimed at genetic engineering.[49] These are often derived from regulations and guidelines in place for the non-GMO version of the organism, although they are more severe. In many countries now the regulations are diverging, even though many of the risks and procedures are similar. Sometimes even different agencies are responsible, notably in the Netherlands where the Ministry of the Environment covers GMOs and the Ministry of Social Affairs covers the human pathogens they are derived from.[48]

There is a near universal system for assessing the relative risks associated with GMOs and other agents to laboratory staff and the community. They are then assigned to one of four risk categories based on their virulence, the severity of disease, the mode of transmission, and the availability of preventive measures or treatments. There are some differences in how these categories are defined, such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) including dangers to animals and the environment in their assessments. When there are varying levels of virulence the regulators base their classification on the highest. Accordingly there are four biosafety levels that a laboratory can fall into, ranging from level 1 (which is suitable for working with agents not associated with disease) to level 4 (working with life threatening agents). Different countries use different nomenclature to describe the levels and can have different requirements for what can be done at each level.[48]

In Europe the use of living GMOs are regulated by the European Directive on the contained use of genetically modified microorganisms (GMMs).[47] The regulations require risk assessments before use of any contained GMOs is started and assurances that the correct controls are in place. It provides the minimal standards for using GMMs, with individual countries allowed to enforce stronger controls.[50] In the UK the Genetically Modified Organisms (Contained Use) Regulations 2014 provides the framework researchers must follow when using GMOs. Other legislation may be applicable depending on what research is carried out. For workplace safety these include the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, the Carriage of Dangerous Goods legislation and the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002. Environmental risks are covered by Section 108(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and The Genetically Modified Organisms (Risk assessment) (Records and Exemptions) Regulations 1996.[51]

In the USA the National Institute of Health (NIH) classifies GMOs into four risk groups. Risk group one is not associated with any diseases, risk group 2 is associated with diseases that are not serious, risk group 3 is associated with serious diseases where treatments are available and risk group 4 is for serious diseases with no known treatments.[47] In 1992 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration determined that its current legislation already adequately covers the safety of laboratory workers using GMOs.[49]

Australia has an exempt dealing for genetically modified organisms that only pose a low risk. These include systems using standard laboratory strains as the hosts, recombinant DNA that does not code for a vertebrate toxin or is not derived from a micro-organism that can cause disease in humans. Exempt dealings usually do not require approval from the national regulator. GMOs that pose a low risk if certain management practices are complied with are classified as notifiable low risk dealings. The final classification is for any uses of GMOs that do not meet the previous criteria. These are known as licensed dealings and include cloning any genes that code for vertebrate toxins or using hosts that are capable of causing disease in humans. Licensed dealings require the approval of the national regulator.[52]

Work with exempt GMOs do not need to be carried out in certified laboratories. All others must be contained in a Physical Containment level 1 (PC1) or Physical Containment level 2 (PC2) laboratories. Laboratory work with GMOs classified as low risk, which include knockout mice, are carried out in PC1 lab. This is the case for modifications that do not confer an advantage to the animal or doesn't secrete any infectious agents. If a laboratory strain that is used isn't covered by exempt dealings or the inserted DNA could code for a pathogenic gene, it must be carried out in a PC2 laboratory.[52]

The approaches taken by governments to assess and manage the risks associated with the use of genetic engineering technology and the development and release of GMOs vary from country to country, with some of the most marked differences occurring between the United States and Europe. The United States takes on a less hands-on approach to the regulation of GMOs than in Europe, with the FDA and USDA only looking over pesticide and plant health facets of GMOs.[53] Despite the overall global increase in the production in GMOs, the European Union has still stalled GMOs fully integrating into its food supply.[54] This has definitely affected various countries, including the United States, when trading with the EU.[54][55]

European Union enacted regulatory laws in 2003 that provided possibly the most stringent GMO regulations in the world.[5] All GMOs, along with irradiated food, are considered "new food" and subject to extensive, case-by-case, science-based food evaluation by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The criteria for authorization fall in four broad categories: "safety," "freedom of choice," "labelling," and "traceability."[56]

The European Parliament's Committee on the Environmental, Public Health, and Consumer Protection pushed forward and adopted a "safety first" principle regarding the case of GMOs, calling for any negative health consequences from GMOs to be held liable.

However, although the European Union has had relatively strict regulations regarding the genetically modified food, Europe is now allowing newer versions of modified maize and other agricultural produce. Also, the level of GMO acceptance in the European Union varies across its countries with Spain and Portugal being more permissive of GMOs than France and the Nordic population.[57] One notable exception however is Sweden. In this country, the government has declared that the GMO definition (according to Directive 2001/18/EC[58]) stipulates that foreign DNA needs to be present in an organism for it to qualify as a genetically modified organisms. Organisms that thus have the foreign DNA removed (for example via selective breeding[59]) do not qualify as GMO's, even if gene editing has thus been used to make the organism.[60]

In Europe the EFSA reports to the European Commission who then draft a proposal for granting or refusing the authorisation. This proposal is submitted to the Section on GM Food and Feed of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and if accepted it will be adopted by the EC or passed on to the Council of Agricultural Ministers. Once in the Council it has three months to reach a qualified majority for or against the proposal, if no majority is reached the proposal is passed back to the EC who will then adopt the proposal.[5] However, even after authorization, individual EU member states can ban individual varieties under a 'safeguard clause' if there are "justifiable reasons" that the variety may cause harm to humans or the environment. The member state must then supply sufficient evidence that this is the case.[61] The Commission is obliged to investigate these cases and either overturn the original registrations or request the country to withdraw its temporary restriction.

The U.S. regulatory policy is governed by the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology[62] The policy has three tenets: "(1) U.S. policy would focus on the product of genetic modification (GM) techniques, not the process itself, (2) only regulation grounded in verifiable scientific risks would be tolerated, and (3) GM products are on a continuum with existing products and, therefore, existing statutes are sufficient to review the products."[63]

For a genetically modified organism to be approved for release in the U.S., it must be assessed under the Plant Protection Act by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) agency within the USDA and may also be assessed by the FDA and the EPA, depending on the intended use of the organism. The USDA evaluate the plants potential to become weeds, the FDA reviews plants that could enter or alter the food supply,[64] and the EPA regulates genetically modified plants with pesticide properties, as well as agrochemical residues.[65]

The level of regulation in other countries lies in between Europe and the United States.

Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMASA) is responsible for assessing the safety of GMOs in most of Africa, although the final decision lies with each individual country.[66]

India and China are the two largest producers of genetically modified products in Asia.[67] The Office of Agricultural Genetic Engineering Biosafety Administration (OAGEBA) is responsible for regulation in China,[68] while in India it is the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBSC), Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) and Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC).[69]

Brazil and Argentina are the 2nd and 3rd largest producers of GM food.[70] In Argentine assessment of GM products for release is provided by the National Agricultural Biotechnology Advisory Committee (environmental impact), the National Service of Health and Agrifood Quality (food safety) and the National Agribusiness Direction (effect on trade), with the final decision made by the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Fishery and Food.[71] In Brazil the National Biosafety Technical Commission is responsible for assessing environmental and food safety and prepares guidelines for transport, importation and field experiments involving GM products, while the Council of Ministers evaluates the commercial and economical issues with release.[71]

Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency[72] are responsible for evaluating the safety and nutritional value of genetically modified foods released in Canada.[73]

License applications for the release of all genetically modified organisms in Australia is overseen by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, while regulation is provided by the Therapeutic Goods Administration for GM medicines or Food Standards Australia New Zealand for GM food. The individual state governments can then assess the impact of release on markets and trade and apply further legislation to control approved genetically modified products.[74][75]

One of the key issues concerning regulators is whether GM products should be labeled. Labeling can be mandatory up to a threshold GM content level (which varies between countries) or voluntary. A study investigating voluntary labeling in South Africa found that 31% of products labeled as GMO-free had a GM content above 1.0%.[3] In Canada and the United States labeling of GM food is voluntary,[4] while in Europe all food (including processed food) or feed which contains greater than 0.9% of approved GMOs must be labelled.[5] In the US state of Oregon., voters rejected Measure 27, which would have required labeling of all genetically modified foods.[80] Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Australia require labeling so consumers can exercise choice between foods that have genetically modified, conventional or organic origins.[81]

The Cartagena Protocol sets the requirements for the international trade of GMO's between countries that are signatories to it. Any shipments contain genetically modified organisms that are intended to be used as feed, food or for processing must be identified and a list of the transgenic events be available.

"Substantial equivalence" is a starting point for the safety assessment for GM foods that is widely used by national and international agenciesincluding the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Japan's Ministry of Health and Welfare and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Health Organization and the OECD.[82]

A quote from FAO, one of the agencies that developed the concept, is useful for defining it: "Substantial equivalence embodies the concept that if a new food or food component is found to be substantially equivalent to an existing food or food component, it can be treated in the same manner with respect to safety (i.e., the food or food component can be concluded to be as safe as the conventional food or food component)".[83] The concept of substantial equivalence also recognises the fact that existing foods often contain toxic components (usually called antinutrients) and are still able to be consumed safelyin practice there is some tolerable chemical risk taken with all foods, so a comparative method for assessing safety needs to be adopted. For instance, potatoes and tomatoes can contain toxic levels of respectively, solanine and alpha-tomatine alkaloids.[84][85]

To decide if a modified product is substantially equivalent, the product is tested by the manufacturer for unexpected changes in a limited set of components such as toxins, nutrients, or allergens that are present in the unmodified food. The manufacturer's data is then assessed by a regulatory agency, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. That data, along with data on the genetic modification itself and resulting proteins (or lack of protein), is submitted to regulators. If regulators determine that the submitted data show no significant difference between the modified and unmodified products, then the regulators will generally not require further food safety testing. However, if the product has no natural equivalent, or shows significant differences from the unmodified food, or for other reasons that regulators may have (for instance, if a gene produces a protein that had not been a food component before), the regulators may require that further safety testing be carried out.[37]

A 2003 review in Trends in Biotechnology identified seven main parts of a standard safety test:[86]

There has been discussion about applying new biochemical concepts and methods in evaluating substantial equivalence, such as metabolic profiling and protein profiling. These concepts refer, respectively, to the complete measured biochemical spectrum (total fingerprint) of compounds (metabolites) or of proteins present in a food or crop. The goal would be to compare overall the biochemical profile of a new food to an existing food to see if the new food's profile falls within the range of natural variation already exhibited by the profile of existing foods or crops. However, these techniques are not considered sufficiently evaluated, and standards have not yet been developed, to apply them.[87]

Transgenic animals have genetically modified DNA. Animals are different from plants in a variety of waysbiology, life cycles, or potential environmental impacts.[88] GM plants and animals were being developed around the same time, but due to the complexity of their biology and inefficiency with laboratory equipment use, their appearance in the market was delayed.[89]

There are six categories that genetically engineered (GE) animals are approved for:[90]

The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns.

Domingo, Jos L.; Bordonaba, Jordi Gin (2011). "A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants" (PDF). Environment International. 37 (4): 734742. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003. PMID21296423. In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies.

Krimsky, Sheldon (2015). "An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment" (PDF). Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40 (6): 132. doi:10.1177/0162243915598381. I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.

And contrast:

Panchin, Alexander Y.; Tuzhikov, Alexander I. (January 14, 2016). "Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons". Critical Reviews in Biotechnology. 37 (2): 15. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684. ISSN0738-8551. PMID26767435. Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm.

The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality.

and

Yang, Y.T.; Chen, B. (2016). "Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 96 (6): 185155. doi:10.1002/jsfa.7523. PMID26536836. It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA (citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011).

Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date.

Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome.

Pinholster, Ginger (October 25, 2012). "AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers"". American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved February 8, 2016.

"REPORT 2 OF THE COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND PUBLIC HEALTH (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods" (PDF). American Medical Association. 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 September 2012. Retrieved March 21, 2017. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.

GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.

"Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement" (PDF). British Medical Association. March 2004. Retrieved March 21, 2016. In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available.

When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis.

Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects.

The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.

Originally posted here:
Regulation of genetic engineering - Wikipedia

Genetic engineering is a term that was first introduced into our language in the 1970s to describe the emerging field of recombinant DNA technology and some of the things that were going on. As most people who read textbooks and things know, recombinant DNA technology started with pretty simple things--cloning very small pieces of DNA and growing them in bacteria--and has evolved to an enormous field where whole genomes can be cloned and moved from cell to cell, to cell using variations of techniques that all would come under genetic engineering as a very broad definition. To me, genetic engineering, broadly defined, means that you are taking pieces of DNA and combining them with other pieces of DNA. [This] doesn't really happen in nature, but is something that you engineer in your own laboratory and test tubes. And then taking what you have engineered and propagating that in any number of different organisms that range from bacterial cells to yeast cells, to plants and animals. So while there isn't a precise definition of genetic engineering, I think it more defines an entire field of recombinant DNA technology, genomics, and genetics in the 2000s.

Link:
Genetic Engineering | Talking Glossary of Genetic Terms ...

Although much has occurred in this field since this article was written in 2000, the questions addressed by Dr. Bohlin are still timely and relevant. Is manipulating our genetic code simply a tool or does it deal with deeper issues? Dealing with genetic engineering must be done within the context of the broader ethical and theological issues involved. In the article, Dr. Bohlin provides an excellent summary driven from his biblical worldview perspective.

Genetic technology harbors the potential to change the human species forever. The soon to be completed Human Genome Project will empower genetic scientists with a human biological instruction book. The genes in all our cells contain the code for proteins that provide the structure and function to all our tissues and organs. Knowing this complete code will open new horizons for treating and perhaps curing diseases that have remained mysteries for millennia. But along with the commendable and compassionate use of genetic technology comes the specter of both shadowy purposes and malevolent aims.

For some, the potential for misuse is reason enough for closing the door completelythe benefits just arent worth the risks. In this article, Id like to explore the application of genetic technology to human beings and apply biblical wisdom to the eventual ethical quagmires that are not very far away. In this section well investigate the various ways humans can be engineered.

Since we have introduced foreign genes into the embryos of mice, cows, sheep, and pigs for years, theres no technological reason to suggest that it cant be done in humans too. Currently, there are two ways of pursuing gene transfer. One is simply to attempt to alleviate the symptoms of a genetic disease. This entails gene therapy, attempting to transfer the normal gene into only those tissues most affected by the disease. For instance, bronchial infections are the major cause of early death for patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). The lungs of CF patients produce thick mucus that provides a great growth medium for bacteria and viruses. If the normal gene can be inserted in to the cells of the lungs, perhaps both the quality and quantity of their life can be enhanced. But this is not a complete cure and they will still pass the CF gene on to their children.

In order to cure a genetic illness, the defective gene must be replaced throughout the body. If the genetic defect is detected in an early embryo, its possible to add the gene at this stage, allowing the normal gene to be present in all tissues including reproductive tissues. This technique has been used to add foreign genes to mice, sheep, pigs, and cows.

However, at present, no laboratory is known to be attempting this well-developed technology in humans. Princeton molecular biologist Lee Silver offers two reasons.{1} First, even in animals, it only works 50% of the time. Second, even when successful, about 5% of the time, the new gene gets placed in the middle of an existing gene, creating a new mutation. Currently these odds are not acceptable to scientists and especially potential clients hoping for genetic engineering of their offspring. But these are only problems of technique. Its reasonable to assume that these difficulties can be overcome with further research.

The primary use for human genetic engineering concerns the curing of genetic disease. But even this should be approached cautiously. Certainly within a Christian worldview, relieving suffering wherever possible is to walk in Jesus footsteps. But what diseases? How far should our ability to interfere in life be allowed to go? So far gene therapy is primarily tested for debilitating and ultimately fatal diseases such as cystic fibrosis.

The first gene therapy trial in humans corrected a life-threatening immune disorder in a two-year-old girl who, now ten years later, is doing well. The gene therapy required dozens of applications but has saved the family from a $60,000 per year bill for necessary drug treatment without the gene therapy.{2} Recently, sixteen heart disease patients, who were literally waiting for death, received a solution containing copies of a gene that triggers blood vessel growth by injection straight into the heart. By growing new blood vessels around clogged arteries, all sixteen showed improvement and six were completely relieved of pain.

In each of these cases, gene therapy was performed as a last resort for a fatal condition. This seems to easily fall within the medical boundaries of seeking to cure while at the same time causing no harm. The problem will arise when gene therapy will be sought to alleviate a condition that is less than life-threatening and perhaps considered by some to simply be one of lifes inconveniences, such as a gene that may offer resistance to AIDS or may enhance memory. Such genes are known now and many are suggesting that these goals will and should be available for gene therapy.

The most troublesome aspect of gene therapy has been determining the best method of delivering the gene to the right cells and enticing them to incorporate the gene into the cells chromosomes. Most researchers have used crippled forms of viruses that naturally incorporate their genes into cells. The entire field of gene therapy was dealt a severe setback in September 1999 upon the death of Jesse Gelsinger who had undergone gene therapy for an inherited enzyme deficiency at the University of Pennsylvania.{3} Jesse apparently suffered a severe immune reaction and died four days after being injected with the engineered virus.

The same virus vector had been used safely in thousands of other trials, but in this case, after releasing stacks of clinical data and answering questions for two days, the researchers didnt fully understand what had gone wrong.{4} Other institutions were also found to have failed to file immediate reports as required of serious adverse events in their trials, prompting a congressional review.{5} All this should indicate that the answers to the technical problems of gene therapy have not been answered and progress will be slowed as guidelines and reporting procedures are studied and reevaluated.

The simple answer is no, at least for the foreseeable future. Gene therapy currently targets existing tissue in a existing child or adult. This may alleviate or eliminate symptoms in that individual, but will not affect future children. To accomplish a correction for future generations, gene therapy would need to target the germ cells, the sperm and egg. This poses numerous technical problems at the present time. There is also a very real concern about making genetic decisions for future generations without their consent.

Some would seek to get around these difficulties by performing gene therapy in early embryos before tissue differentiation has taken place. This would allow the new gene to be incorporated into all tissues, including reproductive organs. However, this process does nothing to alleviate the condition of those already suffering from genetic disease. Also, as mentioned earlier this week, this procedure would put embryos at unacceptable risk due to the inherent rate of failure and potential damage to the embryo.

Another way to affect germ line gene therapy would involve a combination of gene therapy and cloning.{6} An embryo, fertilized in vitro, from the sperm and egg of a couple at risk for sickle-cell anemia, for example, could be tested for the sickle-cell gene. If the embryo tests positive, cells could be removed from this early embryo and grown in culture. Then the normal hemoglobin gene would be added to these cultured cells.

If the technique for human cloning could be perfected, then one of these cells could be cloned to create a new individual. If the cloning were successful, the resulting baby would be an identical twin of the original embryo, only with the sickle-cell gene replaced with the normal hemoglobin gene. This would result in a normal healthy baby. Unfortunately, the initial embryo was sacrificed to allow the engineering of its identical twin, an ethically unacceptable trade-off.

So what we have seen, is that even human gene therapy is not a long-term solution, but a temporary and individual one. But even in condoning the use of gene therapy for therapeutic ends, we need to be careful that those for whom gene therapy is unavailable either for ethical or monetary reasons, dont get pushed aside. It would be easy to shun those with uncorrected defects as less than desirable or even less than human. There is, indeed, much to think about.

The possibility of someone or some government utilizing the new tools of genetic engineering to create a superior race of humans must at least be considered. We need to emphasize, however, that we simply do not know what genetic factors determine popularly desired traits such as athletic ability, intelligence, appearance and personality. For sure, each of these has a significant component that may be available for genetic manipulation, but its safe to say that our knowledge of each of these traits is in its infancy.

Even as knowledge of these areas grows, other genetic qualities may prevent their engineering. So far, few genes have only a single application in the body. Most genes are found to have multiple effects, sometimes in different tissues. Therefore, to engineer a gene for enhancement of a particular traitsay memorymay inadvertently cause increased susceptibility to drug addiction.

But what if in the next 50 to 100 years, many of these unknowns can be anticipated and engineering for advantageous traits becomes possible. What can we expect? Our concern is that without a redirection of the worldview of the culture, there will be a growing propensity to want to take over the evolution of the human species. The many people see it, we are simply upright, large-brained apes. There is no such thing as an independent mind. Our mind becomes simply a physical construct of the brain. While the brain is certainly complicated and our level of understanding of its intricate machinery grows daily, some hope that in the future we may comprehend enough to change who and what we are as a species in order to meet the future demands of survival.

Edward O. Wilson, a Harvard entomologist, believes that we will soon be faced with difficult genetic dilemmas. Because of expected advances in gene therapy, we will not only be able to eliminate or at least alleviate genetic disease, we may be able to enhance certain human abilities such as mathematics or verbal ability. He says, Soon we must look deep within ourselves and decide what we wish to become.{7} As early as 1978, Wilson reflected on our eventual need to decide how human we wish to remain.{8}

Surprisingly, Wilson predicts that future generations will opt only for repair of disabling disease and stop short of genetic enhancements. His only rationale however, is a question. Why should a species give up the defining core of its existence, built by millions of years of biological trial and error?{9} Wilson is naively optimistic. There are loud voices already claiming that man can intentionally engineer our evolutionary future better than chance mutations and natural selection. The time to change the course of this slow train to destruction is now, not later.

Many of the questions surrounding the ethical use of genetic engineering practices are difficult to answer with a simple yes or no. This is one of them. The answer revolves around the method used to determine the sex selection and the timing of the selection itself.

For instance, if the sex of a fetus is determined and deemed undesirable, it can only be rectified by termination of the embryo or fetus, either in the lab or in the womb by abortion. There is every reason to prohibit this process. First, an innocent life has been sacrificed. The principle of the sanctity of human life demands that a new innocent life not be killed for any reason apart from saving the life of the mother. Second, even in this country where abortion is legal, one would hope that restrictions would be put in place to prevent the taking of a life simply because its the wrong sex.

However, procedures do exist that can separate sperm that carry the Y chromosome from those that carry the X chromosome. Eggs fertilized by sperm carrying the Y will be male, and eggs fertilized by sperm carrying the X will be female. If the sperm sample used to fertilize an egg has been selected for the Y chromosome, you simply increase the odds of having a boy (~90%) over a girl. So long as the couple is willing to accept either a boy or girl and will not discard the embryo or abort the baby if its the wrong sex, its difficult to say that such a procedure should be prohibited.

One reason to utilize this procedure is to reduce the risk of a sex-linked genetic disease. Color-blindness, hemophilia, and fragile X syndrome can be due to mutations on the X chromosome. Therefore, males (with only one X chromosome) are much more likely to suffer from these traits when either the mother is a carrier or the father is affected. (In females, the second X chromosome will usually carry the normal gene, masking the mutated gene on the other X chromosome.) Selecting for a girl by sperm selection greatly reduces the possibility of having a child with either of these genetic diseases. Again, its difficult to argue against the desire to reduce suffering when a life has not been forfeited.

But we must ask, is sex determination by sperm selection wise? A couple that already has a boy and simply wants a girl to balance their family, seems innocent enough. But why is this important? What fuels this desire? Its dangerous to take more and more control over our lives and leave the sovereignty of God far behind. This isnt a situation of life and death or even reducing suffering.

But while it may be difficult to find anything seriously wrong with sex selection, its also difficult to find anything good about it. Even when the purpose may be to avoid a sex-linked disease, we run the risk of communicating to others affected by these diseases that because they could have been avoided, their life is somehow less valuable. So while it may not be prudent to prohibit such practices, it certainly should not be approached casually either.

Notes

1. Lee Silver, Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World, New York, NY: Avon Books, p. 230-231. 2. Leon Jaroff, Success stories, Time, 11 January 1999, p. 72-73. 3. Sally Lehrman, Virus treatment questioned after gene therapy death, Nature Vol. 401 (7 October 1999): 517-518. 4. Eliot Marshall, Gene therapy death prompts review of adenovirus vector, Science Vol. 286 (17 December 1999): 2244-2245. 5. Meredith Wadman, NIH under fire over gene-therapy trials, Nature Vol. 403 (20 January 1999): 237. 6. Steve Mirsky and John Rennie, What cloning means for gene therapy, Scientific American, June 1997, p. 122-123. 7. Ibid., p. 277. 8. Edward Wilson, On Human Nature, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, p. 6. 9. E. Wilson, Consilience, p. 277.

2000 Probe Ministries

On January 8, 2007, the Associated Press reported that scientists from Wake Forest University and Harvard University discovered a new type of stem cell found in the amniotic fluid within

Genetic Diseases The age of genetics has arrived. Society is in the midst of a genetic revolution that some futurists predict will have a greater impact on the culture than

Continue reading here:
Human Genetic Engineering - Probe Ministries

Over the past few years, the field of biotechnology has advanced at a very high rate that scientists can now edit plants and animals at the genomic level. Different genetic engineering or genome-editing techniques such aszinc fingernucleases, transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), meganucleases and theCRISPR/Cas9 system have aided scientists to alter genomes to create modified organisms.

Like in plants and animals, could genome-editing be performed in humans? Yes. But a bigger question arises here, should genome editing techniques be used to create designer babies, to remove heritable diseases or to enhance the human capabilities? It is one of the most controversial topics among scientists and hence it all comes down to ethics.

In a recent research, Shoukhrat Mitalipov of Oregon Health Sciences University in Portland reported successfully repairing a genetic mutation in human embryos bringing the idea of genetic engineering in humans closer to reality.

To understand the ethical implications of genetic engineering in humans, it is important to first understand the basics.

Genetic engineering is basically manipulating or changing the DNA to alter the organisms appearance in a particular way. The human body cells contain encoded information compiled into a form called genes, which are responsible for the bodys growth, structure and functioning. Human genetic engineering decodes this information and applies it to the welfare of mankind.

For example, all over the world, several scientists have reported the singing in mice. However, the frequencies at which they sing is not audible to humans. The Alstons brown mouse or Alstons singing mouse is a famous example. It would be interesting to hear these songs too.

Japanese geneticists at the University of Osaka were conducting a research to study the mutagenic effects in a strain of mice that were genetically engineered. Among many effects, the mutation may have caused the alteration in the vocalization in the mice giving birth to an offspring which could sing at a frequency audible to humans.This genetic modification (which was actually an accident) may help in studying the communication patterns in mice as well as in comparing of similarities and differences with other mammals. Some other examples of genetic engineering are GloFish, drug-producing chickens, cows that make human-like milk, diesel-producing bacteria, banana vaccines and disease-preventing mosquitoes.

Based on their type of cell, there are two types of genetic engineering;

Human genetic engineering can further be classified into two types;

In human genetic engineering, the genes or the DNA of a person is changed. This can be used to bring about structural changes in human beings. More importantly, it can be used to introduce the genes for certain positive and desirable traits in embryos. Genetic engineering in humans can result in finding a permanent cure for many diseases.

Some people are born with or acquire exceptional qualities. If the genes responsible for these qualities can be identified, they can be introduced in the early embryos. The embryo develops into a baby called Designer baby or customized baby. Human genetic engineering is advancing at an increasing rate and might evolve to such an extent discovering new genes and implanting them into human embryos will be possible.

Let us take an example of bacteria to understand how genetic engineering works. Insulin is aprotein produced in the pancreasthat helps in the regulation of the sugar levels in our blood. People with type 1diabetes eithercannot produce insulin or produce insufficient insulin in the body. They have to acquire insulin from external sources to control their blood sugar levels. In 1982, Genetic engineering was used to produce a type of insulin which is similar to the human insulin, called the Humulin frombacteria which was then approved and licensed for human use.

An illustration showing how genetic engineering is used to produce insulin in bacteriaCourtesy: Genome Research Limited

Using this process, Chinese scientists have edited the genome of the human embryo for the first time. According to Nature News report, Researchers at Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, China, were partially successful in using a genetic engineering technique to modify a gene in non-viable human embryos which was responsible for the fatal blood disorder.

The technique used, called CRISPR (short for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) technology involves an enzyme complex known as CRISPR/Cas9, originating in bacteria as a defence system. CRISPR is a short, repeated DNA sequence that matches the genetic sequence of interest to be modified by the researchers. CRISPR works along with the Cas9 enzyme that acts like molecular scissors and cuts the DNA at a specific site.

As explained by John Reidhaar-Olson, a biochemist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York First, in a simple explanation, the CRISPR/Cas9 complex navigates through the cells DNA, searching for the sequence that matches the CRISPR and binds to the sequence once found. The Cas9 then cuts the DNA which, in this case, is repaired by inserting a piece of DNA desired by the researcher.

Since 2013, CRISPR system has been to edit genes in adult human cells and animal embryos but for the first time has been used for modification in human embryos.

Junjiu Huang, a genetics researcher at Sun Yat-sen University, injected the CRISPR/Cas9 complex into human embryos with the aim of repairing a gene responsible for Beta thalassaemia which is a fatal blood disorder that reduces the production of haemoglobin. The non-viable embryos were obtained from local fertility clinics. These embryos would have been unable to survive independently after birth or develop properly as they had been fertilized by two sperms. The procedure was performed on 86 embryos and gene editing was allowed to take place in four days. Out of 86, 71 of the embryos survived and 54 of them were tested.

Splicing (removal of introns and joining of exonsineukaryotic mRNA) only occurred in 28 embryos successfully indicating the removal of faulty gene and the incorporation of the healthy gene in its place. However, in order for the technique to be used in viable human embryos, the success rate would need to be closer to 100%.

While partial success was achieved, certain worrisome mutations responsible for the detrimental effect on cells during gene-editing were also observed and at a much higher rate in mouse embryos or adult human cells undergoing the same procedure.

One of the most beneficial applications of genetic engineering is gene therapy. Gene therapy is one of the most important benefits of human genetic engineering. Over the last few years, gene therapy has successfully treated certain heart diseases. Driven by this success, researchers are working to find cures for all the genetic diseases. This will eventually lead to a healthier and more evolved human race.Inspired by the recent success of gene therapy trialsin human children and infants, researchers are now moving towards the treatment of genetic disorders before birth. The idea of using fetal gene therapy to treat genetic disorders that cant be treated after birth has generated hype among some of the scientists. Parents will be able to look forward to a healthy baby. Genetic engineering can be done in embryos prior to implantation into the mother.However, some are also questioning the feasibility and practicality of the therapy in humans.

While genetic engineering or modification may seem easy to cure diseases, it may produce certain side effects. While focusing on and treating one defect, there is a possibility it may cause another. A cell is responsible for various functions in the body and manipulating its genes without any counter effect or side effect may not be that easy.

Other than side effects, Cloning, for instance, can lead to an ethical disturbance among the humans risking the individuality and the diversity of human beings. Ironically, man will become just another man-made thing!

Among the social aspects of human genetic engineering, it can impose a heavy financial burden on the society, which may cause a rift between the rich and the poor in the society. Its feasibility and most importantly its affordability will also be a determinant of its popularity.

Human genetic engineering is a widely and rapidly advancing field. It can lead to miracles. But when assessing its benefits, its threats need to be assessed carefully too. Human genetic engineering can be beneficial to human beings and its potential advantages can come into reality only if it is handled with responsibility.

Like Loading...

Related

See the article here:
Genetic Engineering in Humans - Curing Diseases and ...

Genetic engineering refers to the set of technologies that directly manipulate on an organisms genes, change the genetic make up of cells and add one or more new traits that are not found in that organism. At the heart of all life is what we call DNA. It is responsible for the abundance of life on this Earth and the reason why we are the way we are. The genetic make-up of any organism is defined by DNA. In nature, the genetic nature never remains fixed.

Genetic engineering has a huge array of applications, for instance, surgery, animal husbandry, medicine, and agriculture. With genetic engineering, many crops species have developed immunity to most lethal diseases. Genetic engineering has also helped to increase yields at the farm. Today, wide-ranging crop species like wheat are genetically modified to achieve high nutritive value, and faster and higher productivity. These days, more and more countries are embracing genetically engineered crops to fight scarcity of food, offer highly nutritious foods, and grow and cultivate crops that are immune to various diseases and pests. Genetic engineering, in many ways, has heralded an age of agricultural revolution, which many hope will help wipe out malnutrition and starvation.

What is genetic engineering? Well, its when a gene of a particular organism is harnessed and the copy inserted into the DNA of another organism to modify its characteristics. An organism is any living thing such as humans, plants, and animals. To understand how genetic engineering works, it would be prudent to know how DNA works. Any organism has a cell. In the cell, there is DNA, which acts as an instructional manual for the entire body.

DNA is responsible for every characteristic of an organism, for example, in humans; its responsible for eye color, hair color, height and so on. So, to harvest the height gene from an organism, biologists use restriction enzyme (which resemble a scissor) to cut it out. The harvested height gene is then inserted into a second targeted organism. The targeted organism then reproduces, and the result is multiplication of organisms with the modified height. The same process applies to genetically modified foods.

Genes rarely ever comprise of a single genetic material. The more complex an organism becomes, the more genetic material it has. Much of it has no use and only a small fraction of it is responsible for our specific characteristics. For example, humans and apes share some 99% of their DNA. It is the rest 1% which can be used to create such spectacular differences.

It is also the amount from which active genetic material is extracted and introduced to a new host cell, usually bacteria. This allows it to perform or inherit a certain function from the new genetic material. If it sounds too tough to understand genetic engineering, just imagine that artificial insulin for diabetics is produced through this method.

The applications of this field are growing each day. One example is the production of insulin for diabetes patients. The field of medicine is reaping the benefits of genetic engineering. They have used the process to create vaccines and human growth hormones, changing the lives of many in the process. Gene therapy has been developed, which could possibly provide a cure for those who suffer from genetic illnesses.

It has also found a place of importance in research. As scientists successfully understand genetic engineering, they use it to resolve issues in current research methods. Most of these are done with the help of genetically modified organisms.

Statistics according to scientists at the Germanys University of Gttingen indicate that Genetically Modified Foods (GMO) increase crop yield by more than 22%. This is why most areas experiencing food shortage have taken up the use of GMOs to help reverse the trend.

Genetic modification greatly increases flavor of crops. For, instance, modification makes corn sweeter and pepper spicier. In fact, genetic modification has the capability to make difficult flavor a lot palatable.

Resistance to disease was the main reason for genetic engineering research. Genetically modified foods exhibit great resistance to various diseases. Just like vaccine, genetic codes are implanted into foods to fortify their immune system.

Genetic modification has enabled researchers to incorporate variety of nutrients like proteins, vitamins, carbohydrates and minerals in crops to accord consumers greater nutritive value. This aspect has helped many in the developing world who cannot afford a balanced diet every single day. In addition, genetic modification has gone a long way towards solving worldwide malnutrition. For instance, rice thats strengthened with vitamin A, referred to as golden rice, now assist in mitigating deficiency of vitamin A across the globe.

Statistically, GMOs have a much longer lifespan than other traditional foods. This means they can be transported to far destinations that lack nutritious foods without fear of going bad.

The use of molecular biology in vaccine creation has bore fruits so far according to FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Biologists have been able to genetically engineer plants to generate vaccines, proteins, and other important pharmaceutical products via a technique referred to as pharming.

Production of genetically modified foods involves less time, land, machinery and chemicals. This means you wont worry about greenhouse gas emission, soil erosion or environmental pollution. In addition, with increased productivity witnessed with genetically modified foods, farmers will use less farmland to grow crops. Not to mention, they are already growing foods like corn, cotton, and potatoes without using insecticides because genetically modified foods generate their own insecticides.

Scientists indulge in crop modification to achieve enhanced resistance to diseases and superior crop health. Genetically modified foods also have the capability to resist harsh weather conditions. All these factors lead to one thing: reduced risk of crop failure.

A research study by Brown University concluded that genetic modification normally blends proteins that are not naturally present in the organism, which can result in allergy reactions to certain groups people. In fact, some studies found out that GMOs had caused significant allergic reactions to the population. A separate research by the National Center for Health Statistics reported that food allergies in individuals under 18 years leaped from 3.4% in the year 1997-2999 to 5.1% in 2009-2011.

Although reports have pronounced that genetically modified foods have no impact on the environment, there are some noted environmental impacts. It has been established that GMOs grown in environments that do not favor them often lead to environmental damage. This is evident in the GMO cross-breeding whereby weeds that are cross-bred with modified plants are reported to develop resistance to herbicides. This, eventually, calls for added modification efforts.

The fact that GMOs take the same amount of time to mature, and same effort to cultivate and grow, they dont add any economic gain compared to traditional growing methods.

According to a research study by Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), GMOs can transfer genes to other members of similar species or different species through a process called gene escape. This gene interaction might take place at different levels including plant, cell, gene or ecosystem. Trouble could arise if, for instance, herbicide resistant genes find way into weeds.

Research finding according to Iowa State University stipulates that some GMOs contain antibiotic characteristics that boost your immunity. However, when consumed, their effectiveness dramatically reduces compared to the real antibiotics.

1. Identification of an organism that exhibits the desired trait or gene of interest.

2. Extracting the DNA from that organism.

3. Through a process called gene cloning, one desired gene (recipe) must be located and copied from thousands of genes that were extracted.

4. The gene is slightly modified to work in a more desirable way once it is inserted inside the recipient organism.

5. The transformation process occurs when new gene(s), called a transgene is delivered into cells of the recipient organism. The most common transformation technique uses a bacteria that naturally genetically engineer plants with its own DNA. The transgene is inserted into the bacteria, which then delivers it into cells of the organism being engineered.

6. The characteristics of the final product is improved through the process called traditional breeding.

Hawaii is well documented as a place where genetically modified papaya trees have been cultivated and grown since 1999. The harvested papayas are disseminated to markets such as the United States and Canada. The reason for modifying these papayas is the Papaya Ringspot virus that has caused havoc for many years. Also, Hawaii papayas have been modified to slow down their maturity to accord suppliers sufficient time to ship to the market.

Statistically, over 90% of soybeans available in the marketplace today are genetically engineered to naturally resist a herbicide known as Round Up. This enhanced resistance enables farmers to use a lot more Round Up to exterminate weeds.

Eggplant, also known as Zucchini, is another food product that is widely genetically modified. Genetically modified eggplant encompasses a protein, which gives it more resistance to insects.

Cotton is very susceptible to diseases, insects, and pests. It is heavily modified to boost yields and resistance to pests and diseases.

Corn also makes the list of the most genetically modified foods. Half of farmers in the United States grow corn that has been genetically modified. Most of the corn is utilized for human consumption and animal feed.

Sugar beets are surprisingly modified due to their high demand in countries like U.S., Canada, and Europe. Genetically modified sugar beets debuted in the United States markets in 2009. They are genetically modified to develop resistance to Round Up.

These days, dairy cows are increasingly being genetically modified with growth hormones to enable faster growth and beef up of yields.

Harnessed from rapeseed oil. According to studies, it is the most well know genetically modified oil in the world.

Most countries require that any genetically modified food be labeled. 64 countries across the world with an estimated world population of 64% already label GMOs, the entire European Union included. China also joined the bandwagon of labeling GMOs. Although genetically modified food companies are fighting against labeling, the battle may not be won in the near future.

Science has been able to genetically engineer animals and plants alike. While the animals are used in research or sold as a novelty pet item, the plants have a different purpose. Following the years of pesticide and insecticide use, most pests have developed an immunity to them. With the help of scientists that understand genetic engineering, farmers now benefit from seeds that have been engineered.

They are provided with traits from other plants that can naturally balance the plant-pest relationship. As expected, the use of such engineering has become heavily commercialized and is used to produce more attractive varieties of food.

Genetically modified food is not an experimental project. Foods that have been engineered to look, smell and taste better have found their place in the supermarket shelves since 1994. Thats twenty years ago and the trend has become habit. Apart from their looks, foods are produced simply for consumer convenience, such as seedless fruits.

As of now, soybean, cotton seed oil, corn and canola are the most advanced of the modified crops. Most of the livestock grown in the country is feed with crops that were genetically modified, making them partly genetically modified organisms in the long run. For those that understand genetic engineering, the growing use of the technology is quite alarming.

However, not all is wonderful in world of genetic engineering. It has been launched into controversy many times over the last decade. Since it is still a fledgling technology whose implications are yet not clear, there are many liberties taken with it. Lack of policy and laws makes it easy for research based companies to misuse the work of those that understand genetic engineering.

Most concerns regarding genetically modified food and animals are the ethical ramifications, while others are related to problems in the ecology and future misuse of the technology. As a result, the process and technology is highly regulated as of now.

Even with the regulations and laws being passed to reign in the rampant abuse of genetic engineering, the process is not in a hurry to stop. The government is pushing for one step at a time, such as labeling foods as GM Foods in markets to help the customers make their own choice. But the commercial advantages are quite high and further research will be able to possibly solve many of our health and poverty related issues. This is the biggest argument in the favor of engineering. Even so, it takes a lot many years to fully understand genetic engineering.

A true environmentalist by heart . Founded Conserve Energy Future with the sole motto of providing helpful information related to our rapidly depleting environment. Unless you strongly believe in Elon Musks idea of making Mars as another habitable planet, do remember that there really is no 'Planet B' in this whole universe.

See more here:
What is Genetic Engineering and Pros and Cons of ...

Have you heard? A revolution has seized the scientific community. Within only a few years, research labs worldwide have adopted a new technology that facilitates making specific changes in the DNA of humans, other animals, and plants. Compared to previous techniques for modifying DNA, this new approach is much faster and easier. This technology is referred to as CRISPR, and it has changed not only the way basic research is conducted, but also the way we can now think about treating diseases [1,2].

CRISPR is an acronym for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat. This name refers to the unique organization of short, partially palindromic repeated DNA sequences found in the genomes of bacteria and other microorganisms. While seemingly innocuous, CRISPR sequences are a crucial component of the immune systems [3] of these simple life forms. The immune system is responsible for protecting an organisms health and well-being. Just like us, bacterial cells can be invaded by viruses, which are small, infectious agents. If a viral infection threatens a bacterial cell, the CRISPR immune system can thwart the attack by destroying the genome of the invading virus [4]. The genome of the virus includes genetic material that is necessary for the virus to continue replicating. Thus, by destroying the viral genome, the CRISPR immune system protects bacteria from ongoing viral infection.

Figure 1 ~ The steps of CRISPR-mediated immunity. CRISPRs are regions in the bacterial genome that help defend against invading viruses. These regions are composed of short DNA repeats (black diamonds) and spacers (colored boxes). When a previously unseen virus infects a bacterium, a new spacer derived from the virus is incorporated amongst existing spacers. The CRISPR sequence is transcribed and processed to generate short CRISPR RNA molecules. The CRISPR RNA associates with and guides bacterial molecular machinery to a matching target sequence in the invading virus. The molecular machinery cuts up and destroys the invading viral genome. Figure adapted from Molecular Cell 54, April 24, 2014 [5].

Interspersed between the short DNA repeats of bacterial CRISPRs are similarly short variable sequences called spacers (FIGURE 1). These spacers are derived from DNA of viruses that have previously attacked the host bacterium [3]. Hence, spacers serve as a genetic memory of previous infections. If another infection by the same virus should occur, the CRISPR defense system will cut up any viral DNA sequence matching the spacer sequence and thus protect the bacterium from viral attack. If a previously unseen virus attacks, a new spacer is made and added to the chain of spacers and repeats.

The CRISPR immune system works to protect bacteria from repeated viral attack via three basic steps [5]:

Step 1) Adaptation DNA from an invading virus is processed into short segments that are inserted into the CRISPR sequence as new spacers.

Step 2) Production of CRISPR RNA CRISPR repeats and spacers in the bacterial DNA undergo transcription, the process of copying DNA into RNA (ribonucleic acid). Unlike the double-chain helix structure of DNA, the resulting RNA is a single-chain molecule. This RNA chain is cut into short pieces called CRISPR RNAs.

Step 3) Targeting CRISPR RNAs guide bacterial molecular machinery to destroy the viral material. Because CRISPR RNA sequences are copied from the viral DNA sequences acquired during adaptation, they are exact matches to the viral genome and thus serve as excellent guides.

The specificity of CRISPR-based immunity in recognizing and destroying invading viruses is not just useful for bacteria. Creative applications of this primitive yet elegant defense system have emerged in disciplines as diverse as industry, basic research, and medicine.

In Industry

The inherent functions of the CRISPR system are advantageous for industrial processes that utilize bacterial cultures. CRISPR-based immunity can be employed to make these cultures more resistant to viral attack, which would otherwise impede productivity. In fact, the original discovery of CRISPR immunity came from researchers at Danisco, a company in the food production industry [2,3]. Danisco scientists were studying a bacterium called Streptococcus thermophilus, which is used to make yogurts and cheeses. Certain viruses can infect this bacterium and damage the quality or quantity of the food. It was discovered that CRISPR sequences equipped S. thermophilus with immunity against such viral attack. Expanding beyond S. thermophilus to other useful bacteria, manufacturers can apply the same principles to improve culture sustainability and lifespan.

In the Lab

Beyond applications encompassing bacterial immune defenses, scientists have learned how to harness CRISPR technology in the lab [6] to make precise changes in the genes of organisms as diverse as fruit flies, fish, mice, plants and even human cells. Genes are defined by their specific sequences, which provide instructions on how to build and maintain an organisms cells. A change in the sequence of even one gene can significantly affect the biology of the cell and in turn may affect the health of an organism. CRISPR techniques allow scientists to modify specific genes while sparing all others, thus clarifying the association between a given gene and its consequence to the organism.

Rather than relying on bacteria to generate CRISPR RNAs, scientists first design and synthesize short RNA molecules that match a specific DNA sequencefor example, in a human cell. Then, like in the targeting step of the bacterial system, this guide RNA shuttles molecular machinery to the intended DNA target. Once localized to the DNA region of interest, the molecular machinery can silence a gene or even change the sequence of a gene (Figure 2)! This type of gene editing can be likened to editing a sentence with a word processor to delete words or correct spelling mistakes. One important application of such technology is to facilitate making animal models with precise genetic changes to study the progress and treatment of human diseases.

Figure 2 ~ Gene silencing and editing with CRISPR. Guide RNA designed to match the DNA region of interest directs molecular machinery to cut both strands of the targeted DNA. During gene silencing, the cell attempts to repair the broken DNA, but often does so with errors that disrupt the geneeffectively silencing it. For gene editing, a repair template with a specified change in sequence is added to the cell and incorporated into the DNA during the repair process. The targeted DNA is now altered to carry this new sequence.

In Medicine

With early successes in the lab, many are looking toward medical applications of CRISPR technology. One application is for the treatment of genetic diseases. The first evidence that CRISPR can be used to correct a mutant gene and reverse disease symptoms in a living animal was published earlier this year [7]. By replacing the mutant form of a gene with its correct sequence in adult mice, researchers demonstrated a cure for a rare liver disorder that could be achieved with a single treatment. In addition to treating heritable diseases, CRISPR can be used in the realm of infectious diseases, possibly providing a way to make more specific antibiotics that target only disease-causing bacterial strains while sparing beneficial bacteria [8]. A recent SITN Waves article discusses how this technique was also used to make white blood cells resistant to HIV infection [9].

Of course, any new technology takes some time to understand and perfect. It will be important to verify that a particular guide RNA is specific for its target gene, so that the CRISPR system does not mistakenly attack other genes. It will also be important to find a way to deliver CRISPR therapies into the body before they can become widely used in medicine. Although a lot remains to be discovered, there is no doubt that CRISPR has become a valuable tool in research. In fact, there is enough excitement in the field to warrant the launch of several Biotech start-ups that hope to use CRISPR-inspired technology to treat human diseases [8].

Ekaterina Pak is a Ph.D. student in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences program at Harvard Medical School.

1. Palca, J. A CRISPR way to fix faulty genes. (26 June 2014) NPR < http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/06/26/325213397/a-crispr-way-to-fix-faulty-genes> [29 June 2014]

2. Pennisi, E. The CRISPR Craze. (2013) Science, 341 (6148): 833-836.

3. Barrangou, R., Fremaux, C., Deveau, H., Richards, M., Boyaval, P., Moineau, S., Romero, D.A., and Horvath, P. (2007). CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. Science 315, 17091712.

4. Brouns, S.J., Jore, M.M., Lundgren, M., Westra, E.R., Slijkhuis, R.J., Snijders, A.P., Dickman, M.J., Makarova, K.S., Koonin, E.V., and van der Oost, J. (2008). Small CRISPR RNAs guide antiviral defense in prokaryotes. Science 321, 960964.

5. Barrangou, R. and Marraffini, L. CRISPR-Cas Systems: Prokaryotes Upgrade to Adaptive Immunity (2014). Molecular Cell 54, 234-244.

6. Jinkek, M. et al. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. (2012) 337(6096):816-21.

7. CRISPR reverses disease symptoms in living animals for first time. (31 March 2014). Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News. <http://www.genengnews.com/gen-news-highlights/crispr-reverses-disease-symptoms-in-living-animals-for-first-time/81249682/> [27 July 2014]

8. Pollack, A. A powerful new way to edit DNA. (3 March 2014). NYTimes < http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/04/health/a-powerful-new-way-to-edit-dna.html?_r=0> [16 July 2014]

9. Gene editing technique allows for HIV resistance? <http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/waves/2014/gene-editing-technique-allows-for-hiv-resistance/> [13 June 2014]

View post:
CRISPR: A game-changing genetic engineering technique ...

Genetic engineering is the process to alter the structure and nature of genes in human beings, animals or foods using techniques like molecular cloning and transformation. In other words, it is the process of adding or modifying DNA in an organism to bring about great deal of transformation.

Genetic engineering was thought to be a real problem just a few short years ago. We feared that soon we would be interfering with nature, trying to play God and cheat him out of his chance to decide whether we were blonde or dark haired, whether we had blue or bright green eyes or even how intelligent we were. The queries and concerns that we have regarding such an intriguing part of science are still alive and well, although they are less talked about nowadays than they were those few years ago.

However, this does not mean that they are any less relevant. In fact, they are as relevant today as they ever were. There are a number of very real and very troubling concerns surrounding genetic engineering, although there are also some very real benefits to further genetic engineering and genetic research, too. It seems, therefore, as though genetic engineering is both a blessing and a curse, as though we stand to benefit as well as lose from developing this area of science even further.

With genetic engineering, we will be able to increase the complexity of our DNA, and improve the human race. But it will be a slow process, because one will have to wait about 18 years to see the effect of changes to the genetic code.Stephen Hawking

Although at first the pros of genetic engineering may not be as apparent as the cons, upon further inspection, there are a number of benefits that we can only get if scientists consider to study and advance this particular branch of study. Here are just a few of the benefits:

1. Tackling and Defeating Diseases

Some of the most deadly and difficult diseases in the world, that have so resisted destruction, could be wiped out by the use of genetic engineering. There are a number of genetic mutations that humans can suffer from that will probably never be ended unless we actively intervene and genetically engineer the next generation to withstand these problems.

For instance, Cystic Fibrosis, a progressive and dangerous disease for which there is no known cure, could be completely cured with the help of selective genetic engineering.

2. Getting Rid of All Illnesses in Young and Unborn Children

There are very many problems that we can detect even before children are born. In the womb, doctors can tell whether your baby is going to suffer from sickle cell anemia, for instance, or from Down s syndrome. In fact, the date by which you can have an abortion has been pushed back relatively late just so that people can decide whether or not to abort a baby if it has one or more of these sorts of issues.

However, with genetic engineering, we would no longer have to worry. One of the main benefit of genetic engineering is that it can help cure and diseases and illness in unborn children. All children would be able to be born healthy and strong with no diseases or illnesses present at birth. Genetic engineering can also be used to help people who risk passing on terribly degenerative diseases to their children.

For instance, if you have Huntingtons there is a 50% chance that your children with inherit the disease and, even if they do not, they are likely to be carriers of the disease. You cannot simply stop people from having children if they suffer from a disease like this, therefore genetic engineering can help to ensure that their children live long and healthy lives from either the disease itself or from carrying the disease to pass on to younger generations.

3. Potential to Live Longer

Although humans are already living longer and longer in fact, our lifespan has shot up by a number of years in a very short amount of time because of the advances of modern medical science, genetic engineering could make our time on Earth even longer. There are specific, common illnesses and diseases that can take hold later in life and can end up killing us earlier than necessary.

With genetic engineering, on the other hand, we could reverse some of the most basic reasons for the bodys natural decline on a cellular level, drastically improving both the span of our lives and the quality of life later on. It could also help humans adapt to the growing problems of, for instance, global warming in the world.

If the places we live in become either a lot hotter or colder, we are going to need to adapt, but evolution takes many thousands of years, so genetic engineering can help us adapt quicker and better.

4. Produce New Foods

Genetic engineering is not just good for people. With genetic engineering we can design foods that are better able to withstand harsh temperatures such as the very hot or very cold, for instance and that are packed full of all the right nutrients that humans and animals need to survive. We may also be able to make our foods have a better medicinal value, thus introducing edible vaccines readily available to people all over the world

Perhaps more obvious than the pros of genetic engineering, there are a number of disadvantages to allowing scientists to break down barriers that perhaps are better left untouched. Here are just a few of those disadvantages:

1. Is it Right?

When genetic engineering first became possible, peoples first reactions were to immediately question whether it was right? Many religions believe that genetic engineering, after all, is tantamount to playing God, and expressly forbid that it is performed on their children, for instance.

Besides the religious arguments, however, there are a number of ethic objections. These diseases, after all, exist for a reason and have persisted throughout history for a reason. Whilst we should be fighting against them, we do need at least a few illnesses, otherwise we would soon become overpopulated. In fact, living longer is already causing social problems in the world today, so to artificially extend everybodys time on Earth might cause even more problems further down the line, problems that we cannot possibly predict.

2. May Lead to Genetic Defects

Another real problem with genetic engineering is the question about the safety of making changes at the cellular level. Scientists do not yet know absolutely everything about the way that the human body works (although they do, of course, have a very good idea). How can they possibly understand the ramifications of slight changes made at the smallest level?

What if we manage to wipe out one disease only to introduce something brand new and even more dangerous? Additionally, if scientists genetically engineer babies still in the womb, there is a very real and present danger that this could lead to complications, including miscarriage (early on), premature birth or even stillbirth, all of which are unthinkable.

The success rate of genetic experiments leaves a lot to be desired, after all. The human body is so complicated that scientists have to be able to predict what sort of affects their actions will have, and they simply cannot account for everything that could go wrong.

3. Limits Genetic Diversity

We need diversity in all species of animals. By genetically engineering our species, however, we will be having a detrimental effect on our genetic diversity in the same way as something like cloning would. Gene therapy is available only to the very rich and elite, which means that traits that tend to make people earn less money would eventually die out.

4. Can it Go Too Far?

One pressing question and issue with genetic engineering that has been around for years and years is whether it could end up going too far. There are many thousands of genetic scientists with honest intentions who want to bring an end to the worst diseases and illnesses of the current century and who are trying to do so by using genetic engineering.

However, what is to stop just a handful of people taking the research too far? What if we start demanding designer babies, children whose hair color, eye color, height and intelligence we ourselves dictate? What if we end up engineering the sex of the baby, for instance in China, where is it much more preferable to have a boy? Is that right? Is it fair? The problems with genetic engineering going too far are and ever present worry in a world in which genetic engineering is progressing further and further every day.

Genetic engineering is one of the topic that causes a lot of controversy. Altering the DNA of organisms has certainly raised a few eyebrows. It may work wonders but who knows if playing with the nature is really safe? Making yourself aware of all aspects of genetic engineering can help you to form your own opinion.

A true environmentalist by heart . Founded Conserve Energy Future with the sole motto of providing helpful information related to our rapidly depleting environment. Unless you strongly believe in Elon Musks idea of making Mars as another habitable planet, do remember that there really is no 'Planet B' in this whole universe.

Visit link:
Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering - Conserve Energy Future

A portrait of Khan Noonien Singh, a man who was a product of genetic engineering

Genetic engineering, genetic programming or genetic manipulation was a process in which the DNA of an organism was selectively altered through artificial means. Genetic engineering was often used to produce "custom" organisms, such as for agricultural or medical purposes, as well as to produce biogenic weapons. The most common application of genetic engineering on intelligent beings in the Federation was corrective DNA resequencing for genetic disorders. A far more dubious application of genetic engineering was the genetic enhancement of individuals to produce improved senses, strength, intelligence, etc.

During Earth's 20th century, the efforts of ambitious scientists' to produce "superhumans" eventually resulted in the Eugenics Wars. Genetically engineered individuals such as Khan Noonien Singh attempted to seize power. (TOS: "Space Seed")

This would lead to the banning of genetic engineering on Earth by the mid-22nd century, even research which could be used to cure critical illnesses. This ban was implemented because of the general fear of creating more tyrants such as Khan. It was also felt that parents would feel compelled to have their children genetically engineered, especially if "enhanced" individuals were allowed to compete in normal society.

Some, including geneticist Arik Soong, argued that it was simply convenient for Humanity to denounce the attempts at genetic "improvement" of Humanity, that it was inherently evil because of the Eugenics Wars. He argued that the source of the problem, in fact, wasn't the technology, but Humanity's own inability to use it wisely. Imprisoned for, among other crimes, stealing the embryos of a number of Augment children, Soong wrote long treatises on the subject of genetic augmentations and improvements. His works were routinely taken and placed into storage (although his jailers often told him that his work was vaporized). Though Soong himself gave up genetics to begin research in cybernetics, Captain Jonathan Archer expressed his hope to Soong that research into genetic engineering could cure life-threatening diseases would someday be resumed. (ENT: "Borderland", "The Augments")

Symbols used to indicate presence of genetically engineered lifeform

Others, however, chose to establish isolated colonies, as became the case with the Genome colony on Moab IV, which was established in 2168. It became a notable and successful example of Human genetic engineering in which every individual was genetically tailored from birth to perform a specific role in society. However, after a five-day visit by the USS Enterprise-D when the ship came to the colony in an effort to save it from an approaching neutron star which, eventually, the craft was able to effectively redirect twenty-three colonists left the colony aboard the craft, possibly causing significant damage to the structure of their society. The reason for the societal split was that those who left the colony had realized their organized, pre-planned world had certain limitations, lacking opportunities to grow that were offered by the Enterprise. (TNG: "The Masterpiece Society")

By the 24th century, the United Federation of Planets allowed limited use of genetic engineering to correct existing genetically related medical conditions. Persons known to be genetically enhanced, however, were not allowed to serve in Starfleet, and were especially banned from practicing medicine. (TNG: "Genesis", DS9: "Doctor Bashir, I Presume")

Nevertheless, some parents attempted to secretly have their children genetically modified. (DS9: "Doctor Bashir, I Presume") Unfortunately, most of these operations were performed by unqualified physicians, resulting in severe psychological problems in the children due to their enhancements being only partially successful, such as a patient's senses being enhanced while their ability to process the resulting data remained at a Human norm. (DS9: "Statistical Probabilities")

In some cases, genetic engineering can be permitted to be performed in utero when dealing with a developing fetus to correct any potential genetic defects that could handicap the child as they grew up. Chakotay's family history included a defective gene that made those who possessed it prone to hallucinations, the gene afflicting his grandfather in Chakotay's youth, although the gene was suppressed in Chakotay himself. (VOY: "The Fight") In 2377, The Doctor performed prenatal genetic modification on Miral Paris to correct a spinal deviation, a congenital defect that tends to run in Klingon families; Miral's mother and grandmother had undergone surgery to correct the defect at a young age, but the modification meant Miral would not need surgery herself. Unfortunately, learning of this capability, B'Elanna briefly became obsessed with having her child modified to remove all Klingon DNA traits to try and 'protect' her daughter from the discrimination she had experienced as a child, even going so far as to reprogram The Doctor so that he would believe these changes were necessary to prevent later illness, but she was talked out of it by her husband (VOY: "Lineage").

The Founders of the Dominion performed extensive genetic modifications on their two servant races, the Jem'Hadar and the Vorta, in order for them to better serve their roles and to ingrain a fanatical devotion to the Founders. (DS9: "The Abandoned", "Ties of Blood and Water") As a result of these modifications, neither species reproduced in the traditional biological sense. (DS9: "To the Death")

According to Vorta legend, they were originally ape-like creatures who were gifted sentience by the Founders after they helped a changeling escape pursuit. (DS9: "Treachery, Faith and the Great River")

It is unknown whether the Jem'Hadar had any such ancestral species.

The Dominion also genetically engineered biological weapons, such as the blight they unleashed against the people of the Teplan system. (DS9: "The Quickening")

During the 22nd century, the Suliban were no more evolved than Humans. However, a number of Suliban, from a faction known as the Suliban Cabal, became recipients of some very sophisticated genetic engineering thanks to a mysterious humanoid from the 28th century. These enhancements included subcutaneous pigment sacs, a bio-mimetic garment, modified alveoli, more bronchial lobes and eyes with compound retinas which allowed them to see things starship sensors likely could not detect. The Suliban considered these "enhancements" as "progress". (ENT: "Broken Bow")

When they were captured by a pre-warp civilization in 2152, Jonathan Archer and Malcolm Reed claimed to be prototypes of a new breed of supersoldiers to conceal the existence of alien life from the civilization. (ENT: "The Communicator")

Genetic engineering had been employed on Denobula since the twentieth century, to generally positive effect. (ENT: "Borderland")

Genetic programming was Surmak Ren's major field of study at the University of Bajor. (DS9: "Babel")

The Angosians used psychological and biochemical modifications and mental programming to make the perfect soldier such as Roga Danar. (TNG: "The Hunted")

The Tosk were engineered by the Hunters to be prey for their traditional hunts. (DS9: "Captive Pursuit")

The Son'a used genetic manipulation as part of a range of strategies to retard aging. (Star Trek: Insurrection)

The Brunali were proficient at genetic engineering, which they used to create modified crops capable of surviving on their Borg-devastated homeworld. However, they also genetically engineered some of their children to produce a pathogen deadly to Borg. These children were then allowed to be assimilated, so that they could spread the infection to their Borg vessels. Icheb was one such child, the pathogen causing the cube that he was on to break down, killing all of the active drones and causing the young drones in their maturation chambers to activate before they were fully processed into the Collective. (VOY: "Child's Play")

The Taresians used genetic engineering in tandem with a form of biological weaponry to manipulate the DNA of other species. This occurred to Ensign Harry Kim in 2373, who was infected with a virus that altered his DNA to make him a potential Taresian mate. (VOY: "Favorite Son")

Read the original here:
Genetic engineering | Memory Alpha | FANDOM powered by Wikia

Overview of Biotechnology

Biotechnology is the use of biological techniques and engineered organisms to make products or plants and animals that have desired traits.

Describe the historical development of biotechnology

Biotechnology: Brewing (fermentation of beer) was an early application of biotechnology.

People have used biotechnology processes, such as selectively breeding animals and fermentation, for thousands of years. Late 19th and early 20th century discoveries of how microorganisms carry out commercially useful processes and how they cause disease led to the commercial production of vaccines and antibiotics. Improved methods for animal breeding have also resulted from these efforts. Scientists in the San Francisco Bay Area took a giant step forward with the discovery and development of recombinant DNA techniques in the 1970s. The field of biotechnology continues to accelerate with new discoveries and new applications expected to benefit the economy throughout the 21st century.

In its broadest definition, biotechnology is the application of biological techniques and engineered organisms to make products or modify plants and animals to carry desired traits. This definition also extends to the use of various human cells and other body parts to produce desirable products. Bioindustry refers to the cluster of companies that produce engineered biological products and their supporting businesses. Biotechnology refers to the use of the biological sciences (such as gene manipulation), often in combination with other sciences (such as materials sciences, nanotechnology, and computer software), to discover, evaluate and develop products for bioindustry. Biotechnology products have made it easier to detect and diagnose illnesses. Many of these new techniques are easier to use and some, such as pregnancy testing, can even be used at home. More than 400 clinical diagnostic devices using biotechnology products are in use today. The most important are screening techniques to protect the blood supply against contamination by AIDS and the hepatitis B and C viruses.

Genetic engineering means the manipulation of organisms to make useful products and it has broad applications.

Describe the major applications of genetic engineering

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification, is the direct manipulation of an organisms genome using biotechnology.

New DNA may be inserted in the host genome by first isolating and copying the genetic material of interest, using molecular-cloning methods to generate a DNA sequence; or by synthesizing the DNA, and then inserting this construct into the host organism. Genes may be removed, or knocked out, using a nuclease.

Genetically manipulated mice: Laboratory mice are genetically manipulated by deleting a gene for use in biomedical research.

Gene targeting is a different technique that uses homologous recombination to change an endogenous gene, and can be used to delete a gene, remove exons, add a gene, or introduce point mutations. Genetic engineering has applications in medicine, research, industry and agriculture and can be used on a wide range of plants, animals and microorganisms.

Genetic engineering has produced a variety of drugs and hormones for medical use. For example, one of its earliest uses in pharmaceuticals was gene splicing to manufacture large amounts of insulin, made using cells of E. coli bacteria. Interferon, which is used to eliminate certain viruses and kill cancer cells, also is a product of genetic engineering, as are tissue plasminogen activator and urokinase, which are used to dissolve blood clots.

Another byproduct is a type of human growth hormone; its used to treat dwarfism and is produced through genetically-engineered bacteria and yeasts. The evolving field of gene therapy involves manipulating human genes to treat or cure genetic diseases and disorders. Modified plasmids or viruses often are the messengers to deliver genetic material to the bodys cells, resulting in the production of substances that should correct the illness. Sometimes cells are genetically altered inside the body; other times scientists modify them in the laboratory and return them to the patients body.

Since the 1990s, gene therapy has been used in clinical trials to treat diseases and conditions such as AIDS, cystic fibrosis, cancer, and high cholesterol. Drawbacks of gene therapy are that sometimes the persons immune system destroys the cells that have been genetically altered, and also that it is hard to get the genetic material into enough cells to have the desired effect.

Many practical applications of recombinant DNA are found in human and veterinary medicine, in agriculture, and in bioengineering.

Describe the advances made possible by recombinant DNA technology

Recombinant DNA technology is the latest biochemical analysis that came about to satisfy the need for specific DNA segments. In this process, surrounding DNA from an existing cell is clipped in the desired amount of segments so that it can be copied millions of times.

Construction of recombinant DNA: A foreign DNA fragment is inserted into a plasmid vector. In this example, the gene indicated by the white color is inactivated upon insertion of the foreign DNA fragment.

Recombinant DNA technology engineers microbial cells for producing foreign proteins, and its success solely depends on the precise reading of equivalent genes made with the help of bacterial cell machinery. This process has been responsible for fueling many advances related to modern molecular biology. The last two decades of cloned-DNA sequence studies have revealed detailed knowledge about gene structure as well as its organization. It has provided hints to regulatory pathways with the aid of which gene expression in myriad cell types is controlled by the cells, especially in those organisms having body plan with basic vertebrae structure.

Recombinant DNA technology, apart from being an important tool of scientific research, has also played a vital role in the diagnosis and treatment of various diseases, especially those belonging to genetic disorders.

Some of the recent advances made possible by recombinant DNA technology are:

1. Isolating proteins in large quantities: many recombinant products are now available, including follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), Follistim AQ vial, growth hormone, insulin and some other proteins.

2. Making possible mutation identification: due to this technology, people can be easily tested for mutated protein presence that can lead to breast cancer, neurofibromatosis, and retinoblastoma.

3. Hereditary diseases carrier diagnosis: tests now available to determine if a person is carrying the gene for cystic fibrosis, the Tay-Sachs diseases, Huntingtons disease or Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

4. Gene transfer from one organism to other: the advanced gene therapy can benefit people with cystic fibrosis, vascular disease, rheumatoid arthritis and specific types of cancers.

Bacterial genetics can be manipulated to allow for mammalian gene expression systems established in bacteria.

Describe the sequence of events in a genetically engineered expression system

Gene expression is the process by which information from a gene is used in the synthesis of a functional gene product. These products are often proteins and are produced after the process of translation. An expression system that is categorized as a genetic engineering product is a system specifically designed for the production of a gene product of choice. This is normally a protein, although may also be RNA, such as tRNA or a ribozyme.

The genetically engineered expression system contains the appropriate DNA sequence for the gene of choice which is engineered into a plasmid that is introduced into a bacteria host. The molecular machinery that is required to transcribe the DNA is derived from the innate and naturally occurring machinery in the host. The DNA is then transcribed into mRNA and then translated into protein products.

In a genetically engineered system, this entire process of gene expression may be induced depending on the plasmid used. In the broadest sense, mammalian gene expression includes every living cell but the term is more normally used to refer to expression as a laboratory tool. An expression system is therefore often artificial in some manner. Viruses and bacteria are an excellent example of expression systems.

The oldest and most widely used expression systems are cell-based. Expression is often done to a very high level and therefore referred to as overexpression. There are many ways to introduce foreign DNA to a cell for expression, and there are many different host cells which may be used for expression. Each expression system also has distinct advantages and liabilities.

Expression systems are normally referred to by the host and the DNA source or the delivery mechanism for the genetic material. For example, common bacterial hosts are E.coli and B. subtilis. With E. coli, DNA is normally introduced in a plasmid expression vector. The techniques for overexpression in E. coli work by increasing the number of copies of the gene or increasing the binding strength of the promoter region so as to assist transcription.

Bacterial Flora: E. coli is one of the most popular hosts for artificial gene expression.

Genetic engineering enables scientists to create plants, animals, and microorganisms by manipulating genes.

Explain the advantages and disadvantages of producing genetically engineered proteins in bacteria

The first successful products of genetic engineering were protein drugs like insulin, which is used to treat diabetes, and growth hormone somatotropin. These proteins are made in large quantities by genetically engineered bacteria or yeast in large bioreactors. Some drugs are also made in transgenic plants, such as tobacco. Other human proteins that are used as drugs require biological modifications that only the cells of mammals, such as cows, goats, and sheep, can provide. For these drugs, production in transgenic animals is a good option. Using farm animals for drug production has many advantages because they are reproducible, have flexible production, are easily maintained, and have a great delivery method (e.g. milk).

Synthetic Insulin: human insulin produced by recombinant DNA technology.

Recombinant DNA technology not only allows therapeutic proteins to be produced on a large scale but using the same methodology protein molecules may be purposefully engineered. Genetic modifications introduced to a protein have many advantages over chemical modifications. Genetically engineered entities are biocompatible and biodegradable. The changes are introduced in 100% of the molecules with the exclusion of rare errors in gene transcription or translation. The preparations do not contain residual amounts of harsh chemicals used in the conjugation process. Bacterial expression systems, due to their simplicity, are often not able to produce a recombinant human protein identical to the naturally occurring wild type. Bacteria did not develop sophisticated mechanisms for performing post-translational modifications that are present in higher organisms. As a consequence, an increasing number of protein therapeutics is expressed in mammalian cells. However the low cost and simplicity of cultivating bacteria is an unbeatable advantage over any other expression system and therefore E. coli is always a preferable choice both on a lab scale and in industry.

Many mammalian proteins are produced by genetic engineering. These include, in particular, an assortment of hormones and proteins for blood clotting and other blood processes. For example, tissue plasminogen activator (TPA) is a blood protein that scavenges and dissolves blood clots that may form in the nal stages of the healing process. TPA is primarily used in heart patients or others suffering from poor circulation to prevent the development of clots that can be life-threatening. Heart disease is a leading cause of death in many developed countries, especially in the United States, so microbially produced TPA is in high demand. In contrast to TPA, the blood clotting factors VII, VIII, and IX are critically important for the formation of blood clots. Hemophiliacs suffer from a deciency of one or more clotting factors and can therefore be treated with microbially produced clotting factors. In the past hemophiliacs have been treated with clotting factor extracts from pooled human blood, some of which was contaminated with viruses such as HIV and hepatitis C, putting hemophiliacs at high risk for contracting these diseases. Recombinant clotting factors have eliminated this problem.

Go here to see the original:
Genetic Engineering Products | Boundless Microbiology

Human genetic modification is the direct manipulation of the genome using molecular engineering techniques. Recently developed techniques for modifying genes are often called gene editing. Genetic modification can be applied in two very different ways: somatic genetic modification and germline genetic modification.

Somatic genetic modification adds, cuts, or changes the genes in some of the cells of an existing person, typically to alleviate a medical condition. These gene therapy techniques are approaching clinical practice, but only for a few conditions, and at a very high cost.

Germline genetic modification would change the genes in eggs, sperm, or early embryos. Often referred to as inheritable genetic modification or gene editing for reproduction, these alterations would appear in every cell of the person who developed from that gamete or embryo, and also in all subsequent generations. Germline modification has not been tried in humans, but it would be, by far, the most consequential type of genetic modification. If used for enhancement purposes, it could open the door to a new market-based form of eugenics. Human germline modification has been prohibited by law in more than 40 countries, and by a binding international treaty of the Council of Europe.

View post:
Human Genetic Modification | Center for Genetics and Society

The world's chocolate supply is dwindling. As our global sweet tooth begins to outpace cocoa production, major chocolate companies like Mars Inc. and Barry Callebaut expect to see an industry deficit of 4.4 billion pounds of chocolate by 2030. And by 2050, the cacao seeds used to make chocolate could be extinct.

As farmers struggle to keep up with demand, Bloomberg reports that the price of chocolate has continued to rise, making popular items like Hershey bars more expensive.

Companies that want to keep costs low have had to sacrifice the flavor of their products. In 2014, Bloomberg's Mark Schatzker predicted that chocolate could follow the path of food items like chicken and strawberries, which have lost some of their flavor in the quest to satisfy demand. According to Schatzker, chocolate could soon become "as tasteless as today's store-bought tomatoes."

To prevent that from happening, the nonprofit coalition of farmers called A Fresh Look released a line of chocolate bars that promote the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Ethos Chocolate uses sugar derived from GMO beets. A Fresh Look

While the bars, known as Ethos Chocolate, don't contain genetically modified cacao an ingredient that's still being developed and tested they do contain sugar that's derived from GMO beets.

According to A Fresh Look's lead scientist, Rebecca Larson, it's the first time a farmer's group has come together to espouse GMO technology, which has been criticized by environmentalists.

Around 70% of the world's cocoa beans hail from West Africa, with Ghana and Ivory Coast serving as the two largest producers. As global temperatures continue to rise, these nations have seen increasingly dry weather, which can prevent cacao trees from growing.

Cacao trees are also particularly vulnerable to disease.

The International Cocoa Organization (ICCO) reported that diseases and pests have resulted in the loss of 30% to 40% of global cocoa production. The report also noted that cocoa species are susceptible to a disease called frosty pod, which has led to entire cocoa farms being abandoned in Latin America.

In West Africa, swollen shoot virus and black pod have also overtaken cacao trees, resulting in huge financial losses. These diseases are made worse by weather conditions such as floods, droughts, and windstorms.

In addition to placing a strain on chocolate manufacturing companies, the loss of cacao trees can impair the livelihoods of tens of millions of people who depend on them economically.

But genetic modification has the potential to lessen these effects by making crops drought tolerant or insect resistant. Studies have shown that GMO crops can improve crop yield, boost farmers' profits, and even reduce the use of pesticides.

While GMOs could be instrumental in saving the world's chocolate supply, they've often been painted as a risk to human health.

Environmental groups contend that GMO crops are more resistant to herbicides, which may or may not be carcinogenic.

Read more: It's almost impossible to avoid GMOs in these 7 everyday items

The 1,600 farmers that make up A Fresh Look have resisted this argument, saying that GMOs are not only safe to consume, but also require less water and improve our nutrition.

A chocolatier in the Ivory Coast explains how cocoa is processed into chocolate. Sia Kambou/AFP/Getty Images

"There's this idea [among consumers] that everything is as mother nature intended, or it was manufactured in a laboratory," Larson told Business Insider. "[We're] helping people understand that GMOs aren't a scary ingredient in their food, but rather a farming technique."

These findings are supported by numerous scientific organizations. In the last two decades, institutions like the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the European Commission have all publicly stated that GMOs don't present harm to human health.

While plenty of chocolate contains ingredients derived from GMOs like corn syrup and soy lecithin, researchers have been slow to develop a genetically modified version of cacao.

Many chocolate companies still cater to consumer preferences for non-GMO items. Ghirardelli, for instance, has publicly stated its mission to make all recipes GMO-free.

One notable exception is Mars, the company behind M&M's and Snickers, which has teamed up with the University of California Berkeley to develop cacao plants that don't wilt or rot. To achieve this, the research team turned to CRISPR, a gene-editing technology that makes small changes to an organism's DNA.

But it could be some time before GMO cacao makes its way onto shelves.

"It all depends on legislative acceptance in different countries where the cacao is being produced," said Larson.

Some of the nations where people buy the most chocolate, such as Germany, Switzerland, and Austria, have restricted their cultivation of GMO crops.

When it comes to consumers, Larson said her team's pro-GMO stance is already starting to catch on: "We've gotten overwhelming feedback from all kinds of industry groups and consumers saying, 'Hey, it's about time.'"

Read the original:
Genetic engineering could save chocolate from going ...