tag:theconversation.com,2011:/fr/topics/genetic-modification-1328/articlesGenetic modification – The Conversation2024-02-05T23:06:31Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2196832024-02-05T23:06:31Z2024-02-05T23:06:31ZGenetic diseases: How scientists are working to make DNA repair (almost) a piece of cake<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/564984/original/file-20231101-27-722eas.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=5%2C0%2C992%2C561&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An error in DNA is called a mutation.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>I have always been fascinated by genetics, a branch of biology that helps explain everything from the striking resemblance between different members of a family to the fact that strawberry plants are frost-resistant. It’s an impressive field!</p>
<p>I also have a personal connection to genetics. Growing up, I learned that members of my family had a form of <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12186011">muscular dystrophy</a> called dysferlinopathy. I watched as my mother gradually lost the ability to climb stairs and had to use a cane, then a walker, and finally a wheelchair to get around. Her leg muscles were less and less able to repair themselves and became weaker with time.</p>
<p>My parents explained to me that all these changes were due to the error of a single letter among the billions of letters in a long DNA sequence. This error prevents the production of the protein <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12144769">responsible for repairing arm and leg muscles</a>.</p>
<p>Today, I am a doctoral research student in molecular medicine. I study the treatment of hereditary diseases in order to be able to help families like my own. In this article, I will demystify hereditary diseases and show what research is being carried out to treat them.</p>
<h2>A piece of cake? Not quite</h2>
<p>Let’s start by imagining DNA as a recipe book. Each gene represents a different recipe. The page with the chocolate cake recipe has a nice picture, but there is some information missing. The recipe says to preheat the oven and measure the flour, but the rest of the page is torn. So it is impossible to make the cake. We go ahead and serve our meal made from all the other recipes, but there is no chocolate cake even though this is a particularly important part of the meal.</p>
<p>The same is true for hereditary diseases. In this case, the body can make all the proteins it needs except one. In dysferlinopathy, which affects my family, the missing recipe is the protein that repairs the muscles of the arms and legs. Each hereditary disease has its own damaged page in its recipe book.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/580032/original/file-20240305-21577-nvf7ba.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/580032/original/file-20240305-21577-nvf7ba.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580032/original/file-20240305-21577-nvf7ba.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580032/original/file-20240305-21577-nvf7ba.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=426&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580032/original/file-20240305-21577-nvf7ba.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580032/original/file-20240305-21577-nvf7ba.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/580032/original/file-20240305-21577-nvf7ba.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=535&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A mutation can cause the absence of a protein that has its own function.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Camille Bouchard)</span>, <span class="license">Fourni par l'auteur</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To be precise, an error in the DNA is called a mutation. There are different types of mutations. Some are caused by adding letters, like adding an ingredient to the recipe. This addition could lead to a delicious chocolate cake with strawberries, or to a cake that is no longer edible because we added motor oil to it.</p>
<p>Other mutations are caused by the removal (or elimination) of one or more letters (or ingredients), or by substitutions that replace one letter with another. All of these modifications can lead to favourable or non-impactful changes, such as the appearance of the first blue eyes in evolution, or the ability to breathe outside of water. But these modifications can also bring about unfavourable results, such as a hereditary disease or cancer.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565888/original/file-20231214-19-3u3el2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565888/original/file-20231214-19-3u3el2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565888/original/file-20231214-19-3u3el2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=616&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565888/original/file-20231214-19-3u3el2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=616&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565888/original/file-20231214-19-3u3el2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=616&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565888/original/file-20231214-19-3u3el2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=774&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565888/original/file-20231214-19-3u3el2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=774&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565888/original/file-20231214-19-3u3el2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=774&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There are different types of mutations.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Camille Bouchard)</span>, <span class="license">Fourni par l'auteur</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Repairing DNA</h2>
<p>From a young age, I understood that my mother was sick due to the error of a gene, but that I would not develop the disease because my father did not have the same error. This is called a recessive disease, since there must be an error in the gene of each of the two parents in order for the disease to manifest. Other hereditary diseases are dominant, meaning that a mutation in the DNA passed down from just one parent is enough to impair the production of a protein.</p>
<p>As part of my research, I look at the DNA sequence of each dysferlinopathy patient to see where the error is.</p>
<p>To try to correct it, I use <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/cells12040536">Prime editing</a>, a technique which makes it possible to cut the DNA near the mutation and rewrite the sequence correctly. Prime editing is a version of <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975809/">CRISPR-Cas9</a>, a technique that allows DNA to be cut at a particular location.</p>
<p>Prime editing uses a protein called Cas9, which occurs naturally in bacteria. This protein allows bacteria to destroy the DNA sequences of viruses that could infect them. The mission of the Cas9 protein is to recognize a sequence and cut it.</p>
<p>When we use Cas9 in our human cells, we attach it to another protein, which rewrites the DNA sequence based on a template. In other words, we give the cell an error-free sequence so that it can go ahead and manufacture the protein on its own. It’s a bit like recovering the original page of the recipe book so you can finally serve the chocolate cake.</p>
<h2>A step in the right direction</h2>
<p>So why aren’t we hearing about Prime editing, when it could be used to treat a variety of diseases? Because the technology is not yet fully developed. At the moment we are able to repair DNA directly in cells in the laboratory, but we lack the means to deliver the two large proteins (Cas9 and the one that rewrites) to the cells to be treated (for example, to the centre of the affected muscles).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565889/original/file-20231214-21-z2b726.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565889/original/file-20231214-21-z2b726.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565889/original/file-20231214-21-z2b726.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565889/original/file-20231214-21-z2b726.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565889/original/file-20231214-21-z2b726.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=434&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565889/original/file-20231214-21-z2b726.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=546&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565889/original/file-20231214-21-z2b726.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=546&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565889/original/file-20231214-21-z2b726.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=546&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Prime editing is a technique being studied to correct mutations in different genes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Camille Bouchard)</span>, <span class="license">Fourni par l'auteur</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In other words, we have found the chocolate cake recipe, but it’s written on a page that is too large to fit in an email or put in an envelope. Many laboratories, including mine, are looking for an efficient and safe vehicle that will be able to deliver these proteins.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/219683/count.gif" alt="La Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Camille Bouchard received funding from the Jain Foundation and the Fondation du CHU de Québec.</span></em></p>Many people know someone with a genetic disease, but few understand how gene mutations work.Camille Bouchard, Étudiante au doctorat en médecine moléculaire (correction génétique de maladies héréditaires), Université LavalLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2196372023-12-15T14:09:29Z2023-12-15T14:09:29ZGenetically modified crops aren’t a solution to climate change, despite what the biotech industry says<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/564970/original/file-20231211-18-xfrqe8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C3319%2C2383&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Barbara Van Dyck</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The European Commission launched a <a href="https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/genetically-modified-organisms/new-techniques-biotechnology_en">proposal</a> in July 2023 to deregulate a large number of plants manufactured using new genetic techniques. </p>
<p>Despite extraordinary attempts by the Spanish presidency to force a breakthrough, EU members have not yet reached a consensus on this plan. But if the proposal were to be approved, these plants would be treated the same as conventional plants, eliminating the need for safety tests and the labelling of genetically modified food products. </p>
<p>The European public <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/25148486211042307">has refused</a> to blindly accept genetically modified food from the moment the technology was developed, largely due to concerns about corporate control, health and the environment. </p>
<p>Biotech firms have been trying to sell genetically modified crops to Europeans for decades. But <a href="https://extranet.greens-efa.eu/public/media/file/1/6910">most European citizens</a> remain convinced that crops made with both old and new genetic techniques should be tested and labelled.</p>
<p>So, where has this proposal come from? Biotech firms seem to have succeeded in convincing the European Commission that we need new genetically modified crops to tackle climate change. They <a href="https://croplife.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Potential-Impact-of-Genome-Editing-on-Climate-Adaptation-and-Mitigation_FINAL.pdf">argue</a> that by enhancing crops’ resistance to drought or improving their ability to capture carbon, climate change may no longer seem such a daunting challenge. </p>
<p>If this seems too good to be true, unfortunately, it is. Biotech firms have taken advantage of growing concerns about climate change to influence the European Commission with an orchestrated <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2021/03/derailing-eu-rules-new-gmos">lobbying campaign</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Green sprout soy growing in soil." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565444/original/file-20231213-25-cemqd7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565444/original/file-20231213-25-cemqd7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565444/original/file-20231213-25-cemqd7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565444/original/file-20231213-25-cemqd7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=287&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565444/original/file-20231213-25-cemqd7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565444/original/file-20231213-25-cemqd7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565444/original/file-20231213-25-cemqd7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=361&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The EU Council has rejected compromise over genetically modified crop regulation reform.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/green-sprout-soy-growing-fertile-soil-2277106953">Ruslan Khismatov/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Climate goals as PR strategy</h2>
<p>In 2018, the European Court <a href="https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-07/cp180111en.pdf">ruled</a> that plants made with new genetic techniques have to be regulated like any other genetically modified organism. Biotech firms and their <a href="https://corporateeurope.org/en/2023/04/dutch-biotech-researchers-conflicting-roles-lobby-deregulation-new-gmos">allies</a> within biotech research centres have since set out to convince the European Commission of the need for an entirely new legislation.</p>
<p>The first step was to rebrand the techniques they are using, aiming to distance themselves from the bad reputation of genetic modification. Biotech firms started to use more <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15487733.2020.1816687%40tsus20.2020.17.issue-S2">innocent terms</a> like gene editing and precision breeding instead. </p>
<p>They then argued that their processes are not really any different from what happens in nature, portraying them as an <a href="https://www.europabio.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/2019_06_G_PP_EuropaBio-Updated-genome-editing-paper.pdf">advanced version of natural processes</a>. Biotech firms need this argument to eliminate the requirement for labelling, which serves as a barrier for selling their products in a climate of public disapproval. </p>
<p>In a third step, they leveraged the urgency of the climate crisis to argue that we cannot afford time-consuming safety tests. They contended that such tests would <a href="https://www.eu-sage.eu/sites/default/files/2021-03/EU-SAGE%20EC%20letter%20February%202021.pdf">hinder innovation</a> in a period of accelerating climate change.</p>
<p>There are <a href="https://newgmo.org/">several flaws</a> in this approach. The terms “gene editing” or “precision breeding” may sound more reassuring, but we argue they are essentially marketing terms and say nothing about the accuracy of the techniques used or their potentially negative effects.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.testbiotech.org/content/joint-statement-scientists-future-eu-regulation-ngt-plants-perspective-protection-goals">Studies</a> have shown that new genetic techniques can alter the traits of a species “to an extent that would be impossible, or at least very unlikely, using conventional breeding”. They can also trigger substantial <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36365450/">unintended changes</a> in the genetic material of plants. </p>
<p>But, perhaps most importantly, genetically modified plants aren’t the solution to the climate crisis. They are a false solution that starts from the wrong question. </p>
<h2>False promises</h2>
<p>It is well known that our current agricultural model <a href="https://ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/UniformityToDiversity_FULL.pdf">contributes</a> significantly to climate change. The development of genetically modified crops is being steered largely by the very same agro-chemical giants that established and control this form of agriculture. </p>
<p>Companies like Corteva and Bayer (which acquired US agrochemical company Monsanto in 2018) are leading the race to secure patents on new genetic techniques and their products. </p>
<p>Typical examples include <a href="https://www.bafu.admin.ch/dam/bafu/de/dokumente/biotechnologie/externe-studien-berichte/endbericht-semnar-gelinsky.pdf.download.pdf/endbericht-semnar-gelinsky.pdf">patents</a> for soybeans with increased protein content, waxy corn, or rice that is tolerant to herbicides. These crops are designed for an agricultural model centred on the large-scale cultivation of single crop varieties destined for the global market. </p>
<p>This agricultural model relies on staggering amounts of fuel for distribution and places farmers in a state of dependence on heavy machinery and farm inputs (like artificial fertilisers and pesticides) derived from fossil fuels. </p>
<p>Research has found that farming in this way causes <a href="https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/abs/10.1289/ehp.02110445">soil depletion</a> and <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320718313636">biodiversity loss</a>. It also increases <a href="https://ipes-food.org/_img/upload/files/UniformityToDiversity_FULL.pdf">vulnerability</a> to pests and diseases, necessitating the development of different and potentially more toxic pesticides and herbicides. </p>
<p>Although biotech firms are playing the climate card, only a <a href="https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202311.1897/v1/download">small proportion</a> of the genetically modified crops being developed deal with concerns related to the climate. In fact, the climate credentials of many of these crops are questionable. Modifications such as an increased shelf life, or being better able to withstand being transported are merely intended to smooth the operation of our unsustainable food system. </p>
<p>Rather than strengthening our unsustainable agricultural model, the focus should be on restoring what industrial agriculture has destroyed: farmers’ livelihoods, biodiversity and soil health. Only then will farmers be able to cultivate local climates that naturally store carbon and provide optimal conditions for <a href="https://www.fao.org/3/cb0486en/cb0486en.pdf">food production</a> without placing so much pressure on the environment.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Tractor spraying pesticides on a soy field." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565436/original/file-20231213-21-9rpgqu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/565436/original/file-20231213-21-9rpgqu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565436/original/file-20231213-21-9rpgqu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565436/original/file-20231213-21-9rpgqu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565436/original/file-20231213-21-9rpgqu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565436/original/file-20231213-21-9rpgqu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/565436/original/file-20231213-21-9rpgqu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=455&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Our current agricultural model centres on the large-scale cultivation of single crop varieties.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/tractor-spraying-pesticides-on-soy-field-1908369397">Fotokostic/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Paying the price</h2>
<p>Biotech firms advocate a no-testing policy as they argue that new genetically modified crops would be safe. But there is a problem. The legislation proposed by the European Commission eliminates the possibility of ever <a href="https://ensser.org/publications/2023/statement-eu-commissions-proposal-on-new-gm-plants-no-science-no-safety/">finding out</a> if these claims are correct. </p>
<p>Health and environmental problems are often the result of complex, interacting and largely invisible causes. As tracing and labelling won’t be mandatory, it will be very difficult to trace any adverse outcomes back to their causes. </p>
<p>Ultimately, people and the planet will pay the price when untested genetically modified crops penetrate our environments and the food chain. </p>
<p><em>In response to this article, a spokesperson from the American Seed Trade Association said plant breeders need all the tools at their disposal to provide improved plant varieties to farmers so they can continue producing in a challenging environment. The Association said there is consensus among plant breeders and regulatory bodies that innovative techniques, like genome editing, can be safely integrated into breeding programmes to develop plant varieties that are indistinguishable from those developed through conventional breeding. Bayer and Corteva were contacted for a comment on the issues raised in this article, but had not provided any by the time of publication.</em></p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="Imagine weekly climate newsletter" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434988/original/file-20211201-21-13avx6y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong><em>Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?</em></strong>
<br><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/imagine-57?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Imagine&utm_content=DontHaveTimeTop">Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead.</a> Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/imagine-57?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=Imagine&utm_content=DontHaveTimeBottom">Join the 20,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.</a></em></p>
<hr><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/219637/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Biotech firms are using climate goals opportunistically in an attempt to force through the deregulation of genetically modified crops.Anneleen Kenis, Lecturer in Political Ecology and Environmental Justice, Brunel University LondonBarbara Van Dyck, Research Fellow in Political Agroecology, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2151032023-10-09T17:19:20Z2023-10-09T17:19:20ZWild plants may edit their genomes in the same way we make GM crops – and it could be crucial to evolution<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/552485/original/file-20231006-25-tjh98j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=16%2C24%2C5447%2C3612&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/girl-runs-her-hand-over-tall-2017555694">zhukovvvlad/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Genetically modified (GM) crops may be controversial, but similar processes happen naturally with wild plants. However, scientists have long been puzzled about how these processes happen. Our <a href="https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.19272">recent study</a> may help researchers solve the mystery. </p>
<p>People often use the “<a href="https://www.discoverwildlife.com/animal-facts/tree-of-life-evolution">tree of life</a>” as a metaphor to describe the evolutionary relationships between organisms. The more closely related species are, the closer together they appear in the tree.</p>
<p>This is a bit misleading though, as reality is more complicated. Species don’t always split off along their own evolutionary path in isolation from other branches. In fact, in some groups of organisms, connections among branches are so common that we may need to abandon the notion of a tree of life altogether. This is particularly true for bacteria, where the evolutionary relationships look more like a <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2012.00113/full">tangled web than a tree</a>. The crosstalk between branches is caused by the movement of genetic information.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4536854/#:%7E:text=DEFINITION%20AND%20BACKGROUND,offspring">Horizontal gene transfer</a> (also known as lateral gene transfer) is the process by which pieces of DNA (such as genes) move between organisms outside of the usual parent to offspring route. It allows genetic information to be shared between distant branches of the tree of life without sexual reproduction, and it is responsible for the rapid spread of traits such as <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01933/full">antibiotic resistance</a> among bacteria. </p>
<p>Originally scientists thought this phenomenon was restricted to microbes, but we now know it also happens in a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S136952661500059X?via%3Dihub">wide range of plants</a>, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867421001641?via%3Dihub">animals</a> and <a href="https://academic.oup.com/evlett/article/2/2/88/6697442?login=true">fungi</a>, where it can spread the genetic recipe for traits that have an evolutionary advantage. </p>
<h2>Horizontal gene transfer in grasses</h2>
<p>Grasses are one of the most important groups of plants and include crops such as rice, wheat and maize. They cover almost 40% of the Earth’s landmass and make up the <a href="https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(10)01021-3.pdf">majority of human calorie intake</a>. </p>
<p>Horizontal gene transfer between grass species has been found in <a href="https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nph.17328">wild and cultivated species alike</a>. While we know these transfers happen from the marks they leave in species’ <a href="https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Genome">genomes</a> (the entire set of DNA instructions in a cell), we still do not know the mechanism behind it. Neither do we know how often it happens – something <a href="https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.19272">our recent study</a>, published in New Phytologist, aimed to address.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Man stands in shirt sleeves in wheat field" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/552487/original/file-20231006-15-91w9my.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/552487/original/file-20231006-15-91w9my.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552487/original/file-20231006-15-91w9my.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552487/original/file-20231006-15-91w9my.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552487/original/file-20231006-15-91w9my.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552487/original/file-20231006-15-91w9my.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552487/original/file-20231006-15-91w9my.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Grasses make up a large part of humanity’s diet.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/young-farmer-standing-green-wheat-field-2311732409">Zoran Zeremski/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Understanding the pace of horizontal gene transfer would allow us to assess its impact upon the planet and plant evolution and how quickly it can help plants to adapt to changes. For example, is it common enough that plants could already be using it in response to climate change? </p>
<p>We sequenced several genomes for the tropical grass <em><a href="https://eol.org/pages/2896180">Alloteropsis semialata</a></em> to estimate the frequency of gene transfers into this species. Our study retraced the evolutionary history of each gene in the genome, identified genes that were of foreign origin, and worked out when and where they were transferred.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/552494/original/file-20231006-29-6ls4ci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Grass with brown and yellow flowers." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/552494/original/file-20231006-29-6ls4ci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/552494/original/file-20231006-29-6ls4ci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552494/original/file-20231006-29-6ls4ci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552494/original/file-20231006-29-6ls4ci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552494/original/file-20231006-29-6ls4ci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552494/original/file-20231006-29-6ls4ci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/552494/original/file-20231006-29-6ls4ci.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alloteropsis semialata is also known as black seed grass.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alloteropsis_semialata_flowers.jpeg">Marjorie Lundgren</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our findings showed that genes were continually acquired throughout the evolutionary history of this species, with a foreign gene incorporated approximately every 35,000 years. </p>
<p>However, this is a dramatic underestimate of the real rate of transfers into the species because it doesn’t show gene transfers that may have been lost afterwards. Most transferred genes are unlikely to give the recipient any benefit – and can even have negative consequences for the plant if they disrupt essential parts of the recipient’s genetic code. Genes that don’t offer the recipient an advantage are often lost. It’s much harder for scientists to detect these kinds of transient genes. </p>
<p>The genes that are retained are generally those that offer the recipient an evolutionary advantage. For example, many of the horizontally transferred genes detected in grasses offer <a href="https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nph.17328">disease resistance, stress tolerance and increased energy production</a>. These genes may have been optimised in the genomes of the donor species for millions of years. Horizontal gene transfer allows the recipient to skip this long refinement process. </p>
<h2>GM technology</h2>
<p>Ultimately horizontal gene transfer and GM crops have the same outcome: a gene of foreign origin is inserted into a recipient’s genome.</p>
<p>Our study gave an insight into how often horizontal transfers are happening. But we still don’t know how genes are moving between distantly related species. There are many theories but we think a mechanism called <a href="https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ppp3.10347">reproductive contamination</a> is most likely. It mirrors some of the methods used to make GM crops. </p>
<p>There are several different methods by which you can make a GM plant – some that require intense human intervention and some that don’t. Simple techniques such as repeated pollination or <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30543062/#:%7E:text=There%20are%20three%20major%20steps,%3B%20Pollen%20tube%20pathway%3B%20Transformation.">pollen tube pathway-mediated transfer</a> require minimal human intervention. In these methods, small fragments of DNA from a third individual travel down the same pollen tube established by the father to contaminate the embryo in the seed. In theory this could occur naturally.</p>
<p>In the future we plan to test this idea and see if we can recreate some of the natural transfers we have documented. If successful, it may be time to reconsider how we view GM crops. Perhaps they are closer to natural processes than we think.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/215103/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luke Dunning receives funding from The Natural Environment Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lara Pereira and Pauline Raimondeau do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Recent study investigated how fast genes are being transferred between distantly related species.Luke Dunning, Natural Environment Research Council Independent Research Fellow, University of SheffieldLara Pereira, Postdoctoral Research Associate in Genetics, University of SheffieldPauline Raimondeau, Postdoctoral Associate in Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Yale UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1941472022-11-28T19:04:00Z2022-11-28T19:04:00ZChasing future biotech solutions to climate change risks delaying action in the present – it may even make things worse<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/497508/original/file-20221128-14-c08jwp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C62%2C4601%2C2497&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The world is under growing pressure to find sustainable options to cut emissions or lessen the impacts of climate change. </p>
<p>Technology entrepreneurs from around the globe claim to have the solutions – not just yet, but soon. The biotech sector in particular is now using climate change as an urgent argument for <a href="https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/business/465113/medical-biotech-researchers-call-for-more-govt-funds">more government funding</a>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1083956/">public support</a> and <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2022/03/29/viewpoint-no-dna-is-not-a-drug-why-the-fdas-continued-insistence-to-regulate-gene-edited-research-animals-as-drugs-blocks-us-based-innovation/">fewer regulatory hurdles</a> for their industry.</p>
<p>But the urgency of climate change creates greater risk of superficial claims and actions. In our new <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343522000744">research</a>, we describe how the current “technology push” cycle perpetually promises to rescue humanity from climate change, and in doing so, delays real progress.</p>
<p>The pipeline for salvation technology is long and the benefit is hypothetical. Like the character Wimpy from Popeye, technology developers want their hamburger today but will pay back society with climate solutions on some future Tuesday.</p>
<p>Climate change is an existential threat, but it is only one of many symptoms of environmental damage we’ve caused. Humanity has pushed Earth beyond multiple <a href="https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.est.1c04158">boundary limits</a> and the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is merely one indicator of the many excesses of human activity.</p>
<p>Technology solutions not only rarely lead to sustainable solutions, they may exacerbate harm. Lulled into complacency by “technological imaginaries”, we wait too long to enact difficult but effective solutions.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-a-new-biotech-rule-will-foster-distrust-with-the-public-and-impede-progress-in-science-139547">How a new biotech rule will foster distrust with the public and impede progress in science</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Tech solutions only address symptoms</h2>
<p>Biotechnologies could make valuable contributions to halting or ameliorating the impacts of climate change. Contributions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or better adapt plants to the changing climate would help. However, these address the symptoms, not the cause of environmental degradation. </p>
<p>Climate change is an “attractive” problem because there are so many technological ways to solve it. That quality makes societies vulnerable to the siren song of technology pushers.</p>
<p>For example, if climatic change is described as a threat to food production, then technologies that promise to increase food production despite climate change would be appealing. One such prospect is to <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/72/11/3936/6153432">increase photosynthesis</a>. Genetic modification of the key enzyme in photosynthesis (RuBisCO) could improve its binding of carbon dioxide. More plant biomass might be the result.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A leave against the sun" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/497504/original/file-20221128-12-aa8v9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/497504/original/file-20221128-12-aa8v9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497504/original/file-20221128-12-aa8v9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497504/original/file-20221128-12-aa8v9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497504/original/file-20221128-12-aa8v9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497504/original/file-20221128-12-aa8v9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497504/original/file-20221128-12-aa8v9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gene-editing technologies used to increase the rate of photosynthesis may not raise crop yield.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/Chyrko Olena</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, increased photosynthesis may not increase <a href="https://www.cell.com/trends/plant-science/fulltext/S1360-1385(19)30188-8">yield</a>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5966189/">nutritional value or micronutrient levels</a> in crops. Even if this approach worked outside of the laboratory, the plants would be no less vulnerable to increasingly frequent drought and flood stresses. These plants will also demand more <a href="https://www.cell.com/trends/plant-science/fulltext/S1360-1385(19)30188-8">nitrogen fertiliser</a>, leading to more greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>Maybe we could have more biomass, but not better or more food for people. Some of our crops could make better use of the additional carbon in the atmosphere, but lack of access to sufficient and desirable food would continue. By not addressing this fundamental problem, we will need more crops and livestock, undermining any efficiency gains.</p>
<h2>Technologies are not alternatives to action</h2>
<p>Implementing such technologies also prolongs <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/science-bears-fingerprints-colonialism-180968709/">colonial dependence</a> on wealthier countries and overlooks the rights and inputs of Indigenious and local peoples.</p>
<p>Identifying the fundamental social goal, rather than the proximate technological objective, is essential to achieving sustainability. “Goal pull” rather than “technology push” approaches do this.</p>
<p>Climate change is a symptom of environmental degradation and the multifarious <a href="https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/climate-change-is-connected-to-poverty/">complexities of poverty</a>. These are wicked problems societies find hard to address, driving up the appeal of technologies as alternatives to action. The market is good at trading in technological futures.</p>
<p>Try recasting the goal as food security, measured through indicators of reduced hunger across the world. Governments now have at their disposal solutions that include both social and technological options.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-shrinking-fraction-of-the-worlds-major-crops-goes-to-feed-the-hungry-with-more-used-for-nonfood-purposes-181819">A shrinking fraction of the world's major crops goes to feed the hungry, with more used for nonfood purposes</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>For example, reducing food waste such that more nutritious food reaches people who need it reduces demand to produce more food in the first place. <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2021/02/25/climate-curious-food-waste/">Food waste</a> alone will create 5.7–7.9 gigatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. The excess nitrogen used in agriculture to produce food is also a significant source of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide.</p>
<p>Reducing food waste depends on detailed planning to make use of technologies that are useful by design rather than opportunity. More indiscriminate production may result in <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12571-014-0360-6">competition with food</a>. For example, <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/time-to-rethink-corn/">excess corn production</a> in the US resulted in much of the corn being used for non-food purposes such as bio-ethanol, despite the intensive use of resources required to produce these calories. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A red barn in the middle of a corn field" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/497501/original/file-20221128-15-pzi8ep.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/497501/original/file-20221128-15-pzi8ep.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497501/original/file-20221128-15-pzi8ep.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497501/original/file-20221128-15-pzi8ep.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497501/original/file-20221128-15-pzi8ep.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497501/original/file-20221128-15-pzi8ep.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/497501/original/file-20221128-15-pzi8ep.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Corn is used for non-food purposes such as biofuels.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock/christianthiel.net</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Failure to meet the goal of feeding more people also provides useful feedback either about the adequacy of the strategy or the chosen measures. For example, if available calories increased but nutrition did not improve, it might be because farmers need support to develop polycultures, or healthier options should be made more accessible.</p>
<p>The goal pull approach takes us to feedback-optimised combinations of social and technological innovation that solve root problems.</p>
<p>To save a patient’s life it may be necessary to treat the symptoms of the disease. We are forced into the same situation with climate change. Nevertheless, we must not use the immediacy of climate change to put off breaking habits that will lead to future environmental and social catastrophe.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/194147/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tessa Hiscox receives PhD scholarships from the University of Canterbury and the Ministry for Primary Industries. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jack Heinemann receives funding from public agencies, charities and non-governmental organisations. He is affiliated with the American Society for Microbiology, European Network of Scientists for Social Responsibility and New Zealand Microbiological Society. He has served as an expert witness for court cases relevant to biotechnology. </span></em></p>The biotech sector uses climate change as an urgent argument for more funding and fewer regulatory hurdles. But the urgency of climate change raises the risk of superficial claims and actions.Tessa Hiscox, Microbiology PhD Candidate, University of CanterburyJack Heinemann, Professor of Molecular Biology and Genetics, University of CanterburyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1758932022-03-11T13:19:38Z2022-03-11T13:19:38ZOrgans from genetically engineered pigs may help shorten the transplant wait list<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451412/original/file-20220310-17-1rk65gg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1024%2C683&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Xenotransplantation has made significant strides over the past few decades.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/xenotransplant-drawing-news-photo/179793591">BSIP/Universal Images Group via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Demand for life-saving organ transplantation is at an all-time high. In 2021, a record <a href="https://unos.org/news/2021-all-time-records-organ-transplants-deceased-donor-donation/">41,000-plus</a> organ transplants were performed in the U.S., with top numbers for kidney, liver and heart transplants. But a limited supply of donor organs remains an ongoing problem. Currently <a href="https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/data/">over 100,000</a> people are on the transplant wait list in the U.S., and many more are unable to get on the list because of <a href="https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/professionals/by-topic/ethical-considerations/general-considerations-in-assessment-for-transplant-candidacy/">strict eligibility requirements</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.19152">racial</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.34630">disparities</a> in access.</p>
<p>As a <a href="http://www.ctsurgery.pitt.edu/person/david-j-kaczorowski-md">cardiac transplant surgeon</a>, I have personally witnessed the tragedy of this shortage of donor organs. But I have also seen the potential of one possible solution to this problem: <a href="https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/xenotransplantation">xenotransplantation</a>, or transplanting animal organs into human beings.</p>
<p>In <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pig-kidneys-transplanted-to-human-in-milestone-experiment/">September 2021</a>, researchers successfully transplanted two genetically engineered pig kidneys into a brain-dead patient. And in January 2022, I was <a href="https://mirm-pitt.net/tissue-engineering/dr-david-kaczorowski-member-of-surgical-team-on-historic-first-successful-transplant-of-porcine-heart-into-adult-human-with-end-stage-heart-disease/">part of the surgical team</a> that conducted the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/10/health/heart-transplant-pig-bennett.html">first pig-to-human heart transplant</a> in a living patient. Recent news about the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/09/health/heart-transplant-pig-bennett.html">patient’s death</a> two months after the procedure is sobering, but researchers like me remain optimistic. While much work still needs to be done, these successes point to how far science has come toward making animal-to-human transplants a viable treatment possibility.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Wqf3PXUngsE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The man who received the first pig heart transplant died on March 8, 2022, two months after the procedure.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Early attempts</h2>
<p>While animal-to-human transplants have attracted considerable attention recently, many attempts have been made to transplant animal cells, tissues and organs into humans over the past 60 years, with varying degrees of success. </p>
<p>In the 1960s, kidney transplantation was not broadly practiced because of a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/bja/aer384">lack of donor organs</a>. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.37.1.9">Ethical and legal concerns</a> made it difficult to obtain live donors, and organs collected from deceased donors did not meet much success.</p>
<p>So a surgeon named Keith Reemtsma performed a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1969.tb56392.x">series of 12 kidney transplants</a> using chimpanzees as donors. While most of the transplanted organs – and thus the human patients – survived for only a few weeks, one of the patients survived for nine months. Infection was the major issue in half of the patients, while irreversible organ rejection occurred in the other half. </p>
<p>Thomas Starzl is another surgeon who attempted animal-to-human organ transplants. He performed a similar <a href="https://doi.org/10.1097/00007890-196411000-00009">series of kidney</a> transplants around the same time as Reemtsma using baboons as donors, with the organs surviving up to two months. He’s most known for his <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/xen.12306">liver transplants</a>, with three attempts using chimpanzee livers from 1966 to 1974 that lasted from 24 hours to less than 14 days. In the early 1990s, his two baboon liver transplants lasted for 26 and 70 days. While one of the baboon livers functioned well, the patient ultimately died from overwhelming infection. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451410/original/file-20220310-19-1vyj5ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="An infant lies in incubator, with her head cradled in an adult's hand." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451410/original/file-20220310-19-1vyj5ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/451410/original/file-20220310-19-1vyj5ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=614&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451410/original/file-20220310-19-1vyj5ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=614&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451410/original/file-20220310-19-1vyj5ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=614&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451410/original/file-20220310-19-1vyj5ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=771&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451410/original/file-20220310-19-1vyj5ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=771&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/451410/original/file-20220310-19-1vyj5ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=771&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Baby Fae was the first successful infant xenotransplant, surviving for 20 days with a baboon heart.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/BabyFae/a7e818231958441696f356ee12594a95">AP Photo/Duane R. Miller</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Doctors have also made attempts to transplant animal hearts, the first of which predated the first human-to-human heart transplant. In 1964, a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1964.03060390034008">chimpanzee heart</a> transplanted by James Hardy survived for only a few hours. Len Bailey’s 1983 attempt at transplanting a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1985.03360230053022">baboon heart</a> into an infant known as <a href="https://time.com/4086900/baby-fae-history/">Baby Fae</a> prolonged her life for 20 days, a record at the time.</p>
<h2>Overcoming barriers</h2>
<p>While these early results may seem poor at first glance, a number of these transplants actually lasted longer than many <a href="https://doi.org/10.5772/940">early human-to-human kidney transplants</a>. The first patient to receive a donated kidney lasted for only four days in 1933, and later attempts in the 1940s and 1950s yielded similar results. Immunosuppressing drugs that prevent the immune system from attacking donor organs also weren’t available at the time of these early attempts at xenotransplantation, pointing to the promise of these procedures as science advanced. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dCSiTpnNrMQ?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A pig heart under examination by researchers at the University of Pittsburgh.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But transplanting organs across species faces a number of obstacles, the most integral of which is evolution. As species grow apart, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1074-7613(01)00124-8">increasing differences</a> in their molecular makeup can result in incompatibilities that make cross-species transplant difficult or impossible. Among the most problematic are differences in immunity, inflammation and blood clotting that damage both the transplanted organs and the host’s body.</p>
<p>The similarity of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2000.11927634">nonhuman primates</a> like chimpanzees and baboons to humans, both in anatomy and in their immune systems, made them appealing donors for early transplants. But their strong similarities to people also raised ethical concerns that dissuaded some physicians like Starzl from using them as donors.</p>
<p>On the other hand, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2000.11927634">pigs offer a potentially better source</a> of donor organs. Compared with nonhuman primates, pigs mature much more quickly and produce more offspring. They are also a common source of food for people, and their tissues are already used for prosthetic heart valves and other medical treatments.</p>
<p>While <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2015.06.060">pig-to-human transplants</a> have also been attempted in the past, 80 million years of evolution stood in the way. Pigs have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/08998280.2000.11927634">molecules</a> on the surfaces of their cells that humans do not. If these molecules are introduced into a person’s body, their human immune system will register them as foreign and mount an attack. This process, called <a href="https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/000815.htm">hyperacute rejection</a>, is a central reason many transplanted animal organs fail.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/xgBnYr0_FRk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Genetically engineering pigs to be more compatible with humans could help reduce the risk of organ rejection.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A number of advances that reduce these incompatibilities have helped overcome the problem of hyperacute rejection. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1078942">Genetically engineered pigs</a> without the genes that produce the foreign molecules triggering rejection and with additional <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/mrd.21127">human genes</a> that help the recipient’s body accept the new organ are one key improvement. The <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/10/health/heart-transplant-pig-bennett.html">pig heart</a> my team and I transplanted this year was genetically engineered, as were the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/19/health/kidney-transplant-pig-human.html">pig kidneys</a> from late 2021. There have also been improvements in medications that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms11138">suppress the immune system</a> of the recipient so it’s less likely to mount an attack against the organ.</p>
<h2>Looking forward</h2>
<p>Recent successes with genetically engineered pig transplants make clear that xenotransplantation is no longer a dream from a distant future but something becoming increasingly achievable by modern medicine.</p>
<p>But many questions still remain. What is the best way to suppress a recipient’s immune system so the transplanted organ survives but the risk of infection stays low? Can animal organs be tailored to individuals to minimize rejection? How can animal organs be better preserved and distributed? </p>
<p>Answering these and many other questions will be key to realizing the therapeutic potential of xenotransplantation, and helping the hundreds of thousands of people waiting for an organ.</p>
<p>[<em><a href="https://memberservices.theconversation.com/newsletters?nl=science&source=inline-science-corona-important">Get The Conversation’s most important coronavirus headlines, weekly in a science newsletter</a></em>]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/175893/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Kaczorowski has previously received research funding through a grant from United Therapeutics. </span></em></p>Recent successes putting genetically modified pig organs into people have brought xenotransplantation back into the spotlight.David Kaczorowski, Associate Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of PittsburghLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1752902022-02-27T13:08:39Z2022-02-27T13:08:39ZOrgan transplants from pigs: Medical miracle or pandemic in the making?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447227/original/file-20220218-3064-xtzvrp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=422%2C35%2C4922%2C3332&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Xenotransplantation is the transplanting of cells, tissues or organs from animals to humans. Pre-clinical trials of organ transplant from pigs have addressed some of the technical barriers.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Three out of four <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/onehealth/basics/zoonotic-diseases.html">new diseases are zoonotic</a>, meaning they have evolved to infect new host species. For example, a mutated <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/flu/avianflu/virus-transmission.htm">bird-flu virus</a> may jump from wild birds to free-range domestic poultry and then to humans who are in contact with poultry. Similar pathways have led to infection by the pathogens that cause <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2017.45">Ebola, Zika, HIV, Lyme disease and likely COVID-19</a>.</p>
<p>If a new medical technology increased the risk of a new zoonotic pandemic — however marginally — how would society decide the balance of risk and benefit? If you needed new lungs that were only available in another country, would a health prohibition on the transplant in your own country stop you? </p>
<p>New developments in organ transplant technology may have streamlined a pathway for new zoonotic diseases, but the biotechnology innovators and medical research institutes have not engaged the public on the risks. Failing to do so may jeopardize the potential of a promising therapy.</p>
<h2>Xenotransplantation</h2>
<p>Over 4,400 Canadians are waitlisted for the lifesaving transplant of a new kidney, liver or lung. In 2019, <a href="https://www.blood.ca/en/stories/data-offers-hope-patients-waiting-organ-transplant">250 died waiting</a>. In the United States and elsewhere, <a href="https://www.organdonor.gov/learn/organ-donation-statistics">the supply gap is more extreme</a> and high hopes ride on xenotransplantation: the transplanting of cells, tissues or organs from animals. </p>
<p>Pre-clinical trials of organ transplants from pigs have addressed the technical barriers to xenotransplantation, reducing the likelihood of rejection. Last summer, Maryland School of Medicine surgeons reported the 31-day survival of a baboon after receiving a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ajt.16809">lung from a genetically modified pig</a>. </p>
<p>Weeks later, a team at New York University transplanted a kidney from a genetically modified pig into a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/xen.12718">brain-dead person</a>. In December 2021, surgeons at Maryland School of Medicine transplanted a genetically modified pig heart into a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00111-9">living 57-year-old man</a>. </p>
<p>All projects were approved under U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, and corporate funding was supplemented by the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The next step with the FDA is to approve clinical trials. Normalization of xenotransplantation could happen before there is informed public acceptance of the benefits and risks.</p>
<h2>A potential zoonotic pathway</h2>
<p>As a developmental geneticist, it has been exciting to track these advances. The revolution in designer gene editing (known as CRISPR-Cas9) makes this stunning progress possible. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan4187">CRISPR allows molecules on the surface of pig cells to be modified</a> so the human immune system will not trigger tissue rejection.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Illustration in blue tones of a human torso with respiratory tract and lungs in red" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447231/original/file-20220218-13070-hep7im.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447231/original/file-20220218-13070-hep7im.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447231/original/file-20220218-13070-hep7im.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447231/original/file-20220218-13070-hep7im.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447231/original/file-20220218-13070-hep7im.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=585&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447231/original/file-20220218-13070-hep7im.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=585&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447231/original/file-20220218-13070-hep7im.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=585&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Zoonotic bacteria and viruses enter most readily through the delicate surfaces of the respiratory tract.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>To prevent human transplant recipients from being infected with pig <a href="https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Retrovirus">retroviruses</a> (viruses that can integrate their genetic material into the host’s cells), the retroviruses hiding in the pig genome have been <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/xen.12595">removed by CRISPR editing</a>. The risk of transferring a disease directly from a genetically modified donor pig to the human host is negligible.</p>
<p>However, disease-free transplanted pig organs could become infected after transplantation. Zoonotic bacteria and viruses enter hosts most readily through the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1051/vetres:2006062">delicate surfaces of the respiratory tract</a>, as with COVID-19. Living pig cells in a transplanted lung could readily be infected by an inhaled pig virus, including a novel virus from a wild animal host that has evolved to infect pigs. </p>
<p>After entering the human body, a replicating zoonotic virus could generate millions of mutations a day, because their mechanism for gene copying <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/v13091882">is naturally error prone</a>. A pig virus replicating in a lung transplanted into a human could <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-do-viruses-mutate-and-jump-species-and-why-are-spillovers-becoming-more-common-134656">produce variants</a> that may be capable of recognizing and infecting human cells. Although likely a rare event, it is not impossible that this could trigger a new zoonotic pandemic.</p>
<h2>Risk, fear and polarization</h2>
<p>The scenario described above could evoke risk and fear from a complex new medical technology. It parallels the thinking involved in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01459-7">vaccine hesitancy</a> or the <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-people-oppose-gmos-even-though-science-says-they-are-safe/">distrust of genetically modified foods</a>. Both are well anchored in today’s political culture. In both cases, citizens increasingly demand prior consent and the choice to opt out — despite possible risks to public health. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-05498-z">Vaccine hesitancy</a> has increased the death toll from COVID-19 and delayed economic recovery from the pandemic.</p>
<p>In contrast, distrust of the industrialization of food has discouraged introduction of genetically modified foods that <a href="https://doi.org/10.4161/21645698.2014.967570">enhance nutrition or sustain agricultural productivity</a> in a warming climate. Consumers question whether genetically modified organisms (GMOs) exist for public benefit or for corporate profit.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447229/original/file-20220218-19-vy6cvf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A protester wearing a winter hat with their face covered with a scarf, hold a paper plate that says 'No GMOs on my plate'" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447229/original/file-20220218-19-vy6cvf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447229/original/file-20220218-19-vy6cvf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=798&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447229/original/file-20220218-19-vy6cvf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=798&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447229/original/file-20220218-19-vy6cvf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=798&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447229/original/file-20220218-19-vy6cvf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1003&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447229/original/file-20220218-19-vy6cvf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1003&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/447229/original/file-20220218-19-vy6cvf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1003&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Distrust of the industrialization of food has discouraged introduction of GMO foods.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(CP PHOTO/Paul Chiasson)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Increasingly, health issues such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/politicizing-covid-19-vaccination-efforts-has-fuelled-vaccine-hesitancy-175416">vaccination</a>, vaping or genetic testing generate highly polarized <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntaa276">platforms for misinformation</a>, debate and political leverage. <a href="https://thedecisionlab.com/insights/society/social-media-and-moral-outrage/">Social media algorithms amplify extreme positions and elicit strong emotional reactions</a> at the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444818822813">expense of the middle ground</a>. When communications from the scientific community are reactive, poorly targeted or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2020.1739778">unintelligible to the average person</a>, the influence of science in the policy process is diminished.</p>
<p>In 2022, progress in xenotransplant technology makes <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/15/opinions/pig-heart-transplant-big-deal-reiner/index.html">good news stories</a>. Immense pressure to resolve the growing organ shortage for transplantation may tempt the biotechnology business and public regulators to be insufficiently critical as they seek permission to proceed with clinical studies. They must prepare for the nature and scale of backlash from those tired of experts and mistrustful of corporate motivation and institutional authority. </p>
<p>Concern about zoonosis from transplants was <a href="https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/publications/xenotransplantation">voiced over twenty years ago</a>, long before CRISPR transformed the field. <a href="https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/phs-guideline-infectious-disease-issues-xenotransplantation">Since then</a>, there appear to be no hard facts or even a call for research on zoonotic infection through xenotransplants after transplantation. Bioethicists are <a href="https://www.thehastingscenter.org/xenotransplantation-three-areas-of-concern/">flagging the issue now</a>, but the silence about xenotransplant zoonosis from biotechnology corporations and their affiliated preclinical research institutes leaves an open door to a narrative motivated by skepticism and distrust. It is incumbent on them to lead a public dialogue on managing the risk of novel zoonotic diseases arising from infection after transplantation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/175290/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>J Roger Jacobs receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.</span></em></p>New developments in organ transplants from animals show promise. However, there has been no public engagement about a potential risk. It may streamline a pathway to humans for new zoonotic diseases.J Roger Jacobs, Professor, Department of Biology, McMaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1689832021-09-30T13:53:12Z2021-09-30T13:53:12ZGene-edited crops: expert Q+A on what field trials could mean for the future of food<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/424015/original/file-20210930-26-hsn3dx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C7024%2C4510&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/agriculturist-utilize-core-data-network-internet-1884814591">Attasit Saentep/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Firmly outside the EU, where regulations are <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58711230">considered tighter</a>, the UK government plans to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/29/genetically-modified-food-a-step-closer-in-england-as-laws-relaxed">revise regulations</a> on <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/gene-editing-18986">gene editing</a> in agriculture in England, enabling field trials of crops which have had their DNA spliced to accentuate particular qualities, like resistance to disease or drought. This will be followed by a broader review of rules on genetically modified organisms.</em></p>
<p><em>The British public has traditionally been sceptical of genetically manipulating food, but should it be? What could new technology offer farming? And what are the risks? We asked professor of ecology at Southampton University, Guy Poppy.</em></p>
<p><strong>What actually is gene editing? How does it differ from genetic modification?</strong></p>
<p>Humans have been genetically modifying plants and animals ever since we stopped being hunter-gatherers. It’s just the way in which we modify the genes of an organism which has changed. </p>
<p>Random mutations occur in the DNA of organisms all the time. When a variation emerged in the past which a farmer happened to like, such as a tomato plant which produced juicier fruit, they were likely to breed that plant to ensure the trait was passed on. Repeating this process over generations created organisms with more of the characteristics people like. Human hands have directed evolution through this process of selective breeding since the dawn of agriculture.</p>
<p>Genetic modification (GM) typically involves inserting genes into the genome of a plant or animal. The outcome can be similar to selective breeding, but the results are more immediate and precise. Genetic modification can also create characteristics which would be unlikely through any form of selective breeding.</p>
<p>Take transgenic organisms. These are the products of transferring a gene from one organism’s genome to another, like a GM crop spliced with insecticidal proteins found in soil bacteria. </p>
<p>Gene editing (GE) is the result of more recent technology, such as CRISPR-Cas9, which can quickly, precisely and (relatively) cheaply edit parts of a genome by removing, altering or adding sections of DNA. Gene editing typically doesn’t involve introducing genes from other species, but these techniques allow quite complex control of an organism’s genome.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-crispr-the-gene-editing-technology-that-won-the-chemistry-nobel-prize-147695">What is CRISPR, the gene editing technology that won the Chemistry Nobel prize?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Gene editing can direct the evolution of plants and animals to yield varieties that would have taken conventional breeding many generations to produce. As a result, many countries are revising their regulations for genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to reflect the capabilities of this new technology, and in the case of the UK, when the technology is used to develop a crop which could not have been produced through conventional breeding.</p>
<p><strong>Could these field trials lead to the widespread use of gene-edited crops?</strong></p>
<p>No. The current proposals allow researchers or food firms to conduct field trials of gene-edited crops in England with the approval of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The costs and some of the barriers to starting research have been lifted, but we’re still waiting for new legislation which would govern the wider use of gene editing in the UK. Only then might we see the sale of gene-edited crops, which would be considered by the Food Standards agency.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A collection of root vegetables." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423919/original/file-20210929-18-1pbnc98.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/423919/original/file-20210929-18-1pbnc98.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423919/original/file-20210929-18-1pbnc98.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423919/original/file-20210929-18-1pbnc98.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423919/original/file-20210929-18-1pbnc98.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423919/original/file-20210929-18-1pbnc98.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/423919/original/file-20210929-18-1pbnc98.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gene-edited vegetables are still not likely to appear on supermarket shelves any time soon.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/root-crops-carrots-parsley-turnip-onion-750895588">Ulrich22/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some may see Defra’s decision to allow research as approving gene-edited crops by the back door. Others might fear that it will lead to the wider consideration of all genetic technologies available for editing plants, animals and even humans. </p>
<p>A simpler approval process is likely to encourage more scientists to undertake field trials. </p>
<p><strong>What are some of the potential benefits of gene editing food crops?</strong></p>
<p>Gene editing can make plants and animals more nutritious or resilient to climate change, for example. Many plants contain anti-nutrients – substances which restrict the availability of nutrients to the human body during digestion. Gene editing could target and remove these, making the plant more nutritious.</p>
<p>Gene editing can also change a plant’s water requirements, producing crops that need less water to grow. In 2018, scientists discovered that by altering the expression of a gene that is found in all plants, they could make tobacco plants <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22431-5">25% more water-efficient</a>. Now they are testing this technique on food crops, like lettuce. The idea is to make crops more resilient to droughts, which are likely to become more frequent and severe in many growing regions as the world warms.</p>
<p>I have written before about <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02780-w">removing food allergens</a> with gene editing, by effectively silencing genes associated with allergens. <a href="https://www.ingateygen.com/">IngateyGen</a>, a biotechnology company based in the US has patented a process for making hypoallergenic peanut plants. The company hopes to produce other plants as part of a partnership with nearby Fayetteville State University. </p>
<p>Clearly, the future of gene editing could involve much more than just increasing crop yield or reducing the use of pesticides, but it needs to be developed thoughtfully. </p>
<p><strong>What worries do you have?</strong></p>
<p>The safety and environmental impact of GM foods is important, and there are well developed scientific processes to assess and manage these risks. I do fear the government is avoiding some of the real issues raised by gene editing but relevant to how we grow food in the future, such as the business models of current food producers and how affordable gene-edited food will be, particularly for the world’s poorest people.</p>
<p>I’m also concerned about issues which are somewhat hard to predict. Civilisation already relies on obtaining much of its calories from a few staple crops, which represent a fraction of 1% of the total biodiversity which exists. One criticism of GM technology is that it encourages the expansion of a few varieties of staple crops, otherwise known as cultivars. This narrows genetic variation between crop plants even further. A diverse genome is more resilient to pests, diseases and climate change. Repeatedly breeding just a handful of cultivars can lead to widescale crop failure, as occurred with <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg15120431-200-tomorrows-bitter-harvest-the-genetic-diversity-of-our-agriculture-is-rapidly-vanishing-leaving-our-crops-prone-to-pest-and-plague/">sugar cane</a> in the 1970s.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A hand holds a green leaf covered in yellow spots." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/424018/original/file-20210930-16-1sr23wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/424018/original/file-20210930-16-1sr23wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424018/original/file-20210930-16-1sr23wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424018/original/file-20210930-16-1sr23wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424018/original/file-20210930-16-1sr23wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424018/original/file-20210930-16-1sr23wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424018/original/file-20210930-16-1sr23wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The genetic diversity of the world’s food is shrinking, leaving crop species prone to pests and disease.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/coffee-rust-diseased-plant-region-matagalpa-1838795902">Viola Hofmann/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Gene editing could make crop species more diverse if it could result in farmers using more species and cultivars, as gene-editing becomes more available and accepted. Because CRISPR has made this technology cheaper, gene editing could be used to improve the genomes of mutliple cultivars and many different crop species, injecting some diversity into farm fields. </p>
<p>But regulation of GM plants and animals is complex, expensive and increasingly seen as a barrier to innovation by both scientists and industry. If the regulation of gene-edited crops were made simpler, it could mean the editing of more crop species and cultivars. This would also diversify access to gene-edited products and the number of organisations with products on offer, preventing a few, large corporations from monopolising the process.</p>
<p><strong>What do you think could be the future of this technology?</strong></p>
<p>Too often in the past, people have heard about scientific revolutions which have failed to deliver. It takes more than clever technology for these things take off. That’s why I believe some of the bigger issues about food and farming need addressing. </p>
<p>Defra’s proposals are a proportionate way to move beyond the current system of regulations, while accepting that gene editing is different from the GM technology which developed transgenic organisms. It would be a great shame to waste this opportunity by mishandling the debate.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/should-we-genetically-edit-the-food-we-eat-we-asked-two-experts-162959">Should we genetically edit the food we eat? We asked two experts</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Scientists enjoy an even greater level of respect and trust among the public as a result of the pandemic and the success of multiple vaccines, some of which are the products of genetic modification. The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, for example, uses an adenovirus, a type of pathogen that causes a common cold, to serve as the vehicle for getting a genetic sequence into your cells. In effect, that adenovirus is a GMO. It’s important that we maintain this trust by engaging with the public about what science is trying to achieve and what we can and can’t say, without overpromising or cherry-picking evidence.</p>
<p>Feeding the world while improving human and planetary health is not easy and will require more than the odd tool in the farming toolbox. There needs to be a debate about food and farming which can tackle multiple issues, including gene editing. I accept that it’s important to consider gene editing on its own, but it is also part of a complex food system. Gene editing could help to feed the world in a changing climate, but this is only realistic if these wider issues are discussed and considered. Otherwise we will be sifting through claims and counter-claims, like during the GM debate of the 1990s and early 2000s, when two sects argued and argued rather than explore what people need from a food and farming system.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/168983/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Guy Poppy received funding from UKRI and is Director of the project 'transforming UK food systems for healthy people and a healthy environment'.</span></em></p>Field trials of genetically edited crop plants are to be allowed in England under new government proposals.Guy Poppy, Director of Multidisciplinary Research and Professor of Ecology, University of SouthamptonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1599762021-06-27T19:50:34Z2021-06-27T19:50:34ZFrom this week, every mainland Australian state will allow genetically modified crops. Here’s why that’s nothing to fear<p>On July 1, the New South Wales government will <a href="https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/about-us/media-centre/releases/2021/ministerial/nsw-lifts-ban-on-gm-crops">lift a ban</a> on genetically modified (GM) crops after an 18-year moratorium. It will mean GM crops can now be grown in every Australian state except Tasmania.</p>
<p>Major farming groups have <a href="https://7news.com.au/business/nsw-lifting-long-ban-on-gm-crops-c-2267856">welcomed</a> the move. GM proponents say the biotechnology leads to better crop yields and may solve food shortages and reduce infestations of weeds and pests. </p>
<p>But opponents <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3558185/">say</a> GM crops are a potential threat to the environment and human health. They fear the technology will encourage superweeds, increase antibiotic resistance and food allergies in humans and may have other unintended effects. </p>
<p>So where does the truth lie? Academic research suggests GM crops are generally safe for humans and the environment, and so I believe the NSW government’s decision should be welcomed.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="protesters in front of sign" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408303/original/file-20210625-22-1kfgz4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408303/original/file-20210625-22-1kfgz4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408303/original/file-20210625-22-1kfgz4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408303/original/file-20210625-22-1kfgz4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408303/original/file-20210625-22-1kfgz4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408303/original/file-20210625-22-1kfgz4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408303/original/file-20210625-22-1kfgz4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">GM crops will be allowed in all mainland states, despite opposition from some.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Greenpeace/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What is genetic modification?</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetically-modified-organisms-gmos-transgenic-crops-and-732/">Genetic modification</a> is the use of technology to change the genes of living things. It involves scientists injecting one organism’s DNA with genes from another, to give it a desirable trait such as resistance to drought, extreme temperature or pests.</p>
<p>Genetically modified crops were introduced commercially in the 1990s. The NSW moratorium began in 2003 following concerns from some importers and manufacturers. For example, countries in the Middle East and Southeast Asia had been <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0001/01RP17#Obstacles">refusing</a> GM grain, and Canada and Saudi Arabia had indicated they did not want GM-fed livestock.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/about-us/media-centre/releases/2021/ministerial/nsw-lifts-ban-on-gm-crops">Announcing</a> the lifting of the ban in March, NSW Agriculture Minister Adam Marshall said his government had been working to ensure trade and marketing issues surrounding GM food were well managed. He said the Commonwealth Gene Technology Regulator will assess all applications to grow GM crops, ensuring they are safe for people and the environment. </p>
<p>The NSW decision follows similar moves by other mainland states in recent years, including South Australia, which lifted the GM ban in 2020 (with an exemption for Kangaroo Island). A moratorium remains in the ACT.</p>
<p>The NSW government says allowing cultivation of GM crops will increase agricultural competitiveness and productivity, and bring up to A$4.8 billion in benefits over the next decade. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/battling-misinformation-wars-in-africa-applying-lessons-from-gmos-to-covid-19-156183">Battling misinformation wars in Africa: applying lessons from GMOs to COVID-19</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="woman in lab coat" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408301/original/file-20210625-25-rg3don.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408301/original/file-20210625-25-rg3don.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408301/original/file-20210625-25-rg3don.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408301/original/file-20210625-25-rg3don.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408301/original/file-20210625-25-rg3don.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408301/original/file-20210625-25-rg3don.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408301/original/file-20210625-25-rg3don.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Genetic modification involves injecting one organism’s DNA with genes from another.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Aleksandar Plavevski</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Benefits of lifting of the GM ban</h2>
<p>So are the benefits of GM crops real? To answer this question, we can look to three precedents: GM canola, cotton and safflower, which have been grown in Australia for many years. These crops were exempt from the moratoria in NSW and other states, and evidence suggests their cultivation has been a success.</p>
<p>GM cotton has been modified with insecticidal genes, which research shows makes it <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=KDMcEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA53&dq=pesticides+gm+cotton+australia&ots=328XANATOj&sig=JyElhcWlDyAfhaXg7K5hVdXYr2E#v=onepage&q=pesticides%20gm%20cotton%20australia&f=false">more resistant</a> to pests. The modified cotton also requires less <a href="https://cottonaustralia.com.au/fact-sheet">insecticide use</a>.</p>
<p>GM canola has been transformed to make it resistant to herbicides, which enables <a href="http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/9AA09BB4515EBAA2CA257D6B00155C53/$File/12%20-%20Genetically%20modified%20(GM)%20canola%20in%20Australia.pdf">better weed control</a>.</p>
<p>State moratoria delayed the introduction of GM canola, including in NSW. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5927647/">Research</a> in 2018 found, across Australia, the environmental costs of the delay included an extra 6.5 million kilograms of active ingredients applied to canola land, and an extra 24.2 million kg of greenhouse gas and other emissions released. Economic costs included a net loss to canola farmers of A$485.6 million.</p>
<p>In recent years, Australian regulators <a href="https://blog.csiro.au/omega-omega-3-canola-gets-green-light/">allowed</a> cultivation of canola modified to contain long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, prized for their <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2018.1429876">health benefits</a>. The canola variety was hailed as the world’s first plant-based source of omega-3 and may reduce reliance on fish stocks. </p>
<p>Safflower has been genetically modified to contain higher amounts of oleic acid. These renewable oils can be used <a href="https://www.csiro.au/en/research/plants/crops/oil-crops/sho-safflower">in place of petroleum</a>, a finite resource, in products <a href="http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/9AA09BB4515EBAA2CA257D6B00155C53/$File/24%20-%20Genetically%20modified%20(GM)%20safflower%20in%20Australia.pdf">such as</a> fuels, plastics and cosmetics. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-quest-for-delicious-decaf-coffee-could-change-the-appetite-for-gmos-153032">The quest for delicious decaf coffee could change the appetite for GMOs</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Crop with farm machinery" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408302/original/file-20210625-26-1bgt41k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408302/original/file-20210625-26-1bgt41k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408302/original/file-20210625-26-1bgt41k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408302/original/file-20210625-26-1bgt41k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408302/original/file-20210625-26-1bgt41k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408302/original/file-20210625-26-1bgt41k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408302/original/file-20210625-26-1bgt41k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">GM crops can be made resistant to herbicides.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Greenpeace/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What are the risks?</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/8">Experts concede</a> there are limits to what can be known about the health effects of any food over the long term. However, <a href="https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/is-it-safe-to-eat-gm-crops/">scientists</a> <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24041244/">broadly</a> agree the evidence so far suggests GM crops are <a href="https://doi.org/10.2777/97784">safe to eat</a>. This view is backed by the World Health Organization. </p>
<p>Foods derived from GM plants are consumed by millions of people in many countries. And in Australia, authorities <a href="https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/changes/pages/applicationshandbook.aspx">rigorously assess</a> all GM foods before they’re sold to <a href="https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/safety/Pages/default.aspx">consumers</a>.</p>
<p>However many countries <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/gmo-faq/where-are-gmo-crops-and-animals-approved-and-banned/">still ban</a> the the cultivation of GM foods. And some people remain worried about the effects on human health. Concerns <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/">include</a> that antibiotic resistance may be transferred from plants to humans, or that GM foods will trigger <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15813800/">allergic reactions</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/gm-crops-to-ban-or-not-to-ban-thats-not-the-question-122202">GM crops: to ban or not to ban? That's not the question</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Experts have concluded the risk of antibiotic resistance is not substantial. There is <a href="https://www.annallergy.org/article/S1081-1206(17)30550-1/fulltext">some</a> evidence of a small number of GM crops being allergenic. But since GM crops undergo extensive allergen testing, they should not be riskier than conventional crops once cleared for market release.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects">Other GM opponents say</a> the technology poses environmental risks – for example that herbicide-resistant GM crops can become “superweeds”. </p>
<p>Research <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/4">has found</a> weed resistance to the herbicide glyphosate is a problem, and there is <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880915302061?casa_token=wTDDiciXRPAAAAAA:XLiEIzHzYCYY5sW-zp5i3H6NFD4JJ5aOdF0-Ls1NPaCmo8pHdaO_KlWGluWbDiuoTH6nFyI6Yw">some evidence</a> of glyphosate-resistant canola persisting outside farms in Australia. Management strategies <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03650340.2019.1624726">can reduce</a> the chance of superweeds developing, but more research is needed.</p>
<p>And it should be noted that while the use of herbicide-resistant crops sometimes leads to less herbicide use, the decrease is often not sustained. Researchers <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/23395/chapter/7">also say</a> a reduction in the kilograms of pesticides used does not necessarily predict environmental or health effects.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="people spray field" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408331/original/file-20210625-19-59mtfx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/408331/original/file-20210625-19-59mtfx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408331/original/file-20210625-19-59mtfx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408331/original/file-20210625-19-59mtfx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408331/original/file-20210625-19-59mtfx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408331/original/file-20210625-19-59mtfx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/408331/original/file-20210625-19-59mtfx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">More research is needed into preventing herbicide-resistant superweeds.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some critics oppose GM crops on the basis that they allow a few large companies – which breed and commercialise seeds – to control food supplies. For example, in 2015 it was <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32901834">reported</a> the GM maize seed sector in South Africa was owned by just two companies, which meant small farmers could not compete. </p>
<p>Researchers have <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-021-00297-7">proposed measures</a> to counter this corporate concentration of power, by strengthening competition policies, boosting public sector support for diverse food systems and curbing corporate influence in the policy process.</p>
<p>The issue of cross-contamination is also a concern for organic farmers and consumers. In a well-known case from Western Australia, organic farmer Steve Marsh’s crop was <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-03/organic-farmer-steve-marsh-loses-gm-appeal/6746108">contaminated</a> in 2010 with GM canola, causing him to lose his organic certification.</p>
<h2>Looking ahead</h2>
<p>The lifting of the NSW ban on GM crops means Australian mainland states have a consistent approach, and provides new opportunities for Australian growers and consumers. </p>
<p>There are still issues with GM crops to be ironed out, and there’s a need for continued stringent regulation to ensure human and environmental safety. Opposition to the practice will no doubt remain in some quarters. However this may lessen over time as the technology develops and long-term outcomes become clearer.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/159976/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel Tan receives funding from the Cotton Research and Development Corporation, the Grain Research and Development Corporation and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. He is Fellow of Ag Institute Australia and a Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy, UK.</span></em></p>GM proponents say the technology leads to better crop yields and may solve food shortages and reduce pests. Opponents say GM is a threat to the environment and humans. So where does the truth lie?Daniel Tan, Professor of Agronomy (Agriculture), University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1594682021-04-23T05:03:11Z2021-04-23T05:03:11ZNatural GM: how plants and animals steal genes from other species to accelerate evolution<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/396277/original/file-20210421-15-8cq4uj.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C10%2C3456%2C2571&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Grassland in Uganda.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Luke Dunning</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Little did biologist <a href="https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/gregor-mendel-a-private-scientist-6618227/">Gregor Mendel</a> know that his experiments with sweet peas in a monastery garden in Brno, Czech Republic, would lay the foundations for our understanding of modern genetics and inheritance. His work in the 19th century helped scientists to establish that parents <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/z2296yc/revision/5">pass their genetic information</a> onto their offspring, and in turn, they pass it on to theirs. </p>
<p>Indeed, this premise forms the basis of much of our understanding of evolution. But we now know that this process is not sacrosanct and some of our most widely grown crops may be fiddling the system by supplementing their genetic information with stolen genetic secrets. Our new study, <a href="https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/nph.17328">published in New Phytologist</a>, shows that this does in fact happen in grasses. </p>
<p>Grasses aren’t the only culprits, however. Bacteria are the master criminals in this regard. They are able to freely absorb genetic information from their environment. This process is termed lateral or horizontal gene transfer, and is thought to <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01933/full">play an important role</a> in the spread of traits such as antibiotic resistance. </p>
<p>Although scientists originally thought this process was restricted to bacteria, it has since been documented in a broad range of animals and plants. Examples include aphids that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1187113">can synthesise a red fungal pigment</a> to avoid predation, mushrooms that have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/evl3.42">shared the genetic instructions</a> to assemble psychoactive compounds, and whiteflies that have <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.02.014">turned their host plants’ defences against them</a>.</p>
<h2>Mysterious gene transfer</h2>
<p>Grasses are the most ecologically and economically important group of plants. Grasslands cover between <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.org/article/grasslands-explained/">20% and 40% of the world’s landmass</a>, and several of the most widely grown global crops are grasses, including rice, maize, wheat and sugar cane. Our new study is the first to show that lateral gene transfer is widespread in this important plant group, and it occurs in wild and cultivated species alike. </p>
<p>Our discovery is based on genetic detective work, helping us trace the origin of each gene in the genomes of 17 grass species from around the world. As expected, an overwhelming majority of genes had the same evolutionary history as that of the species they were found in – indicating they were passed down through the generations from parent to offspring. However, we found over a hundred examples where the evolutionary history of the species and genes did not tell the same story. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/jl1bhv73iWo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The results showed that these genes had a past life in another distantly related grass species before being transferred into the recipient’s genome.<br>
We know that species boundaries are porous in nature, and that <a href="https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/garden-how-to/info/plant-hybridization-info.htm">hybrid can occur</a> as a result of reproduction between closely related organisms. Hybridisation and lateral gene transfer ultimately have similar effects generating novel combinations of genes that may or may not be advantageous. </p>
<p>However, lateral gene transfer is not a reproductive process and therefore has the potential to connect deeper branches within the tree of life, facilitating the movement of genetic material across much broader evolutionary distances. The genes transferred between grass species have functions relating to energy production, stress tolerance and disease resistance, potentially giving them an evolutionary advantage by allowing them to grow bigger, taller and stronger. </p>
<p>Foreign DNA was detected in the genomes of 13 of the 17 grasses sampled, including crops such as maize, millet and wheat. The million-dollar question is, how are these genes moving between species? In truth, we don’t know and we may never know for certain as there are several potential mechanisms and more than one may be involved. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Image of the author investigating grass in Sri Lanka." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/396279/original/file-20210421-15-6d08z0.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/396279/original/file-20210421-15-6d08z0.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396279/original/file-20210421-15-6d08z0.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396279/original/file-20210421-15-6d08z0.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396279/original/file-20210421-15-6d08z0.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396279/original/file-20210421-15-6d08z0.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396279/original/file-20210421-15-6d08z0.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Luke Dunning investigating grass in Sri Lanka.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>After all, evolution is studying events that happened thousands and even millions of years ago. But there is a significant statistical increase in the number of transferred genes present today in grass species with <a href="https://www.thespruce.com/rhizomes-definition-examples-2131103">rhizomes</a> – modified roots that allow plants to propagate themselves asexually (a process in which part of a plant can be used to generate a new plant). The transfer of DNA into the rhizome could be facilitated via direct contact between species underground, possible through root fusion. Interestingly, scientists have recently <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd8215">observed DNA moving between tobacco plants that have been</a> grafted together, further supporting this hypothesis. </p>
<p>Any foreign DNA transferred into the rhizome would then be replicated in all the cells in the daughter clone that arises from this tissue as the plant reproduces asexually. This foreign DNA would subsequently make its way into the germline (cells that pass on their genetic material to offspring) and future generations when the daughter clone flowers and produces seed. </p>
<h2>GM debate</h2>
<p>The results of this study show that grasses have been genetically engineering themselves. Whether this is ammunition for the pro- or anti-GM lobby depends on your existing preconceptions in this debate. </p>
<p>It could be argued that if grasses are already doing this naturally, then why shouldn’t we? Conversely, this research shows that genes can freely move between grass species regardless of how closely related they are. Therefore, any gene inserted into a modified grass crop may eventually escape into wild species generating so-called superweeds.</p>
<p>Ultimately, if we can determine how lateral gene transfer is happening in grasses it may allow us to harness the process so we can naturally modify crops and make them more resistant to the effects of climate change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/159468/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luke Dunning receives funding from The Natural Environment Research Council. </span></em></p>If species already modify their genes, why shouldn’t we?Luke Dunning, Natural Environment Research Council Independent Research Fellow, University of SheffieldLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1287902020-02-06T09:54:08Z2020-02-06T09:54:08ZHave humans evolved beyond nature – and do we even need it?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306589/original/file-20191212-85376-1paseip.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Natural?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/central-hong-kong-29-april-2019-1393507475">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Our society has evolved so much, can we still say that we are part of Nature? If not, should we worry – and what should we do about it? Poppy, 21, Warwick.</em></p>
<p>Such is the extent of our dominion on Earth, that the answer to questions around whether we are still part of nature – and whether we even need some of it – rely on an understanding of what we <em>want</em> as <em>Homo sapiens</em>. And to know what we want, we need to grasp what we are.</p>
<p>It is a huge question – but they are the best. And as a biologist, here is my humble suggestion to address it, and a personal conclusion. You may have a different one, but what matters is that we reflect on it.</p>
<p>Perhaps the best place to start is to consider what makes us human in the first place, which is not as obvious as it may seem. </p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313328/original/file-20200203-41485-1foofme.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313328/original/file-20200203-41485-1foofme.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313328/original/file-20200203-41485-1foofme.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313328/original/file-20200203-41485-1foofme.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313328/original/file-20200203-41485-1foofme.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313328/original/file-20200203-41485-1foofme.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313328/original/file-20200203-41485-1foofme.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong><em>This article is part of <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/lifes-big-questions-80040?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=LifesBigQuestionsUK">Life’s Big Questions</a></em></strong>
<br><em>The Conversation’s new series, co-published with BBC Future, seeks to answer our readers’ nagging questions about life, love, death and the universe. We work with professional researchers who have dedicated their lives to uncovering new perspectives on the questions that shape our lives.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Many years ago, a novel written by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Bruller">Vercors</a> called <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/996124.Les_Animaux_d_natur_s">Les Animaux dénaturés</a> (“Denatured Animals”) told the <a href="https://anthropology365.com/2018/01/01/book-review-you-shall-know-them/">story</a> of a group of primitive hominids, the Tropis, found in an unexplored jungle in New Guinea, who seem to constitute a missing link.</p>
<p>However, the prospect that this fictional group may be used as slave labour by an entrepreneurial businessman named Vancruysen forces society to decide whether the Tropis are simply sophisticated animals or whether they should be given human rights. And herein lies the difficulty.</p>
<p>Human status had hitherto seemed so obvious that the book describes how it is soon discovered that there is no definition of what a human actually is. Certainly, the string of experts consulted – anthropologists, primatologists, psychologists, lawyers and clergymen – could not agree. Perhaps prophetically, it is a layperson who suggested a possible way forward. </p>
<p>She asked whether some of the hominids’ habits could be described as the early signs of a spiritual or religious mind. In short, were there signs that, like us, the Tropis were no longer “at one” with nature, but had separated from it, and were now looking at it from the outside – with some fear.</p>
<p>It is a telling perspective. Our status as altered or “denatured” animals – creatures who have arguably separated from the natural world – is perhaps both the source of our humanity and the cause of many of our troubles. In the words of the <a href="https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vercors_(%C3%A9crivain)">book’s author</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>All man’s troubles arise from the fact that we do not know what we are and do not agree on what we want to be.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We will probably never know the timing of our gradual separation from nature – although <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/dec/12/humans-were-not-centre-stage-ancient-cave-art-painting-lascaux-chauvet-altamira">cave paintings</a> perhaps contain some clues. But a key recent event in our relationship with the world around us is as well documented as it was abrupt. It happened on a sunny Monday morning, at 8.15am precisely.</p>
<h2>A new age</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/world-politics-explainer-the-atomic-bombings-of-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-100452">atomic bomb</a> that rocked Hiroshima on August 6 1945, was a wake-up call so loud that it still resonates in our consciousness many decades later.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Tl3_0D2h8BY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>The day the “sun rose twice” was not only a forceful demonstration of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/first-atomic-bomb-test-may-mark-the-beginning-of-the-anthropocene-36912">new era that we had entered</a>, it was a reminder of how paradoxically primitive we remained: differential calculus, advanced electronics and almost godlike insights into the laws of the universe helped build, well … a very big stick. Modern <em>Homo sapiens</em> seemingly had developed the powers of gods, while keeping the psyche of a stereotypical Stone Age killer.</p>
<p>We were no longer fearful of nature, but of what we would do to it, and ourselves. In short, we still did not know where we came from, but began panicking about where we were going.</p>
<p>We now <a href="https://theconversation.com/no-giant-leap-for-mankind-why-weve-been-looking-at-human-evolution-in-the-wrong-way-60935">know</a> a <a href="https://theconversation.com/human-evolution-secrets-of-early-ancestors-could-be-unlocked-by-african-rainforests-101636">lot more</a> about our origins but we remain unsure about what we want to be in the future – or, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03595-0">increasingly</a>, <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252">as the climate crisis accelerates</a>, whether we even have one.</p>
<p>Arguably, the greater choices granted by our technological advances make it even more difficult to decide which of the many paths to take. This is the cost of freedom.</p>
<p>I am not arguing against our dominion over nature nor, even as a biologist, do I feel a need to preserve the status quo. Big changes are part of our evolution. After all, <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2014/07/the-great-oxygenation-event-the-earths-first-mass-extinction.html">oxygen was first a poison</a> which threatened the very existence of early life, yet it is now the fuel vital to our existence.</p>
<p>Similarly, we may have to accept that what we do, even our unprecedented dominion, is a natural consequence of what we have evolved into, and by a process nothing less natural than <a href="https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-is-natural-selection.html">natural selection itself</a>. If artificial birth control is unnatural, so is reduced infant mortality. </p>
<p>I am also not convinced by the argument against genetic engineering on the basis that it is “unnatural”. By artificially selecting specific strains of wheat or <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6160/871">dogs</a>, we had been tinkering more or less blindly with genomes for centuries before the genetic revolution. Even our choice of romantic partner is a form of genetic engineering. Sex is nature’s way of producing <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-did-sex-evolve-researchers-edge-closer-to-solving-longstanding-mystery-55407">new genetic combinations</a> quickly.</p>
<p>Even nature, it seems, can be impatient with itself.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310226/original/file-20200115-134814-1nirxt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/310226/original/file-20200115-134814-1nirxt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310226/original/file-20200115-134814-1nirxt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310226/original/file-20200115-134814-1nirxt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310226/original/file-20200115-134814-1nirxt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310226/original/file-20200115-134814-1nirxt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/310226/original/file-20200115-134814-1nirxt9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=451&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Our natural habitat?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/mountains-during-sunset-beautiful-natural-landscape-407021107">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Changing our world</h2>
<p>Advances in <a href="https://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/topics/health-and-society/genetics-and-genomics">genomics</a>, however, have opened the door to another key turning point. Perhaps we can avoid blowing up the world, and instead change it – and ourselves – slowly, perhaps beyond recognition.</p>
<p>The development of <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/fields-of-gold-1.12897">genetically modified crops in the 1980s</a> quickly moved from early aspirations to improve the taste of food to a more efficient way of destroying undesirable weeds or pests.</p>
<p>In what some saw as the genetic equivalent of the atomic bomb, our early forays into a new technology became once again largely about killing, coupled with worries about contamination. Not that everything was rosy before that. Artificial selection, intensive farming and our exploding population growth were long destroying species quicker than we could record them.</p>
<p>The increasing <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rachel-carson-silent-spring-1972-ddt-ban-birds-thrive/">“silent springs”</a> of the 1950s and 60s caused by the destruction of farmland birds – and, consequently, their song – was only the tip of a deeper and more sinister iceberg. There is, in principle, nothing unnatural about extinction, which has been a <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/palaeontology/big-five-extinctions">recurring pattern</a> (of sometimes massive proportions) in the evolution of our planet long before we came on the scene. But is it really what we <em>want</em>?</p>
<p>The arguments for maintaining biodiversity are usually based on survival, economics or ethics. In addition to preserving obvious key environments essential to our ecosystem and global survival, the economic argument highlights the possibility that a hitherto insignificant lichen, bacteria or <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0117394">reptile</a> might hold the key to the cure of a future disease. We simply cannot afford to destroy what we do not know.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313140/original/file-20200131-41527-1i8ibqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313140/original/file-20200131-41527-1i8ibqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313140/original/file-20200131-41527-1i8ibqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313140/original/file-20200131-41527-1i8ibqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313140/original/file-20200131-41527-1i8ibqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313140/original/file-20200131-41527-1i8ibqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313140/original/file-20200131-41527-1i8ibqs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Is it this crocodile’s economic, medical or inherent value which should be important to us?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/crocodile-skin-430457128">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But attaching an economic value to life makes it subject to the fluctuation of markets. It is reasonable to expect that, in time, most biological solutions will be able to be synthesised, and as the market worth of many lifeforms falls, we need to scrutinise the significance of the ethical argument. Do we need nature because of its inherent value? </p>
<p>Perhaps the answer may come from peering over the horizon. It is somewhat of an irony that as the third millennium coincided with <a href="https://genome.cshlp.org/content/genome/22/9/1599.full.html">decrypting the human genome</a>, perhaps the start of the fourth may be about whether it has become redundant.</p>
<p>Just as genetic modification may one day lead to the end of “<em>Homo sapiens naturalis</em>” (that is, humans untouched by <a href="https://theconversation.com/genetic-engineering-and-human-animal-hybrids-how-china-is-leading-a-global-split-in-controversial-research-121473">genetic engineering</a>), we may one day wave goodbye to the last specimen of <em>Homo sapiens genetica</em>. That is the last fully genetically based human living in a world increasingly less burdened by our biological form – minds in a machine.</p>
<p>If the essence of a human, including our memories, desires and values, is somehow reflected in the pattern of the delicate neuronal connections of our brain (and why should it not?) our minds may also one day be changeable like never before.</p>
<p>And this brings us to the essential question that surely we must ask ourselves now: if, or rather when, we have the power to change anything, what would we <strong><em>not</em></strong> change?</p>
<p>After all, we may be able to transform ourselves into more rational, more efficient and stronger individuals. We may venture out further, have greater dominion over greater areas of space, and inject enough insight to bridge the gap between the issues brought about by our cultural evolution and the abilities of a brain evolved to deal with much simpler problems. We might even decide to move into a bodiless intelligence: in the end, even the pleasures of the body are located in the brain.</p>
<p>And then what? When the secrets of the universe are no longer hidden, what makes it worth being part of it? Where is the fun?</p>
<p>“Gossip and sex, of course!” some might say. And in effect, I would agree (although I might put it differently), as it conveys to me the fundamental need that we have to reach out and connect with others. I believe that the attributes that define our worth in this vast and changing universe are simple: <strong><em>empathy and love</em></strong>. Not power or technology, which occupy so many of our thoughts but which are merely (almost boringly) related to the age of a civilisation.</p>
<h2>True gods</h2>
<p>Like many a traveller, <em>Homo sapiens</em> may need a goal. But from the strengths that come with attaining it, one realises that one’s worth (whether as an individual or a species) ultimately lies elsewhere. So I believe that the extent of our ability for empathy and love will be the yardstick by which our civilisation is judged. It may well be an important benchmark by which we will judge other civilisations that we may encounter, or indeed be judged by them.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313141/original/file-20200131-41495-cw9yer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313141/original/file-20200131-41495-cw9yer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313141/original/file-20200131-41495-cw9yer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313141/original/file-20200131-41495-cw9yer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=293&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313141/original/file-20200131-41495-cw9yer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313141/original/file-20200131-41495-cw9yer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/313141/original/file-20200131-41495-cw9yer.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When we can change everything about ourselves, what will we keep?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/big-data-artificial-intelligence-danger-concept-1224705556">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There is something of true wonder at the basis of it all. The fact that chemicals can arise from the austere confines of an <a href="http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began">ancient molecular soup</a>, and through the cold laws of evolution, <a href="https://theconversation.com/biology-and-why-the-most-compelling-argument-for-the-eu-is-as-old-as-life-itself-59317">combine into organisms</a> that care for other lifeforms (that is, other bags of chemicals) is the true miracle.</p>
<p>Some ancients believed that God made us in “his image”. Perhaps they were right in a sense, as empathy and love are truly godlike features, at least among the benevolent gods.</p>
<p>Cherish those traits and use them now, Poppy, as they hold the solution to our ethical dilemma. It is those very attributes that should compel us to improve the wellbeing of our fellow humans without lowering the condition of what surrounds us.</p>
<p>Anything less will pervert (our) nature. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>To get all of life’s big answers, join the hundreds of thousands of people who value evidence-based news by <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/newsletters/the-daily-newsletter-2?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=LifesBigQuestionsUK"><strong>subscribing to our newsletter</strong></a>. You can send us your big questions by email at <a href="mailto:bigquestions@theconversation.com">bigquestions@theconversation.com</a> and we’ll try to get a researcher or expert on the case.</em></p>
<p><em>More <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/topics/lifes-big-questions-80040?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=LifesBigQuestionsUK">Life’s Big Questions</a>:</em></p>
<ul>
<li><p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/death-can-our-final-moment-be-euphoric-129648?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=LifesBigQuestionsUK">Death: can our final moment be euphoric?</a></em></p></li>
<li><p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/love-is-it-just-a-fleeting-high-fuelled-by-brain-chemicals-129201?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=LifesBigQuestionsUK">Love: is it just a fleeting high fuelled by brain chemicals?</a></em></p></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/128790/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Manuel Berdoy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The answer lies in determining what we are and what we want to become.Manuel Berdoy, Biologist, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1238622019-10-01T22:11:49Z2019-10-01T22:11:49ZGenetically modifying mosquitoes to control the spread of disease carries unknown risks<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/295088/original/file-20191001-173375-1pg9qnu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=40%2C0%2C4497%2C2975&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Mosquitoes are one of the deadliest creatures because they are carriers for many lethal viruses.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Every year, <a href="https://www.who.int/neglected_diseases/vector_ecology/mosquito-borne-diseases/en/">around one million people die of mosquito-borne diseases</a> according to the World Health Organization (WHO). This is why mosquitoes are considered one of the deadliest living creatures on the planet — not because they are lethal themselves, but because many of the viruses and parasites they transmit are. </p>
<p>Consider, for example, dengue fever. This mosquito-borne virus is a leading cause of hospitalization and death among children and adults in several countries in Asia and Latin America. In 2016, member states in three of the six WHO regions <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/dengue-and-severe-dengue">reported 3.34 million cases</a>.</p>
<p>In the absence of an effective vaccine for dengue fever, Zika fever, chikungunya and other mosquito-borne diseases, researchers have developed genetic strategies to reduce mosquito populations. One such strategy involves the release into the wild of genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes that express a lethal gene — a strategy believed to have little impact on the overall DNA of wild populations of mosquitoes. </p>
<p>As an interdisciplinary group of authors, we generally support technologies that can reduce human disease and suffering. However, given our combined expertise in science, governance and ethics we have concerns that recent decisions to deploy GM mosquitoes have not been made responsibly. </p>
<h2>Genetically modified mosquitoes</h2>
<p>The transfer of new genes from GM organisms to wild or domesticated non-GM populations is a key criticism of GM crops like soybean and corn. There are concerns that the introduction of GM genes into non-target species could have <a href="https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetically-modified-organisms-gmos-transgenic-crops-and-732/">negative consequences for both human and environmental health</a>.</p>
<p>Oxitec, a company that spun out of research at Oxford University in the early 2000s, developed and trademarked GM <a href="https://www.oxitec.com/our-technology">Friendly™ mosquitoes</a> (also known as strain OX513A of <em>Aedes aegypti</em>). These male GM mosquitoes have what the company describes as a “self-limiting” gene, which means that when these so-called friendly mosquitoes mate, their offspring inherit the self-limiting gene which is supposed to prevent them surviving into adulthood. </p>
<p>In theory, when these mosquitoes are released in high numbers, a dramatic reduction in the mosquito population should follow.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5dRGPsx3tAw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Al Jazeera investigates how genetically modified mosquitoes may be used to curb the spread of disease.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Changes to the gene pool</h2>
<p>According to research published by Oxitec researchers in 2015, field trials involving recurring releases of Friendly™ mosquitoes demonstrated <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0003864">a reduction of nearly 95 per cent of target populations in Brazil</a>. In these field trials, experiments were not performed to assess whether GM mosquitoes might persist in the wild.</p>
<p>A recent study from the Powell lab at Yale University has since confirmed that <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-49660-6">some of the offspring of the GM mosquitoes didn’t succumb to the self-limiting lethal gene and survived to adulthood</a>. They were able to breed with native mosquitoes and thereby introduce some of their genes into the wild population. </p>
<p>The Yale researchers found that mosquitoes captured at six, 12 and up to 30 months post-release carried DNA from the GM mosquito population, thereby disproving “<a href="https://news.yale.edu/2019/09/10/transgenic-mosquitoes-pass-genes-native-species">the claim that genes from the release strain would not get into the general population because offspring would die</a>.”</p>
<p>It appears that between five and 60 per cent of the captured mosquitoes post-release contained genetic sequences inherited from the Friendly™ mosquitoes. Importantly, the number of mosquitoes identified as still containing DNA derived from GM mosquitoes declined between the 12-month and 27-month capture periods specifically, perhaps indicating that the offspring of GM mosquitoes might be less fit in nature after all. This remains to be shown conclusively.</p>
<h2>Unknown potential impacts</h2>
<p>Meanwhile, the impact of mosquitoes carrying these new genes remains largely unknown. One significant worry is that a new breed of mosquito might emerge that is more difficult to control. These new genes could also potentially alter evolutionary pressures on viruses carried by mosquitoes, like dengue fever, in unpredictable ways. This includes potentially increasing their virulence or changing their host-insect interactions. These are hypothetical risks that have been raised by scientists, and reflect the need for further study.</p>
<p>Thus, like GM soybean or corn, there is <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2011/369573">legitimate concern about the propagation of new genetic material in wild populations</a> with as yet unknown consequences.</p>
<p>Field trials involving the release of GM organisms are typically designed to evaluate safety and efficacy, to assess possible impact on food networks, and to ensure that there is no (or minimal) undue harm to the environment or human health. Put simply, field trials are meant to assess potential harms associated with genetic technologies and to provide opportunities to minimize these harms before moving forward with more large-scale releases.</p>
<p>This raises two important questions: Given that <a href="https://time.com/the-war-against-mosquito/">“around 5 per cent or less”</a> of the GM mosquito population was expected to survive, shouldn’t Oxitec have made plans to assess the risk of gene transfer to wild populations during their initial trials? And shouldn’t the Brazilian government have required such an assessment as part of the regulatory approval process, <a href="https://bch.cbd.int/database/record.shtml?documentid=105833">given their awareness of the risk</a>?</p>
<p>Instead, with approval from Brazilian authorities, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/eea.12618">Oxitec released nearly half a million GM mosquitoes every week into shared environments in Jacobina over a two-year period from 2013 to 2015</a>. This was done without the benefit of adequate risk assessment and without proper public consultation.</p>
<p>Oxitec reports having used leaflets, social media, carnival parades and community meetings to inform the public of their research. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2017.1326257">Public education is not the same as public consultation and engagement</a> and, in our view, the people living in the vicinity of this release had more than a right to be informed of the plans. They also had a <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6414/527.summary">right to participate</a> in relevant decision-making. </p>
<p>On the basis of presumed success in Brazil where mosquito populations were reduced — a consequential <a href="https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/94/8/16-020816.pdf">reduction in the prevalence of dengue fever</a> has yet to be demonstrated — plans have been made to extend field trials to other jurisdictions, including <a href="https://www.oxitec.com/florida">the Florida Keys in the United States</a>. </p>
<p>To date, public pushback <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3927">has temporarily prevented</a> the release of GM mosquitoes in the Florida Keys. But Oxitec hopes to eventually secure approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to perform field trials and assess release of a <a href="https://keysweekly.com/42/oxitec-reveals-new-technology-up-for-epa-consideration/">second-generation GM mosquito</a> that causes lethality only in female mosquitoes, as another means to collapse wild populations.</p>
<h2>Regulating genetic modification</h2>
<p>In the end, minus the <a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/09/study-dna-spread-genetically-modified-mosquitoes-prompts-backlash">hyperbole and somewhat alarmist reporting of the Yale study</a> (the journal is looking into <a href="https://www.genomeweb.com/scan/pushback-mosquito-paper#.XZJv0S2ZNTZ">allegations brought forth by Oxitec of speculative and unsubstantiated claims</a>), the finding that offspring of GM mosquitoes could survive in the wild remains undisputed. This illustrates the importance of careful decision-making and adequate oversight of field trials involving the release of GM organisms. Careful decision-making requires open venues for informed and deliberative public dialogue, engagement and empowerment.</p>
<p>Genetic modification technologies need to be more transparent, as do the scientific processes for evaluating their risks, especially where the rights and needs of affected communities can inform technology development. With more robust and nuanced regulatory processes governing the development and release of GM organisms, it should be possible to benefit from these technologies without harming or disenfranchising the communities that are the intended beneficiaries.</p>
<p>Mosquito-borne illnesses cause immense human suffering, and we should continue to develop technologies to reduce that suffering. At the same time, we must be equally dedicated to designing scientific processes that are safe, ethical and just.</p>
<p>[ <em><a href="https://theconversation.com/ca/newsletters?utm_source=TCCA&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=expertise">Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter and get a digest of academic takes on today’s news, every day.</a></em> ]</p>
<p><em>This is a corrected version of an article originally published on Oct. 1, 2019. The article has been updated to reflect that there had been planned risk assessment in Brazil, and that there was no regulatory pushback against the release of GM mosquitoes in Florida.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123862/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Natalie Kofler is the founding director of Editing Nature. She is also an expert participant in a National Science Foundation funded project awarded to The Hastings Center for Bioethics entitled "Gene Editing and Public Deliberation." </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Françoise Baylis is a member of the WHO expert advisory committee on Developing global standards for governance and oversight of Human Genome editing</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Graham Dellaire is Director of Research in the Department of Pathology at Dalhousie University. His expertise spans multiple disciplines including cancer biology, DNA repair and gene editing. Studies in his laboratory are funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Landon J Getz receives funding from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada through the Vanier Canadian Graduate Scholarship Program. He is a member of the Network at Editing Nature.</span></em></p>Genetically modified mosquitoes were released in Brazil in an attempt to halt the spread of dengue fever by reducing the mosquito population.Natalie Kofler, Scientific Citizenship Initiative Advisor and Center for Bioethics Lecturer, Harvard UniversityFrançoise Baylis, Research Professor, Philosophy, Dalhousie UniversityGraham Dellaire, Director of Research and Professor of Pathology, Dalhousie UniversityLandon J Getz, Vanier Scholar and Ph.D. Candidate in Microbiology and Immunology, Dalhousie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1222022019-08-22T20:05:36Z2019-08-22T20:05:36ZGM crops: to ban or not to ban? That’s not the question<p>The South Australian government recently announced its intention to lift the long-standing statewide moratorium on genetically modified (GM) crops, following a <a href="https://pir.sa.gov.au/primary_industry/genetically_modified_gm_crops/gm_review">statutory six-week consultation period</a>. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/339225/Independent_Review_of_the_South_Australian_GM_Food_Crop_Moratorium.pdf">government-commissioned independent review</a> had estimated the cost of the moratorium at A$33 million since 2004 for canola alone. The review concluded there was no clear market incentive to uphold the ban, except on Kangaroo Island.</p>
<p>In contrast, the <a href="https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/agriculture/2018-review-of-tasmanias-gmo-moratorium">Tasmanian government announced that its GM moratorium would be extended for 10 years</a>. It cited the state’s GM-free status as an important part of the “Tasmanian brand”, representing a market advantage, particularly for food exports. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/safety-first-assessing-the-health-risks-of-gm-foods-26099">Safety first – assessing the health risks of GM foods</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Research and commercial growing of GM crops in Australia is <a href="https://theconversation.com/setting-the-standards-who-regulates-australian-gm-food-25533">regulated under a national scheme</a>, but governed by individual states. These recent and mooted changes leave Tasmania as the only state with a blanket ban on GM organisms.</p>
<p>The science underlying genetic modification is complex and evolving. A <a href="https://www.science.org.au/education/immunisation-and-climate-change/genetic-modification-questions-and-answers">recent report</a> by an expert working group convened by the Australian Academy of Science (to which I contributed) documented the broad consensus among many professional organisations, including the World Health Organization, that <a href="https://theconversation.com/safety-first-assessing-the-health-risks-of-gm-foods-26099">GM foods and medicines are safe</a>. No ill-effects have been identified relating to human consumption, and GM foods produced so far are no different to unmodified foods in terms of safety and digestibility. </p>
<p>However, the report also highlights that this scientific evidence does not provide answers to all concerns raised by GM technologies. The public’s understanding of this issue is <a href="https://theconversation.com/perceptions-of-genetically-modified-food-are-informed-by-more-than-just-science-72865">shaped by a complex range of factors and values</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/perceptions-of-genetically-modified-food-are-informed-by-more-than-just-science-72865">Perceptions of genetically modified food are informed by more than just science</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Many people’s opinions about GM foods and crops are related to their <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14636778.2017.1287561">views on what constitutes acceptable risk</a>. There is no one right way to measure risks, and various scientific disciplines have different ways of weighing them up. For example, does the lack of evidence of harm mean we can conclude GM food is safe to eat? Or do we need positive evidence of safety? </p>
<p>That second question hinges in part on whether GM foods are seen as substantially equivalent to their non-GM counterparts. This has been a matter of significant debate, especially in regard to <a href="https://theconversation.com/making-a-meal-of-gm-food-labelling-28339">food labelling</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/making-a-meal-of-gm-food-labelling-28339">Making a meal of GM food labelling</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This in turn begs the further question of how long we should wait before declaring GM food safe. The very word “moratorium” implies that the ban is temporary and subject to review, but opinions differ widely about what constitutes an adequate period for rigorous testing and accumulation of evidence regarding the safety of emerging technologies.</p>
<p>People also have <a href="https://theconversation.com/perceptions-of-genetically-modified-food-are-informed-by-more-than-just-science-72865">diverse views</a> on the role of multinational corporations in agriculture and GM-related research, and concerns about the potential pressure these firms may put on farmers. Many people view the benefits of GM crops as mainly commercial, and perceive a lack of public benefit in terms of health, the environment, or food quality. </p>
<p>Some people question whether we need GM crops at all, especially as they are viewed by some as “unnatural”. Others note that their views depend on the underlying reasons for the modification, so that GM crops with potential environmental advantages might be more publicly acceptable than ones that deliver purely commercial advantages.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hu20ttJFM-0?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Understanding the science is important - but not the whole story.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>When people form opinions on complex issues based not solely on science, it is tempting to assume that this is because they simply don’t understand the science. But of course science doesn’t happen in the abstract – rather, it plays into our everyday decisions made in a wider context. </p>
<p>So if we want to engage people in policy decisions relating to science, we must <a href="https://theconversation.com/because-we-can-does-it-mean-we-should-the-ethics-of-gm-foods-28141">widen the scope of our conversations beyond the mere technical details to focus on underlying values</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/because-we-can-does-it-mean-we-should-the-ethics-of-gm-foods-28141">Because we can, does it mean we should? The ethics of GM foods</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The contrasting decisions in South Australia and Tasmania offer an opportunity for Australians to deepen their understanding of, and engagement with, issues relating to genetic modification. Public debates have tended to focus on the science behind gene modification and the potential risks associated with the resulting products. But they have generally paid less attention to the broader issues relating to environmental, economic, social, cultural, and other impacts. </p>
<p>We need a more sophisticated dialogue about GM food, as part of a wider societal conversation about <a href="https://theconversation.com/tastes-like-moral-superiority-what-makes-food-good-59581">what makes good food</a>. We should ask what types of farming we want to prioritise and support, rather than viewing it as a binary issue of being simply “for” or “against” GM crops.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/122202/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel A. Ankeny has received funding for research relating to public understandings of GM from the former Australian Government Department of Industry, Innovation, Science and Research’s National Enabling Technologies Strategy’s (NETS) Public Awareness and Community Engagement Program, administered by the Government of South Australia, Science and Information Economy, Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology (DFEEST), and from the Australian Research Council. She also has received funding from food industry related organisations for social science research related to agriculture and food attitudes/choices, including Grain Growers SA, AgriFutures Australia, Australian Eggs Ltd, Coles Group Ltd, Elders Limited, Richard Gunner’s Fine Meats Pty Ltd, and the South Australian Research and Development Institute. Prof Ankeny is a current member of the GM Crop Advisory Committee for the Government of South Australia and a past member of the Commonwealth Office of the Gene Technology Regulator's Gene Ethics and Community Consultative Committee (and formerly of the Gene Ethics Committee). She has served on expert working groups on food, agriculture, and genetic technologies for the Australian Academy of Science and the Australian Council of Learned Academies. The University of Adelaide, at which Prof Ankeny is employed, has numerous scientific research programs focused on various aspects of GM, but she is not directly involved in any of this research.</span></em></p>South Australia has lifted its moratorium on GM crops, while Tasmania has extended its ban. But the question should no longer be a simple binary of being “for” or “against” GM technology.Rachel A. Ankeny, Professor of History and Philosophy, and Deputy Dean Research (Faculty of Arts), University of AdelaideLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1180292019-06-03T13:07:52Z2019-06-03T13:07:52ZFeeding mosquitoes sugar makes them less likely to bite – but don’t go leaving out sugary treats just yet<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277632/original/file-20190603-69075-1v8v743.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2600%2C1728&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/asian-tiger-mosquito-aedes-albopictus-extreme-297163811?src=52B-JjdRxO4abHQqrU8rig-1-39">InsectWorld/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The teasing temptation of a sugary treat can often get the better of us. But don’t worry, we’re not the only ones. The saccharine substance that our sweet tooth finds so hard to resist is also powerfully seductive to mosquitoes. And according to <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000238">new research</a>, in helping to keep the pests away from our blood-rich body parts, sugar may for once be good for our health. </p>
<p>But don’t start mixing up any sugar water just yet – or you might end up doing as much harm as good.</p>
<p>We’ve long understood that sugar is an important energy source for mosquitoes. In fact, it’s actually <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.en.40.010195.002303">better</a> than blood in terms of fuelling flight and basic survival processes. Only female mosquitoes feed on blood, as it provides essential nutrients needed to make their eggs.</p>
<p>Of course, this thirst for blood generates a terrible disease burden <a href="https://www.who.int/vector-control/en/">globally</a>, often in the countries least well equipped to cope. Amid the hundreds of scientists across the world working to reduce the menace of mosquitoes, one promising avenue is investigating how their desires for sugar and blood interact.</p>
<p>The new research, published in Plos Biology, set about investigating exactly this. It focused on the Asian tiger mosquito (<em>Aedes albopictus</em>), an invasive species that has infiltrated every continent, closely associates with humans, and is very difficult to suppress, making it a particularly dangerous <a href="https://ecdc.europa.eu/en/disease-vectors/facts/mosquito-factsheets/aedes-albopictus">transmitter</a> of diseases such as dengue fever, yellow fever, and Zika virus.</p>
<p>The research team <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000238">found</a> that feeding young tiger mosquitoes sugar solutions caused a physiological response similar to that after feeding on blood. Importantly, it then delayed their search for the red velvet blood of a human host.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277677/original/file-20190603-69071-10ut0oi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277677/original/file-20190603-69071-10ut0oi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277677/original/file-20190603-69071-10ut0oi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277677/original/file-20190603-69071-10ut0oi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277677/original/file-20190603-69071-10ut0oi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277677/original/file-20190603-69071-10ut0oi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277677/original/file-20190603-69071-10ut0oi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Making mosquito eggs is thirsty work.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/close-dried-mosquito-eggs-hatch-isolated-135540473?src=PC3YTZKEq_UwaG86Udmi1Q-1-31">7th Son Studio/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Interestingly, the researchers found that feeding on sugar caused levels of a protein called vitellogenin to rise in the mosquitoes. Vitellogenin is an important component in the production of the egg yolk that provides nutrients to unborn mosquito offspring. Normally, vitellogenin is produced when receptors detect specific nutrients that mosquitoes gather from blood meals.</p>
<p>Using gene interference experiments, researchers were able to identify a specific gene associated with vitellogenin that when knocked out, restored the mosquitoes’ attraction to humans. This is exciting, as it highlights potential for this gene to be targeted as a way of reducing host seeking behaviour, and in turn, the transmission of deadly diseases that affect millions.</p>
<h2>Work still to do</h2>
<p>This research is a significant breakthrough in understanding the physiological mechanisms that influence mosquito feeding behaviour. However, there is still a great deal of work left to do. As the authors themselves are aware of, feeding sugar to mosquitoes cannot alone be used as a control method in the real world.</p>
<p>There are many reasons for this, but the most important is that the effects of sugar on mosquito behaviour can vary significantly, even within just this one species. For example, while the reduction in human attraction held true for young adult mosquitoes, when older females were fed sugar they remained highly attracted to humans, and displayed increased nutrient reserves. This is not a desirable outcome. Physical condition, how well the mosquito fed as larva, whether it has mated, and whether it has previously laid eggs may also influence the effect of sugar on <a href="https://academic.oup.com/jme/article-abstract/33/4/608/2221578">feeding behaviour</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277675/original/file-20190603-69055-p0vn98.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277675/original/file-20190603-69055-p0vn98.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277675/original/file-20190603-69055-p0vn98.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277675/original/file-20190603-69055-p0vn98.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277675/original/file-20190603-69055-p0vn98.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277675/original/file-20190603-69055-p0vn98.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277675/original/file-20190603-69055-p0vn98.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Feeding the Anopheles mosquito sugar isn’t a good idea.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/mosquito-feeding-anopheles-gambiae-transmits-malaria-242818555?src=hdgjv1lZNiAvbTslnN-gFQ-1-52">Everett Historical/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Things get even more complex when other mosquito species are taken into account. For example, high vitellogenin levels <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000434">weaken</a> the immune system of the African malarial mosquito (<em>Anopheles gambiae</em>), thereby making it more likely to contract and pass on malaria. Raised vitellogenin is therefore clearly not always a good thing.</p>
<p>Leaving sugar out for mosquitoes may put off younger mosquitoes from biting you, but it will make older mosquitoes stronger, and could weaken the defences of other mosquito species. We may, however, be able to genetically modify or treat tiger mosquitoes with <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/105/50/19631.short">hormones</a> that raise vitellogenin levels in the absence of sugar, eliminating this trade off. Given that in most cases mosquitoes pick up disease pathogens during their first meal, such control methods could substantially delay the first blood meal of mosquitos, making them infectious for a shorter period of time.</p>
<p>Of course, at this early stage it is difficult to estimate how effective control measures that alter vitellogenin might be. Importantly, there is still a long way to go before any single answer will be created for mosquitoes, so continue to follow the best <a href="https://www.bug-off.org/">current advice</a> when travelling.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118029/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Halfpenny does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Mosquitoes love sugar – so much so that can delay their search for our blood. Now, their sweet tooth may have revealed an important genetic weapon against the spread of mosquito-borne disease.Richard Halfpenny, Lecturer in Biological Sciences, Staffordshire UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1122562019-04-18T09:44:59Z2019-04-18T09:44:59ZThe quest to save the banana from extinction<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/269559/original/file-20190416-147522-9uqn1q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Cavendish bananas may not be around for much longer.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Steve Hopson/wikipedia</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Panama disease, an infection that ravages banana plants, has been sweeping across Asia, <a href="https://reachout.aciar.gov.au/stopping-panama-diseasethe-fight-to-save-australias-bananas">Australia</a>, the <a href="https://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/10.1094/PDIS-12-14-1356-PDN">Middle East</a> and <a href="https://www.ippc.int/en/countries/mozambique/pestreports/2013/09/new-banana-disease-found-in-mozambique-fusarium-oxysporum-fspcubense-tropical-race-4/">Africa</a>. The impact has been devastating. In the Philippines alone, losses have totalled <a href="https://fusariumwilt.org/index.php/en/about-fusarium-wilt/">US$400m</a>. And the disease threatens not only the livelihoods of everyone in this <a href="https://qz.com/164029/tropical-race-4-global-banana-industry-is-killing-the-worlds-favorite-fruit/">US$44 billion industry</a> but also the 400m people in developing countries who depend on bananas for a substantial proportion of their calorie intake.</p>
<p>However, there may be hope. In an attempt to save the banana and the industry that produces it, scientists are in a race to create a new plant resistant to Panama disease. But perhaps this crisis is a warning that we are growing our food in an unsustainable way and we will need to look to more radical changes for a permanent solution.</p>
<p>To understand how we got here, we need to take a look back at the history of the banana, and in particular the middle of the last century, when a crisis that had been growing for decades was threatening to bring down whole economies and leave thousands destitute. The banana was dying out. </p>
<p>A condition known as Fusarium wilt or Panama disease was wiping out whole plantations in the world’s major banana-producing countries of Latin America. It threatened an industry so important to this part of the world that some states had became known as <a href="https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2013/11/21/where-did-banana-republics-get-their-name">banana republics</a> because they were virtually governed by the corporations that produced the crop.</p>
<p>Because bananas of the same type are virtually genetically identical, if one plant becomes infected, all of the other trees in a plantation are <a href="https://qz.com/164029/tropical-race-4-global-banana-industry-is-killing-the-worlds-favorite-fruit/">also susceptible</a>. This meant it was only too easy for Panama disease to sweep through huge expanses of vulnerable host plants. In many areas, all of the trees were killed.</p>
<p>Without a cure or treatment, there was no way back for a plantation once the disease had taken hold. <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2652224.pdf">For a while</a>, the banana companies carved new plantations from untouched rainforests. But this act of environmental vandalism only postponed the inevitable. Soon these areas, too, became contaminated and cultivation became unsustainable. Estimates vary, but losses due to the Panama <a href="https://fusariumwilt.org/index.php/en/about-fusarium-wilt/">disease epidemic may have reached US$2.3 billion</a>, equivalent to about US$18.2 billion today.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/269551/original/file-20190416-147480-ybxkal.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/269551/original/file-20190416-147480-ybxkal.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269551/original/file-20190416-147480-ybxkal.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269551/original/file-20190416-147480-ybxkal.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269551/original/file-20190416-147480-ybxkal.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269551/original/file-20190416-147480-ybxkal.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269551/original/file-20190416-147480-ybxkal.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gros Michel bananas.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Approximately_30_Gros_Michel_Bananas.jpg">wikipedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Luckily, the banana companies realised that another variety of banana known as the “Cavendish”, unlike the “Gros Michel” type grown in Latin America at the time, was <a href="http://biotreks.org/e201808/">almost completely resistant to Panama disease</a>. From the 1950s, plantations of Gros Michel (or “Big Mike”) were systematically cleared and <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2017/12/27/banana-fungus-panama-disease/#.XGxO6qL7Tcs">replaced with Cavendish trees</a>.</p>
<p>The Cavendish had rescued the industry, and for five decades it spread further around the world. Today, <a href="https://qz.com/164029/tropical-race-4-global-banana-industry-is-killing-the-worlds-favorite-fruit/">99% of exported bananas</a> and <a href="http://www.fao.org/3/y5102e/y5102e04.htm">nearly half of total production worldwide</a> is of the Cavendish variety. But this strength has now become the banana industry’s greatest vulnerability. Panama disease has returned, and this time the Cavendish is no longer resistant.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/269540/original/file-20190416-147502-1epb2ax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/269540/original/file-20190416-147502-1epb2ax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=897&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269540/original/file-20190416-147502-1epb2ax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=897&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269540/original/file-20190416-147502-1epb2ax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=897&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269540/original/file-20190416-147502-1epb2ax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1128&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269540/original/file-20190416-147502-1epb2ax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1128&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269540/original/file-20190416-147502-1epb2ax.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1128&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Panama disease.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">wikipedia</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As the new strain sweeps across the world, it can only be a matter of time before this scourge returns to the huge plantations of the Caribbean and Central America. However, lessons about how to solve this latest crisis may lie in the last outbreak of Panama disease, where an answer came via an unlikely source. Not the jungles of South-East Asia, where bananas are native, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4652896/pdf/ppat.1005197.pdf">but via Chatsworth House in Derbyshire</a>, former home of the politician and keen horticulturist William Cavendish, the Sixth Duke of Devonshire.</p>
<h2>The duke and the gardener</h2>
<p>In 1826, Cavendish employed a young and enthusiastic farmer’s son as his head gardener. <a href="https://www.chatsworth.org/art-archives/devonshire-collection/archives/letters-from-joseph-paxton/">This was Joseph Paxton</a>, who went on use the expertise he developed constructing experimental greenhouses at Chatsworth in designing the famed Crystal Palace in London.</p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/269543/original/file-20190416-147505-khek1c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/269543/original/file-20190416-147505-khek1c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=606&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269543/original/file-20190416-147505-khek1c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=606&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269543/original/file-20190416-147505-khek1c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=606&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269543/original/file-20190416-147505-khek1c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=761&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269543/original/file-20190416-147505-khek1c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=761&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269543/original/file-20190416-147505-khek1c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=761&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Joseph Paxton.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">National Portrait Gallery/wikipedia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Among the exotic specimens Paxton gathered for the duke was a short banana plant he purchased for £10 from the Dorking collection of the late brewer Robert Barclay, who in turn had received it from the botanical garden in <a href="http://www.mauritiusmag.com/?p=243">Pamplemousses on Mauritius</a>. Paxton propagated and tended the plant for three years until it eventually produced fruit for Lord Cavendish and his guests to enjoy.</p>
<p>Paxton’s success with the plant, which he named <em>Musa Cavendishii</em> <a href="http://researchingfoodhistory.blogspot.com/2018/08/cavendish-bananas-duke-of-devonshire.html">after his patron</a>, won him the Silver Medal at the 1835 Royal Horticultural Society show. Following this fame, the nurserymen who had sold off Barclay’s collection tried to claim that the invoice for the plant should have been <a href="https://tenerifeweekly.com/2022/10/14/the-story-of-the-cavendish-banana/">for £100</a> instead of £10. Paxton did not pay the difference.</p>
<p>Then began the spread of the Cavendish around the world. Bananas have a long history of migration. <a href="https://theconversation.com/prehistoric-people-started-to-spread-domesticated-bananas-across-the-world-6-000-years-ago-99547">Archaeological evidence</a> suggests they were first cultivated in South-East Asia and New Guinea at least 6,800 years ago, and had spread to Sri Lanka by 6,000 years ago and Uganda by 5,250 years ago. After Europeans began crossing the Atlantic at the end of the 15th century, the banana <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SqVqBgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT5&dq=history+banana+cultivation+america&ots=_Sxc1_ka6o&sig=8fcXId5soncT_1_AbSzg4lho4jA#v=onepage&q=history%2520banana%2520cultivation%2520america&f=false">quickly followed</a>, spreading across the Caribbean and tropical parts of the Americas. </p>
<p>But the 18th century Age of Enlightenment started an important new phase of propagation of varieties of banana collected on the scientific voyages <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/30071281?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_con">of the era</a> by amateur and professional botanists and gardeners. Many initially reached new territories because they were shared between enthusiasts who planted them in botanical or private gardens, just as Paxton did.</p>
<p>He and and his successors continued the trend, giving many specimens from Chatsworth to collectors and philanthropists and helping distribute the Cavendish banana around the world. They made their way to the Canary Islands, where they later came to be grown for export, probably via the gardens of a Scottish stately home and a wine merchant <a href="http://www.tenerifenews.com/2019/01/the-birth-and-distribution-of-the-cavendish-banana/">who immigrated to Tenerife</a>. Specimens also reached Jamaica, where they were planted in Bath Gardens in <a href="https://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/pdf/10.1094/PDIS.1998.82.9.964">St Thomas in 1884</a>.</p>
<p>John Williams, a missionary to the Pacific Islands <a href="https://bananaroots.wordpress.com/2016/04/11/back-to-the-roots-part-ii-the-roots-of-the-cavendish-banana-in-england/">was given Cavendish plants</a> to provide food in the areas of his ministry. These specimens were initially established in Samoa in 1838, and from there the plant spread to Tonga, Fiji, Tahiti, Hawaii and Australia, as well as the original home of the banana, New Guinea. Williams did not see this himself <a href="http://discerninghistory.com/2017/05/john-williams-the-martyr-missionary-of-polynesia/">as he was eaten</a> in the New Hebrides in 1839 by islanders who were presumably unenthusiastic about his message. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/269544/original/file-20190416-147518-ny8x8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/269544/original/file-20190416-147518-ny8x8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269544/original/file-20190416-147518-ny8x8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269544/original/file-20190416-147518-ny8x8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=405&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269544/original/file-20190416-147518-ny8x8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269544/original/file-20190416-147518-ny8x8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269544/original/file-20190416-147518-ny8x8n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Massacre of John Williams.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">National Library of New Zealand</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Meanwhile, the <a href="https://www.revolvy.com/page/Gros-Michel-banana">Gros Michel variety</a> was taken from Myanmar to the St Pierre botanical garden in Martinique in the early 19th century by the French cartographer and privateer Nicolas Baudin. From there it was taken to Jamaica in 1835 by the botanist Jean François Pouyat. And the plants used to establish the banana export industry in the early 20th century probably came from these specimens.</p>
<h2>Fortunate malfunctions</h2>
<p>What’s surprising about the distribution of these banana plants to every part of the world hot enough for them to grow is that they’re sterile. <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2018/01/04/yes-we-have-no-bananas/#7df8915d1e83">Wild bananas are filled with large hard seeds</a>, which makes them hard to eat. Modern bananas can’t even grow seeds. But far from hindering their spread, this genetic quirk is what has made bananas such a desirable crop. And what has left them so vulnerable.</p>
<p>Modern banana and plantain plants are what is <a href="https://www.le.ac.uk/bl/phh4/openpubs/bananacytogenetics.htm">known as “triploid”</a>, meaning they have three copies of each of the chromosomes that carry their genes. As such, they cannot reproduce sexually because their chromosomes cannot be equally divided to create a sex cell, as happens in <a href="https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/meiosis-genetic-recombination-and-sexual-reproduction-210">“diploid” organisms</a> that have two copies of each chromosome (such as humans, most animals and many plants).</p>
<p>Triploids like this can arise when there is a malfunction in the process of forming sex cells in diploid organisms. Occasionally cells are produced that have two copies of each chromosome instead of one. When these fuse with a normal sex cell, the new plant has two chromosomes from one parent and <a href="http://www.saps.org.uk/saps-associates/browse-q-and-a/322-from-which-part-of-the-flower-do-seedless-fruits-develop">one from the other</a>, preventing it from making viable sex cells of its own. In the banana’s case, the plant still produces fruit but can’t make seeds.</p>
<p>On the surface this may appear to be a problem, but plants are not completely dependent on sexual reproduction. As any gardener knows, new plants can be started <a href="https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/garden-how-to/projects/rooting-plant-cuttings.htm">from cuttings</a>, and new banana trees are usually produced from an existing plant by replanting root stalks, known as rhizomes, or shoots called suckers that <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/opag.2018.3.issue-1/opag-2018-0014/opag-2018-0014.pdf">grow out of them</a>.</p>
<p>The prehistoric peoples who domesticated bananas and plantains cannot have known anything about chromosome numbers. But almost all of the many varieties that they grew are triploid. So they must have learned to look out for these fortunate accidents and <a href="https://www.cirad.fr/en/our-research/research-results/2009/understanding-banana-domestication-a-crucial-step-towards-improvement">cultivate them</a>, preferring them to their wild and seedy relations.</p>
<p>This has important consequences, both good and bad. Plants from cuttings are clones of one another and, give or take the odd mutation, are genetically identical. This <a href="https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/1662-vegetative-plant-propagation">removes variety and chance</a> from the equation. Obviously we only plant copies of trees that are vigorous and produce fruit that we like, and all of the new trees will be pretty much the same as the one we took cuttings from.</p>
<p>This is great for production on an industrial scale because the fruit are consistent and if you harvest and treat them in the same way, they will all be ripe and ready to eat at <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensavage/2018/01/04/yes-we-have-no-bananas/#6b687d261e83">the same time</a>. Unfortunately it is also great for any disease that infects them because if it gets a foothold in one tree, those nearby will <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4652896/pdf/ppat.1005197.pdf">also be vulnerable</a>, as will their neighbours, and it can spread through the whole plantation. Which is exactly what is happening now.</p>
<h2>Panama returns</h2>
<p>The earliest known discovery of Panama disease was actually <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1071/APP9950038">in Australia</a> in 1874. First the leaves of the banana trees stopped growing. Then they started to curl and wilt. Eventually the trees dried out completely and died. In 1890, the disease was found in its namesake country and over the next 30 years spread to most Caribbean and Central American countries.</p>
<p>It took a while to identify the cause, but in 1910, it was <a href="https://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Pages/PanamaDiseasePart1.aspx">found to be</a> the wilt fungus <em>Fusarium oxysporum cubense</em> or “Foc” for short. The plants died because the channels that carry water and minerals from the roots to the leaves became blocked. It was initially thought that these conduits became clogged by the fungus but we now know that the <a href="http://archive.bio.ed.ac.uk/jdeacon/microbes/panama.htm">plant itself plugs them</a>, presumably in a vain attempt to stop the fungus spreading.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/269548/original/file-20190416-147508-164kddr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/269548/original/file-20190416-147508-164kddr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269548/original/file-20190416-147508-164kddr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269548/original/file-20190416-147508-164kddr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269548/original/file-20190416-147508-164kddr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269548/original/file-20190416-147508-164kddr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269548/original/file-20190416-147508-164kddr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Stem of banana tree with panama disease.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.padil.gov.au/pests-and-diseases/pest/main/136609/3695">wikipedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We also now know that Foc is spread by <a href="http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/banana/documents/Docs_Resources_2015/TR4/Panama-disease-FS.pdf">contaminated soil</a>. A minute amount of tainted soil can carry the disease to a new plantation where <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2018.01468/full">it remains infectious for decades</a>, immune to any chemical treatments. This was the situation facing the banana industry in the 1950s, when Gros Michel plantations around the world were being overwhelmed.</p>
<p>Cavendish bananas require more protection than Gros Michel, and were thought of as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/opinion/18koeppel.html">small and flavourless</a> in comparison. But given the Cavendish’s apparent immunity to Foc, and otherwise facing total collapse, the industry had no alternative but to switch. </p>
<p>For a while, it looked as if the banana had been saved. Then, in the late 1960s, another outbreak of Panama disease was discovered in Taiwan, this time in a plantation of Cavendish plants. By the early 2000s, only <a href="http://www.promusa.org/Fusarium+wilt#footnote5">6,000 hectares</a> of banana plantations out of a former 50,000 hectares in Taiwan remained.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/269552/original/file-20190416-147511-1chrfa7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/269552/original/file-20190416-147511-1chrfa7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=562&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269552/original/file-20190416-147511-1chrfa7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=562&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269552/original/file-20190416-147511-1chrfa7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=562&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269552/original/file-20190416-147511-1chrfa7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=706&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269552/original/file-20190416-147511-1chrfa7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=706&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269552/original/file-20190416-147511-1chrfa7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=706&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fusarium oxysporum.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Keith Weller, USDA-ARS/wikipedia</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This puzzling development was down to the fact that, just as there are different varieties of bananas, there are different types of Foc. The Gros Michel trees were infected by what is known as <a href="https://www.sun.ac.za/english/faculty/agri/plant-pathology/ac4tr4/background/brief-history-of-banana-fusarium-wilt">“Race 1”</a>. The strain of fungus that appeared in Taiwain is known as <a href="http://www.promusa.org/Tropical+race+4+-+TR4">“Tropical Race 4” or TR4</a>. It can infect not just Gros Michel, but also Cavendish bananas and as many as <a href="http://www.promusa.org/Tropical+race+4+-+TR4#Host_range">80% of the varieties</a> in cultivation. (Although this assumes that plantains are also susceptible and so far there is little conclusive evidence either way.) So now the industry is once again facing disaster, what can be done to save it this time?</p>
<h2>A genetic solution?</h2>
<p>The simplest response <a href="https://www.cirad.fr/en/news/all-news-items/press-releases/2014/panama-disease">is quarantine</a>. Panama disease was so devastating in the 20th century because effective measures to control its spread came too late. It is also possible that the first TR4 outbreak in Taiwan could have been nipped in the bud if the magnitude of the problem had been <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4652896/pdf/ppat.1005197.pdf">recognised earlier</a>. But it seems that the innate resistance of Cavendish plants to Race 1 encouraged complacency until the epidemic was out of control.</p>
<p>Can we stop the spread by preventing infected plant material and soil reaching new areas? Unfortunately, it’s <a href="https://www.sun.ac.za/english/faculty/agri/plant-pathology/ac4tr4/background/management-of-banana-fusarium-wilt">not necessarily that easy</a>. Foc can lurk in minute patches of mud on a wheel or shoe. People, machinery and everything else coming into a plantation have to be <a href="https://publications.qld.gov.au/dataset/panama-disease-tropical-race-4-grower-kit">stringently controlled</a>. Imagine operating what is essentially a farm with all non-essential people and vehicles excluded and with changing and decontamination zones for those you have to let in. </p>
<p>It worked for a while in Australia, which has very strict rules to prevent foreign soil entering the country, but even there the defences were <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/01/10/we-have-no-bananas">breached in 2015</a>. There are always slip ups, and people who ignore the rules. In many areas there are unprotected banana plants growing wild or in villages and if these become infected they can act as bridges for the disease to cross from one plantation to the next. Quarantine may slow the march of TR4, but in the long term we really need a banana that is resistant to the fungus.</p>
<p>Here, the triploid nature of the banana presents an unwanted complication. Historically, new crop varieties were bred by crossing plants with desired characteristics until they were combined in a single new variety. For example, cross breeding a plant that produces a good yield for farmers with another that was disease resistant. But crossing domesticated bananas doesn’t produce any seed and so this is not usually an option.</p>
<p>However, genetic modification offers other ways to move properties between plants (and other organisms). In principle this could offer a solution and there are already some promising results. Researchers in Australia have found that adding two different genes to the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-01670-6">genetic code of Cavendish bananas</a> protects the plants from TR4. The first was taken from a wild banana resistant to TR4 and is one of a large family of genes that recognise invading diseases so that the plants can protect themselves.</p>
<p>The second comes from a more unlikely source: <a href="http://www.musalit.org/seeMore.php?id=13105">nematode worms</a>. There are occasions when <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2117903/">organisms need some cells to sacrifice themselves</a>. A dramatic example is when a tree sheds its leaves for winter but it happens in our own development too. In the womb, your fingers are formed from flipper like appendages <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10048/">when the cells that separate them die off</a>. The nematode gene is one that blocks this process.</p>
<p>This seems a strange way to protect the plant but it might be effective against TR4 in bananas because, as we saw earlier, the invading fungus may actually <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1003542">hijack this process</a>, using chemical messages to programme the banana cells to self destruct. The nematode gene may work by <a href="https://eprints.qut.edu.au/47028/9/Paul_et_al-2011-Plant_Biotechnology_Journal-1.pdf">blocking these signals</a>.</p>
<p>Using these methods, we could carry on eating the bananas that we are used to or even see if the same would work to help bring back the tastier Gros Michel. But these resistant Cavendish bananas are now GM crops. People in many countries have <a href="https://www.sentienceinstitute.org/gm-foods">become used to eating GM food</a>, but not so in Europe, which has the most stringent GM regulations in the world. Perhaps European regulators could be persuaded to make an exception if it was a case of GM bananas or none at all. But we might need to look for another solution.</p>
<h2>Chromosome maths</h2>
<p>One alternative could be to make new triploid seedless plants from scratch. Picking out the occasional tree that produced seedless fruit must have been a slow process when bananas were first domesticated. But now that we understand the process, we can make our own triploid plants <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%252Fs00425-015-2450-x">much more easily</a>. </p>
<p>This is usually done using plants with four copies of each type of chromosome called tetraploids. These often grow faster and produce sturdier plants that can withstand stress better than their diploid relations (many of our crops have expanded chromosome numbers). But they are especially useful in plant breeding because they <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00425-015-2450-x">produce sex cells</a> with two copies of each chromosome. This allows the creation of otherwise impossible infertile hybrids.</p>
<p>When you cross a tetraploid (with two copies of every chromosome in each sex cell) with a normal diploid plant (with only one copy of each chromosome per sex cell) you get a triploid. A triploid plant can’t produce its own sex cells. So if it is a banana, its fruit will be seedless.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/269558/original/file-20190416-147522-1muee70.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/269558/original/file-20190416-147522-1muee70.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269558/original/file-20190416-147522-1muee70.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269558/original/file-20190416-147522-1muee70.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269558/original/file-20190416-147522-1muee70.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269558/original/file-20190416-147522-1muee70.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/269558/original/file-20190416-147522-1muee70.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Banana plantations in Tenerife.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">oatsy40/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The same result can be achieved by taking an infertile cross between species, the plant equivalent of a mule, and exposing it to chemicals that cause it to double its chromosomes and become tetraploid. A hardy hybrid of wheat and rye called triticale was <a href="https://hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/triticale.html">made in this way</a>. </p>
<p>Some breeding programmes have made tetraploid plants by crossing <a href="http://www.promusa.org/blogpost363-Who-s-breeding-bananas">triploid and diploid varieties</a>, but this depends on infrequent genetic events and so it takes time and effort. A quicker way is to force chromosomes to double using a <a href="https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/77131655.pdf">chemical called colchicine</a>.</p>
<p>From these approaches we now have a number of tetraploid synthetic banana hybrids and some have proved to be <a href="http://www.promusa.org/FHIA-01#footnote2">resistant to TR4</a>. These plants are not very useful commercially because they are fertile so produce seed-filled bananas. But they can be crossed with one another to bring together useful traits, and then with ordinary diploid trees to make a new generation of triploid seedless bananas. This approach has also created some new hybrids with <a href="https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/pg_from_tb323_panama.pdf">resistance to TR4</a>, but none so far with the flavour and consistency that we want in a replacement for Cavendish.</p>
<p>A slightly more radical approach is to try to evolve plants resistant to TR4. Cavendish plants are clones but their genetic code can become slightly different over time because of mutations and changes in the way their DNA is read. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.bananalink.org.uk/tr4-resistant-banana-shows-promise-philippines">One group in Taiwan</a> has been exposing Cavendish banana seedlings to soil contaminated with TR4 and looking for those that survive a little bit better than the others. They pick these out and use them for their next trial. Only two or three plants of every 10,000 show promise but after many iterations they now have a Cavendish line with some ability <a href="http://www.promusa.org/GCTCV-119">to withstand TR4</a>.</p>
<p>However, none of these potential solutions deal with the fact that farming huge plantations of cloned trees is an <a href="https://qz.com/164029/tropical-race-4-global-banana-industry-is-killing-the-worlds-favorite-fruit/">intrinsically unstable</a> way of doing things. They may offer economies of scale, keeping prices down and offering consistent tasty fruit. But, even with a solution to TR4, how long will it be <a href="https://www.apsnet.org/publications/apsnetfeatures/Documents/2005/PanamaDisease2.pdf">before the next disease</a> takes hold?</p>
<p>Perhaps we should be using more varieties of bananas and <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2018.01468/full">growing them alongside</a> other crops or in alternation with them. That way, an infection won’t find such huge swathes of susceptible hosts close together, as can happen now.</p>
<p>There is also evidence that some other crops can protect bananas against TR4. <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491907/">One study</a> found that bananas planted in TR4-contaminated soils largely escaped infection after being grown in the same fields as Chinese leeks for three years. This seems to be because Chinese leeks release chemicals that kill fungi. <a href="https://www.actahort.org/books/828/828_19.htm">Cassava also clears fields of TR4</a>, perhaps because of antifungal substances <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19004461">produced by the cassava itself</a> and by <a href="https://scialert.net/fulltext/?doi=ajft.2007.446.451">microorganisms associated with its roots</a>.</p>
<p>The Cavendish banana may have had a remarkable journey from colonial curiosity to global staple. But its success has helped create a food system with a fatal flaw (though this problem of monoculture farming is <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/2116/chapter/5">hardly unique to bananas</a>). Perhaps we ultimately need to be prepared to accept less standardised and slightly more expensive food in order to accommodate less intense and more diverse agriculture. You might never be quite sure what to expect when you peeled a banana, but the result could be a more robust and sustainable food system without a major crisis every few decades.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/112256/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stuart Thompson has received funding from MAFF and the Nuffield Foundation and has consulted to the University of Copenhagen.</span></em></p>Scientists are in a race to genetically engineer a new plant resistant to a devastating disease that is threatening to wipe out the banana.Stuart Thompson, Senior Lecturer in Plant Biochemistry, University of WestminsterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1071932018-11-22T13:25:20Z2018-11-22T13:25:20ZFight against malaria needs combination of innovative science and communities<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/246219/original/file-20181119-76140-w3rflg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bed nets treated with insecticide have been effective in fighting malaria in Africa.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Current strategies to prevent malaria using bed nets and insecticides protect millions of people from malaria-transmitting mosquitoes. Last year <a href="http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/275867/9789241565653-eng.pdf?ua=1">175 million bed nets</a> treated with insecticide were delivered across sub-Saharan Africa. Between 2000 and 2015 bed nets are estimated to have prevented an estimated <a href="https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/post/2015/12/bednets-have-prevented-450-million-cases-of-malaria/">450 million malaria cases</a>. </p>
<p>But these measures offer only limited protection. According to the latest <a href="http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/world-malaria-report-2018/en/">World Malaria Report</a>, 44% of people in African countries with high malaria rates don’t have access to bed nets and insecticides. Even when they are available, they’re not failsafe. For example, the use of bed nets has been linked to an increase in mosquitoes <a href="https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/articles/2-22/v3">biting outdoors</a>, and they can also develop <a href="http://www.who.int/malaria/areas/vector_control/insecticide_resistance/en/">resistance</a> to the insecticide.</p>
<p>Worldwide there were <a href="http://www.who.int/malaria/publications/world-malaria-report-2018/en/">435,000 deaths last year</a> from malaria. Over 90% were in Africa. This means that scientists need to redouble efforts to develop new, complementary measures to eliminate the disease.</p>
<p>One promising solution includes <a href="https://targetmalaria.org/our-work/">reducing the population of malaria mosquitoes</a> through genetic modification to help reach the target of ending transmission. </p>
<p><a href="https://targetmalaria.org/">Target Malaria</a>, a research consortium working across the USA, Europe and Africa, is in the early stages of developing a genetically modified mosquito that can either produce only male offspring or reduce female fertility in subsequent generations.</p>
<p>Where I work in Mali, we are currently studying local mosquito populations to help inform work on genetic modification. </p>
<p>Though the scientific research often gets the limelight, the process also involves working side by side with local communities from the very beginning. This engagement helps us get not only the communities’ feedback but also their active participation.</p>
<h2>Genetic modification</h2>
<p>Our work in Mali involves trying to understand the mosquito species that are responsible for malaria transmission and to gather as much baseline data as possible on the local malaria mosquitoes. These data include: abundance, biting and resting behaviour, migration, effective population size. This is a crucial first step that will be the basis for further work in our country.</p>
<p>Genetic modification could be achieved in one of two ways. </p>
<p>The first is to bias the sex ratio so future offspring would be all males. This is done by fragmenting the X chromosome in the males so they only pass on a Y chromosome. As a result, their offspring is male (XY), as a female would need to inherit an X from each parent (XX). </p>
<p>The second way is to reduce female fertility. This is achieved by targeting the gene responsible for fertility in females. A female that has one copy of this fertility gene disrupted will be able to reproduce normally, but when both copies within her chromosomes are disrupted, the female cannot produce viable offspring, reducing the <a href="https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/188291/mosquitoes-that-carry-malaria-eliminated-experiments/">mosquito population</a>. </p>
<p>But as the science to make <a href="https://genedrivenetwork.org/">this possible</a> gets closer, we must ensure that the public debate around such a novel and potentially transformative technology also keeps up.</p>
<p>This means not only exploring what we can do in a laboratory, but exploring and understanding what is acceptable to the communities most affected by such innovations. We need to ensure that any new malaria control method fully meets their needs.</p>
<h2>Involving communities</h2>
<p>In Mali, where Target Malaria has been working since 2012, there is an ongoing dialogue at national, regional and community levels.</p>
<p>Our teams visit the communities around our in-sectary where insects are kept and studied, as well as field sites nearly every week and community members visit our laboratories. We also get permission from individual households to collect mosquitoes from homes or compounds. And we ask communities before we catch mosquitoes in swarms.</p>
<p>But engagement is not just about information and acceptance, it’s also about collaboration. Our “relay” staff, who live in the communities, can provide information even when we are not there. </p>
<p>On top of this we respect the decision-making processes of each individual village regardless of how different the processes can be.</p>
<p>We will continue following this way of doing things for each subsequent phase of our work. </p>
<p>The reason for such extensive and transparent engagement is clear. </p>
<p>As researchers, our role is not only to determine whether the genetic alteration of mosquitoes to stop malaria is scientifically possible. It is also to ensure that this can be done ethically and responsibly to meet the needs of the affected population. We can only do this by involving them.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/107193/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mamadou Coulibaly does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The fight against malaria needs scientific innovation. But community buy-in is just as important.Mamadou Coulibaly, Head, Malaria Research and Training Center, Université des sciences, des techniques et des technologies de BamakoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1021902018-09-06T01:24:21Z2018-09-06T01:24:21ZA fresh opportunity to get regulation and engagement right – the case of synthetic biology<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/235114/original/file-20180905-45181-1up02hb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Synthetic biology has the potential to change how we do agriculture – but will the public accept it? </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/home">from www.shutterstock.com </a></span></figcaption></figure><p>From cells that manufacture chemicals, to better crops, environmental monitoring and tailored medicine, synthetic biology presents many opportunities for Australia. </p>
<p>Released this week, the <a href="https://acola.org.au/wp/sbio/">Synthetic Biology – An Outlook to 2030</a> report by the Australian Council of Learned Academies (<a href="https://acola.org.au/wp/">ACOLA</a>) describes this promise, and appeals to scientists to conduct public consultation and engagement about synthetic biology. </p>
<p>But we are concerned that without the right regulation and engagement, we risk letting the promise of synthetic biology slip through our fingers. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-synthetic-biology-revolution-is-now-heres-what-that-means-102399">The synthetic biology revolution is now – here's what that means</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Synthetic biology involves the application of engineering principles to biology. It allows living systems to be designed and built at the level of DNA. </p>
<p>As the report details, there have been limited studies on public awareness of and attitudes to synthetic biology, and what social values people may associate with it (such as feeling positive about the economic and medical promise, or seeing it as “tinkering” with nature, and something to be feared). </p>
<p>Without addressing this issue, Australia might be at risk of putting substantial resources behind technologies that create products nobody wants – or that some people actively reject (such as has occurred for some types of <a href="https://theconversation.com/perceptions-of-genetically-modified-food-are-informed-by-more-than-just-science-72865">genetic modification research</a>). Conversely, without knowing more about the social values in this context, we may not prioritise areas where synthetic technologies are most needed, and most likely to be accepted. </p>
<p>We strongly agree with the <a href="https://acola.org.au/wp/sbio/">synthetic biology report</a> that mistakes associated with past efforts at public engagement about genetic modification should be actively avoided.</p>
<p>The public should be involved in true deliberation over our shared futures for 2030 and beyond, and what synthetic biology might contribute.</p>
<h2>What people think of synthetic biology</h2>
<p>Data from 2017 <a href="http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/327437B632158967CA257D70008360B1/$File/FINAL%20Report%20-%202017%20Community%20Attitudes%20to%20Gene%20Technology%20261017.pdf">demonstrate</a> the general public has low awareness of the term “synthetic biology”. But once it is defined, 62% of people have positive attitudes about its potential to improve our lives. </p>
<p>More <a href="https://science.gov.au/community/Documents/REPORT-SCAPA172001-CPAS-poll-2018.pdf">recent research</a> indicates that a majority of Australians (88%) view science as having made life easier. But many of us have clear concerns about the use of animals for research and genetic modification. </p>
<p>Based on these studies, we anticipate that people will hold diverse perspectives and values in relation to synthetic biology, particularly about different types of applications. This has implications across scientific disciplines. </p>
<p>If synthetic biological approaches in health are seen to be good, but those in agriculture worrisome, for example, how will Australia generate a consistent response to these types of technologies? </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/perceptions-of-genetically-modified-food-are-informed-by-more-than-just-science-72865">Perceptions of genetically modified food are informed by more than just science</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Small sector can present benefits</h2>
<p>Australia hosts considerable <a href="https://www.ausbiotech.org/biotechnology-industry/fast-facts">biological and technological expertise</a> relevant to synthetic biology – but it’s a small sector. Some see this as a disadvantage for innovation, especially with <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05092-2">uncertain funding</a>. </p>
<p>However, from the perspective of regulation, small size can be an advantage. Australian research currently occurs mostly in the public sector (that is, within universities and the CSIRO) rather than in more commercialised settings – as happens in countries such as the United States.</p>
<p>This means that scientists, social scientists and the public can come together to collaboratively shape future research agendas in Australia. They can communicate in a relatively open fashion, without concerns about “commercial in confidence” strictures. </p>
<p>The public nature of research here in Australia allows (or even forces) us to focus on and transparently debate as a society what we want to explore and build using synthetic biology. Such debates can occur at the level of institutional ethical review committees, via grant processes and even through public involvement in policy reviews.</p>
<p>For example, consultation and participation of the general public plus the medical and scientific communities was influential in recommending reforms to Australian laws around the use of <a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about/nhmrc-committees/embryo-research-licensing-committee/human-embryos-and-cloning/review-human-cl">human embryos in research</a>. </p>
<h2>Is existing regulation fit for purpose?</h2>
<p>Synthetic biology is a diverse field, covering the design of viruses, bacteria, human and plant cells, as well as the engineering of cells integrated with technology. </p>
<p>This diversity makes the field different to the more familiar, if heavily contested, terrain of genetic modification. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, existing Australian regulation within the <a href="http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/legislation-2">Gene Technology Act</a> does address many of the concerns likely to arise in synthetic biology.</p>
<p>Where there are gaps, regulations can be <a href="http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/amendment%20proposals-1">refined and detailed to address them</a>, as shown by a consultation process over 2017-18 that recommended amendments to the original act of 2001. </p>
<p>Other agencies such as the Therapuetic Goods Administration (<a href="https://www.tga.gov.au/">TGA</a>) may need to review the <a href="https://www.tga.gov.au/what-tga-regulates">regulatory framework</a> governing medical devices, and how therapeutic products are defined, as the technologies associated with synthetic biology evolve.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/proposed-new-regulations-for-3d-printed-medical-devices-must-go-further-90314">Proposed new regulations for 3D printed medical devices must go further</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It’s also important to acknowledge that capability to work at the level of DNA could create <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jun/19/urgent-need-to-prepare-for-manmade-virus-attacks-says-us-government-report">the potential</a> for development of <a href="http://dels.nas.edu/Report/Biodefense-Synthetic/24890?_ga=2.103388736.1971269799.1536117428-1095652704.1536117428">bioweapons</a> such as more virulent viruses or modified bacteria. These present challenges not only for biosafety but also biosecurity. </p>
<p>Such risks must be proactively addressed as the field evolves by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (<a href="http://www.ogtr.gov.au/">OGTR</a>) and the TGA, together with international players under the auspices of the <a href="https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/related-international-agreements/chemical-warfare-and-chemical-weapons/the-biological-and-toxin-weapons-convention/">Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention</a>.</p>
<p>The activities of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/nov/18/biohackers-strange-world-diy-biology">bio-hackers and others who operate outside of usual research settings</a> present additional challenges for regulation. </p>
<h2>We’re in a good position</h2>
<p>Australia is recognised as having <a href="https://www.ausbiotech.org/biotechnology-industry/fast-facts">efficient pathways and internationally standardised approaches to biotechnology regulation</a>. This puts us in a strong position to devise innovative and effective policy solutions for synthetic biology.</p>
<p>Early regulatory consideration of the likely impacts of emerging approaches in synthetic biology <a href="https://theconversation.com/inventing-life-patent-law-and-synthetic-biology-5178">will be critical</a>, including where existing regulation can be redeployed.</p>
<p>As is typically the case with emerging technologies, there are likely to be high hopes and even hype, along with questions and fears about how these approaches can be used to promote shared social goods. </p>
<p>If we don’t do this well, we risk alienating members of the public. We risk closing doors for scientists pursuing promising research. </p>
<p>Our futures are shared, and so too should be our approaches to synthetic biology.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/102190/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel A. Ankeny receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Joan Leach receives funding from the ARC and Commonwealth government of Australia. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Megan Munsie receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is affiliated with the International Society for Stem Cell Research, Australasian Society for Stem Cell Research and the International Society for Cellular Therapy. </span></em></p>Synthetic biology is highly promising – but if we don’t get the regulation and engagement right, we risk alienating members of the public, and may even close doors for potentially fruitful research.Rachel A. Ankeny, Professor of History and Associate Dean Research (Faculty of Arts), University of AdelaideJoan Leach, Professor, Australian National UniversityMegan Munsie, Deputy Director - Centre for Stem Cell Systems and Head of Engagements, Ethics & Policy Program, Stem Cells Australia, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1006752018-07-27T15:48:57Z2018-07-27T15:48:57ZGM crop ruling shows why the EU’s laws are wholly inadequate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229610/original/file-20180727-106514-1ifkybv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/seeds-shoots-genetically-modified-cereals-petri-600890039?src=DRRMLzrC4E0ZUGNquNVlJQ-1-4">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The European Court of Justice has made an important ruling on genetically modified crops. <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32003R1829">Since 2003</a>, new crop varieties produced by genetic modification have had to be assessed for their risks to the environment and human and animal health before they can be farmed in the European Union. The court <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/documents.jsf?num=C-528/16#">has now decided</a> that genetic modification includes any technique that induces genetic changes “in a way that does not occur naturally”. This includes new genome editing techniques such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-crispr-gene-editing-and-how-does-it-work-84591">CRISPR/Cas9</a>, but also approaches that have been used in plant breeding since the 1960s.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44953100">Some scientists have criticised</a> the court for “shutting the door” on new technologies that could benefit human health and the environment. This is certainly a concern. The ruling will discourage the use of genome editing that could bring significant environmental benefits by making it more expensive for such such crops to clear the necessary regulatory processes. </p>
<p>But the main problem illustrated by this ruling is the deep logical flaw in the whole regulatory approach. Plants that have been bred in more traditional ways, which could have just as serious health or environmental impacts, will continue to be exempt from regulation. Focusing on how a new crop is produced – rather than the new characteristics or agricultural practices it brings – will inevitably result in wholly inadequate protection for the environment and consumers.</p>
<p>Every new crop variety is genetically different from its predecessors. A lot of genetic variation can arise naturally from errors in DNA copying, mutations caused by environmental factors, cross breeding with wild relatives, viruses and many other sources. All this variation is excluded from the EU definition of GM.</p>
<p>To increase genetic diversity and generally speed things up, scientists can <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2016.1270489">induce mutations deliberately</a>. Random mutagenesis – purposefully encouraging genetic mutations, for example with radiation – has been used on crops since the 1960s. It has since become possible to add specific new genes, sourced from the same or different species. And, even more recently, genome editing techniques have been developed that allow scientists to alter selected existing genes. These more recent approaches are becoming ever more useful as we build up our understanding of which genes do what. </p>
<p>All these techniques can be used to introduce new traits into a crop variety, for example to make a plant resistant to herbicides. The new court ruling came about because a group of farming organisations who were worried about the impact of herbicide resistant crops argued they should be regulated regardless of how they were developed.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229613/original/file-20180727-106521-18ig7bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229613/original/file-20180727-106521-18ig7bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229613/original/file-20180727-106521-18ig7bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229613/original/file-20180727-106521-18ig7bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229613/original/file-20180727-106521-18ig7bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229613/original/file-20180727-106521-18ig7bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/229613/original/file-20180727-106521-18ig7bl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gene-edited crops can have the same properties as traditionally bred ones.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/biotechnology-woman-engineer-examining-plant-leaf-552990736?src=DRRMLzrC4E0ZUGNquNVlJQ-1-16">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This seems to me entirely reasonable. There are of plenty of <a href="https://grdc.com.au/resources-and-publications/groundcover/ground-cover-issue-11/herbicide-resistant-crops">arguments and counterarguments</a>
about the risks and benefits of this approach to weed control – and it is important to assess these before introducing a new herbicide resistant crop. None of these arguments have anything to do with how the crop was produced.</p>
<p>Yet the court ruling means that herbicide resistant crops produced through conventional breeding can be used freely, while crops produced using newer approaches must be subjected to intense scrutiny. So the farming groups might be happy that a new generation of herbicide resistant crops will have to be extensively assessed for their environmental and health impacts. But herbicide resistant crops produced by traditional methods, which raise identical concerns, will remain exempt from these regulations.</p>
<h2>Natural’s not in it</h2>
<p>This highlights the central problem with the EU regulations on new crop varieties. Anything that could occur naturally is exempt from scrutiny. Yet drawing a line between the natural and artificial is difficult to say the least. After thousands of years of careful human intervention, most “natural” crops <a href="https://theconversation.com/all-our-food-is-genetically-modified-in-some-way-where-do-you-draw-the-line-56256">look nothing like</a> their wild ancestor. They have many characteristics that mean they would not last more than a few generations if they had to compete in the wild.</p>
<p>One of the reasons we have spent so long breeding them is that many natural plants carry serious risks. Very few people would say to their children: “Go into the woods and eat anything you can find. It’s all natural so it must be good for you.” The distinction between natural and artificial is both contrived and not relevant when it comes to environmental and health impact assessment.</p>
<p>We should assess new crop varieties on the traits they are supposed to deliver, not on how those traits were introduced. The system needs to be proportional and risk-based. This should of course include consideration of the unintended effects of whatever genetic improvement process was used. Instead we spend years debating whether or not a new technique counts as genetic modification or not. That this is even a relevant question lays bare the flaws in our current approach.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100675/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ottoline Leyser receives funding from The Gatsby Charitable Foundation, the European Research Council and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. She works/volunteers/consults for the following organisations: Clare College Cambridge, The Royal Society, Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, European Molecular Biology Organisation, Royal Society of Biology, National Academy of Science, Leopoldina, Umea Plant Science Centre, John Innes Centre, Genetics Society, International Plant Molecular Biology, British Society for Developmental Biology, International Plant Growth Substances Association, Sense About Science, Science and Plants for Schools, Numerous academic Journals, Science Media Centre, Research England, UKRI-BBSRC, Wellcome Trust, The Crick Institute, The Council for Science and Technology, Netherlands Organisation For Scientific Research, The Gatsby Charitable Foundation, The European Research Council.</span></em></p>Genetic modification rules now cover gene edited crops but exclude plants bred traditionally with the same properties.Ottoline Leyser, Director of the Sainsbury Laboratory, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/819252017-08-02T17:00:42Z2017-08-02T17:00:42ZScientists edit human embryos to safely remove disease for the first time – here’s how they did it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180674/original/file-20170802-7559-8seult.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Human eight cell embryo for IVF selection.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">K. Hardy, Wellcome Images </span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Scientists in the US have released a paper showing that they have successfully <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature23305">edited human embryos to correct a mutation</a> that causes an inheritable heart condition. The findings are hugely important as they demonstrate for the first time that the technology may one day be used safely to edit out many devastating diseases. </p>
<p>But how close to curing genetic diseases does the new study actually take us? And how concerned should we be about the ethical implications of the technology?</p>
<p>The genome editing tool used, CRISPR-Cas9, <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-crispr-technology-brings-precise-genetic-editing-and-raises-ethical-questions-39219">has transformed the field of biology</a> in the short time since its discovery in that it not only promises, but delivers. CRISPR has surpassed all previous efforts to engineer cells and alter genomes at a fraction of the time and cost. </p>
<p>The technology, which works like molecular scissors to cut and paste DNA, is a natural defence system that bacteria use to fend off harmful infections. This system has the ability to recognise invading virus DNA, cut it and integrate this cut sequence into its own genome – allowing the bacterium to render itself immune to future infections of viruses with similar DNA. It is this ability to recognise and cut DNA that has allowed scientists to use it to target and edit specific DNA regions. </p>
<p>When this technology is applied to “germ cells” – the sperm and eggs – or embryos, it changes the germline. That means that any alterations made would be permanent and passed down to future generations. This makes it more ethically complex, but there are strict regulations around human germline genome editing, which is predominantly illegal. The UK <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/uk-scientists-gain-licence-to-edit-genes-in-human-embryos-1.19270">received a licence in 2016</a> to carry out CRISPR on human embryos for research into early development. But edited embryos are not allowed to be inserted into the uterus and develop into a fetus in any country.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180714/original/file-20170802-17660-hemzu2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180714/original/file-20170802-17660-hemzu2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180714/original/file-20170802-17660-hemzu2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180714/original/file-20170802-17660-hemzu2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180714/original/file-20170802-17660-hemzu2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180714/original/file-20170802-17660-hemzu2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180714/original/file-20170802-17660-hemzu2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">GM babies are a long way off.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Stockce/Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Germline genome editing came into the global spotlight when <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-1.17378">Chinese scientists announced in 2015</a> that they had used CRISPR to edit non-viable human embryos – cells that could never result in a live birth. They did this to modify the gene responsible for the blood disorder β-thalassaemia. While it was met with some success, it received a lot of criticism because of the premature use of this technology in human embryos. The results showed a high number of potentially dangerous, off-target mutations created in the procedure. </p>
<h2>Impressive results</h2>
<p>The new study, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature23305">published in Nature</a>, is different because it deals with viable human embryos and shows that the genome editing can be carried out safely – without creating harmful mutations. The team used CRISPR to correct a mutation in the gene <a href="https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/gene/MYBPC3">MYBPC3</a>, which accounts for approximately 40% of the <a href="https://www.bhf.org.uk/heart-health/conditions/cardiomyopathy/hypertrophic-cardiomyopathy">myocardial disease hypertrophic cardiomyopathy</a>. This is a dominant disease, so an affected individual only needs one abnormal copy of the gene to be affected. </p>
<p>The researchers used sperm from a patient carrying one copy of the MYBPC3 mutation to create 54 embryos. They edited them using CRISPR-Cas9 to correct the mutation. Without genome editing, approximately 50% of the embryos would carry the patients’ normal gene and 50% would carry his abnormal gene. </p>
<p>After genome editing, the aim would be for 100% of embryos to be normal. In the first round of the experiments, they found that 66.7% of embryos – 36 out of 54 – were normal after being injected with CRIPSR. Of the remaining 18 embryos, five had remained unchanged, suggesting editing had not worked. In 13 embryos, only a portion of cells had been edited. </p>
<p>The level of efficiency is affected by the type of CRISPR machinery used and, critically, the timing in which it is put into the embryo. The researchers therefore also tried injecting the sperm and the CRISPR-Cas9 complex into the egg at the same time, which resulted in more promising results. This was done for 75 mature donated human eggs using a common IVF technique called intracytoplasmic sperm injection. This time, impressively, 72.4% of embryos were normal as a result. The approach also lowered the number of embryos containing a mixture of edited and unedited cells (these embryos are called mosaics). </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180715/original/file-20170802-20062-1k7voxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180715/original/file-20170802-20062-1k7voxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180715/original/file-20170802-20062-1k7voxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180715/original/file-20170802-20062-1k7voxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180715/original/file-20170802-20062-1k7voxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180715/original/file-20170802-20062-1k7voxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/180715/original/file-20170802-20062-1k7voxv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Embryos were created with the sperm of a patient.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/medically-accurate-illustration-human-sperms-319477082?src=iwTL4N0Js0i41HyqDCvjWg-1-6">Sebastian Kaulitzk/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Finally, the team injected a further 22 embryos which were grown into blastocyst – a later stage of embryo development. These were sequenced and the researchers found that the editing had indeed worked. Importantly, they could show that the level of off-target mutations was low.</p>
<h2>A brave new world?</h2>
<p>So does this mean we finally have a cure for debilitating, heritable diseases? It’s important to remember that the study did not achieve a 100% success rate. Even the researchers themselves stress that further research is needed in order to fully understand the potential and limitations of the technique. </p>
<p>In our view, it is unlikely that genome editing would be used to treat the majority of inherited conditions anytime soon. We still can’t be sure how a child with a genetically altered genome will develop over a lifetime, so it seems unlikely that couples carrying a genetic disease would embark on gene editing rather than undergoing already available tests – such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis or prenatal diagnosis – where the embryos or fetus are tested for genetic faults.</p>
<p>Many people worry about where the line will be drawn between altering and ameliorating human embryos. If there is a risk that a person will have short stature because of an abnormality of growth hormone, would editing their genome to make them taller be considered a treatment or an enhancement? It is easy to see how the line could get blurred.</p>
<p>Most countries are debating the clinical, ethical and social significance of being able to genetically modify human embryos. It may be that some countries will never permit germline genome editing because of moral and ethical concerns. And even if the law in the UK was changed to allow genome editing, it would be highly regulated by the <a href="https://www.hfea.gov.uk/">Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority </a> to ensure it is only used for medical reasons. </p>
<p>That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t have a public debate about the ethical implications – <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-public-must-speak-up-about-gene-editing-beyond-embryo-modification-48623">it is hugely important that we do</a>. But it is important to remember to celebrate the amazing advances of this field of research, which could one day help eradicate many devastating diseases, before jumping to conclusions about a brave new world.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81925/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Two researchers are impressed with a pioneering study showing that it may be both safe and effective to edit out diseases in human embryos.Joyce Harper, Professor of Human Genetics and Embryology, UCLHelen O'Neill, Program Director of Reproductive Science and Women's Health MSc, UCLLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/782492017-07-17T03:04:29Z2017-07-17T03:04:29ZSpeaking with: Julian Savulescu on the ethics of genetic modification in humans<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170742/original/file-20170524-25571-1m5qw2w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Could genetic engineering one day allow parents to have designer babies?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://flic.kr/p/fMYsha">Tatiana Vdb/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>What if humans are genetically unfit to overcome challenges like climate change and the growing inequality that looks set to define our future?</p>
<p>Julian Savulescu, visiting professor at Monash University and Uehiro professor of Practical Ethics at Oxford University, argues that modifying the biological traits of humans should be part of the solution to secure a safe and desirable future.</p>
<p>The University of Melbourne’s William Isdale spoke to Julian Savulescu about what aspects of humanity could be altered by genetic modifications and why it might one day actually be considered unethical to withhold genetic enhancements that could have an overwhelmingly positive effect on a child’s life. </p>
<hr>
<p><em><a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/speaking-with.../id934267338">Subscribe</a> to The Conversation’s Speaking With podcasts on Apple Podcasts, or <a href="http://tunein.com/radio/Speaking-with---The-Conversation-Podcast-p671452/">follow</a> on Tunein Radio.</em></p>
<p><strong>Additional Audio</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qary81ymWk">VPro Extra - The Perfect Human Being: Julian Savulescu on human enhancement</a></p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZquBH0CH24">Channel Four Television Corporation - Science and the Swastika</a></p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK3GyjnA3Yc">VPro Extra - The Perfect Human Being: Michael Sandel on the values of being a human being</a> </p></li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Music</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><p><a href="http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Blue_Dot_Sessions/The_Contessa/Wisteria">Free Music Archive: Blue Dot Sessions - Wisteria</a></p></li>
<li><p><a href="http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Kai_Engel/Idea/Kai_Engel_-_Idea_-_07_Pacific_Garbage_Patch">Free Music Archive: Kai Engel - Pacific Garbage Patch</a></p></li>
<li><p><a href="http://freemusicarchive.org/music/CIRCUSMARCUS/Vous_tes_quelquun_de_terriblement_absent/17_Circus_Marcus_-_La_tapa_del_domingo">Free Music Archive: Circus Marcus - La tapa del domingo</a></p></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78249/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William Isdale does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>William Isdale talks to Professor Julian Savulescu about the ethical implications of geneticaly modifying humans.William Isdale, Research Assistant, Melbourne Law School, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/781082017-07-06T03:58:16Z2017-07-06T03:58:16ZSpeaking with: Professor Peter Koopman on CRISPR and the power of genome editing<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/170681/original/file-20170524-5757-136t0qm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Editing DNA has the potential to treat disease by repairing or removing defective genes. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://flic.kr/p/aFf2YA">Kyle Lawson/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>CRISPR, or clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, is a technology that is able to alter DNA. </p>
<p>While this sounds like the realms of science fiction, right now scientists are investigating its potential to eliminate genetic diseases in humans by repairing or replacing defective genes.</p>
<p>The University of Melbourne’s William Isdale spoke with Professor Peter Koopman from the University of Queensland about his research into CRISPR and the possibilities it could offer to future generations, as well as those suffering from genetic conditions right now. </p>
<hr>
<p><a href="https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/speaking-with.../id934267338">Subscribe</a> to The Conversation’s Speaking With podcasts on iTunes, or <a href="http://tunein.com/radio/Speaking-with---The-Conversation-Podcast-p671452/">follow</a> on Tunein Radio.</p>
<p><strong>Additional Audio</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhe6xYc6E9M&t=311s">CBS - CRISPR</a></p></li>
<li><p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdBAHexVYzc">How CRISPR lets us edit our DNA | Jennifer Doudna</a></p></li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Music</strong></p>
<ul>
<li><p><a href="http://freemusicarchive.org/music/Blue_Dot_Sessions/The_Contessa/Wisteria">Free Music Archive: Blue Dot Sessions - Wisteria</a></p></li>
<li><p><a href="http://freemusicarchive.org/music/johnny_ripper/lesprit_descalier/03_gael">Free Music Archive: Johnny_Ripper - Gaël</a></p></li>
</ul><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/78108/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>William Isdale does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>William Isdale speaks with University of Queensland Professor Peter Koopman about CRISPR technology.William Isdale, Research Assistant, Melbourne Law School, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/775962017-05-18T00:47:51Z2017-05-18T00:47:51ZBeyond just promise, CRISPR is delivering in the lab today<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169086/original/file-20170512-32578-1hmhoo8.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Precision editing DNA allows for some amazing applications.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ian Haydon</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There’s a revolution happening in biology, and its name is CRISPR.</p>
<p>CRISPR (pronounced “crisper”) is a powerful technique for editing DNA. It has received an enormous amount of attention in the scientific and popular press, largely based on the promise of what this powerful gene editing technology will someday do.</p>
<p>CRISPR was Science magazine’s <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/12/and-science-s-breakthrough-year">2015 Breakthrough of the Year</a>; it’s been featured prominently in the New Yorker <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/16/the-gene-hackers">more</a> <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/02/rewriting-the-code-of-life">than</a> <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/can-crispr-avoid-the-monsanto-problem">once</a>; and The Hollywood Reporter revealed that Jennifer Lopez will be the executive producer on an upcoming <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/jennifer-lopez-sets-futuristic-bio-939509">CRISPR-themed NBC bio-crime drama</a>. Not bad for a molecular biology laboratory technique.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169088/original/file-20170512-32618-kwnupf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169088/original/file-20170512-32618-kwnupf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169088/original/file-20170512-32618-kwnupf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169088/original/file-20170512-32618-kwnupf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169088/original/file-20170512-32618-kwnupf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169088/original/file-20170512-32618-kwnupf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169088/original/file-20170512-32618-kwnupf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169088/original/file-20170512-32618-kwnupf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Two of the CRISPR co-inventors, Emmanuelle Charpentier (middle-left) and Jennifer Doudna (middle-right), rubbing elbows with celebs after receiving the 2015 Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://breakthroughprize.org/Uploads/photo833.jpg">Breakthrough Prize Foundation</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>CRISPR is not the first molecular tool designed to edit DNA, but it gained its fame because it solves some longstanding problems in the field. First, it is highly specific. When properly set up, the molecular scissors that make up the CRISPR system will <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad5227">snip target DNA only where you want them to</a>. It is also incredibly cheap. Unlike previous gene editing systems which could cost thousands of dollars, a relative novice can purchase a CRISPR toolkit for <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/522020a">less than US$50</a>.</p>
<p>Research labs around the world are in the process of turning the hype surrounding the CRISPR technique into real results. Addgene, a nonprofit supplier of scientific reagents, has <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/531156a">shipped tens of thousands of CRISPR toolkits</a> to researchers in more than 80 countries, and the scientific literature is now packed with <a href="https://www.scopus.com/">thousands of CRISPR-related publications</a>.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/av7rv/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>When you give scientists access to powerful tools, they can produce some pretty amazing results.</p>
<h2>The CRISPR revolution in medicine</h2>
<p>The most promising (and obvious) applications of gene editing are in medicine. As we learn more about the molecular underpinnings of various diseases, stunning progress has been made in correcting genetic diseases in the laboratory just over the past few years.</p>
<p>Take, for example, <a href="https://www.ninds.nih.gov/Disorders/All-Disorders/Muscular-Dystrophy-Information-Page">muscular dystrophy</a> – a complex and devastating family of diseases characterized by the breakdown of a molecular component of muscle called dystrophin. For some types of muscular dystrophy, the cause of the breakdown is understood at the DNA level.</p>
<p>In 2014, researchers at the University of Texas showed that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254445">CRISPR could correct mutations associated with muscular dystrophy</a> in isolated fertilized mouse eggs which, after being reimplanted, then grew into healthy mice. By February of this year, a team here at the University of Washington published results of a CRISPR-based gene replacement therapy which largely <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14454">repaired the effects of Duchenne muscular dystrophy</a> in adult mice. These mice showed significantly improved muscle strength – approaching normal levels – four months after receiving treatment.</p>
<p>Using CRISPR to correct disease-causing genetic mutations is certainly not a panacea. For starters, many diseases have causes outside the letters of our DNA. And even for diseases that are genetically encoded, making sense of the six billion DNA letters that comprise the human genome is no small task. But here CRISPR is again <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/531156a">advancing science</a>; by adding or removing new mutations – or even turning whole genes on or off – scientists are beginning to probe the basic code of life like never before.</p>
<p>CRISPR is already showing health applications beyond editing the DNA in our cells. A large team out of Harvard and MIT just <a href="https://www.broadinstitute.org/news/scientists-unveil-crispr-based-diagnostic-platform">debuted a CRISPR-based technology</a> that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9321">enables precise detection of pathogens</a> like Zika and dengue virus at extremely low cost – an estimated $0.61 per sample.</p>
<p>Using their system, the molecular components of CRISPR are dried up and smeared onto a strip of paper. Samples of bodily fluid (blood serum, urine or saliva) can be applied to these strips in the field and, because they linked CRISPR components to fluorescent particles, the amount of a specific virus in the sample can be quantified based on a visual readout. A sample that glows bright green could indicate a life-threatening dengue virus infection, for instance. The technology can also distinguish between bacterial species (useful for diagnosing infection) and could even determine mutations specific to an individual patient’s cancer (useful for personalized medicine).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169821/original/file-20170517-9937-yhrheb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169821/original/file-20170517-9937-yhrheb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169821/original/file-20170517-9937-yhrheb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169821/original/file-20170517-9937-yhrheb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169821/original/file-20170517-9937-yhrheb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=416&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169821/original/file-20170517-9937-yhrheb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169821/original/file-20170517-9937-yhrheb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169821/original/file-20170517-9937-yhrheb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=523&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Feng Zhang, another co-inventor of CRISPR technology, discussing its safety and ethical ramifications.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Gene-Editing/28b7ba4a230146579bd449f50972cf33/1/0">AP Photo/Susan Walsh</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Almost all of CRISPR’s advances in improving human health remain in an early, experimental phase. We may not have to wait long to see this technology make its way into actual, living people though; the CEO of the biotech company Editas <a href="http://ir.editasmedicine.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=254265&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2234973">has announced plans</a> to file paperwork with the Food and Drug Administration for an investigational new drug (a necessary legal step before beginning clinical trials) later this year. The company intends to use CRISPR to correct mutations in a gene associated with the most common cause of inherited childhood blindness.</p>
<h2>CRISPR will soon affect what we eat</h2>
<p>Physicians and medical researchers are not the only ones interested in making precise changes to DNA. In 2013, agricultural biotechnologists demonstrated that genes in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt780">rice and other crops</a> could be modified using CRISPR – for instance, to silence a gene associated with susceptibility to bacterial blight. Less than a year later, a different group showed that CRISPR also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/cr.2014.11">worked in pigs</a>. In this case, researchers sought to modify a gene related to blood coagulation, as leftover blood can promote bacterial growth in meat.</p>
<p>You won’t find CRISPR-modified food in your local grocery store just yet. As with medical applications, agricultural gene editing breakthroughs achieved in the laboratory take time to mature into commercially viable products, which must then be determined to be safe. Here again, though, CRISPR is changing things.</p>
<p>A common perception of what it means to genetically modify a crop involves swapping genes from one organism to another – <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00037141">putting a fish gene into a tomato</a>, for example. While this type of genetic modification – known as transfection – <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2120">has actually been used</a>, there are other ways to change DNA. CRISPR has the advantage of being much more programmable than previous gene editing technologies, meaning very specific changes can be made in just a few DNA letters.</p>
<p>This precision led <a href="http://plantpath.psu.edu/directory/yuy3">Yinong Yang</a> – a plant biologist at Penn State – to <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/downloads/reg_loi/15-321-01_air_inquiry.pdf">write a letter</a> to the USDA in 2015 seeking clarification on a current research project. He was in the process of modifying an edible white mushroom so it would brown less on the shelf. This could be accomplished, he discovered, by turning down the volume of just one gene.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169823/original/file-20170517-24341-1d43m7i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169823/original/file-20170517-24341-1d43m7i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/169823/original/file-20170517-24341-1d43m7i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169823/original/file-20170517-24341-1d43m7i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169823/original/file-20170517-24341-1d43m7i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169823/original/file-20170517-24341-1d43m7i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169823/original/file-20170517-24341-1d43m7i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/169823/original/file-20170517-24341-1d43m7i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">White <em>Agaricus bisporus</em> mushrooms with no browning are more visually appealing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/white-button-mushrooms-food-top-view-443708836">Olha Afanasieva/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yang was doing this work using CRISPR, and because his process did not introduce any foreign DNA into the mushrooms, he wanted to know if the product would be considered a “regulated article” by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/banner/aboutaphis">tasked with regulating GMOs</a>.</p>
<p>“APHIS does not consider CRISPR/Cas9-edited white button mushrooms as described in your October 30, 2015 letter to be regulated,” <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/downloads/reg_loi/15-321-01_air_response_signed.pdf">they replied</a>.</p>
<p>Yang’s mushrooms were not the first genetically modified crop <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/us-regulation-misses-some-gm-crops-1.13580">deemed exempt</a> from current USDA regulation, but they were the first made using CRISPR. The heightened attention that CRISPR has brought to the gene editing field is forcing policymakers <a href="https://blogs.fda.gov/fdavoice/index.php/2017/01/fdas-science-based-approach-to-genome-edited-products/">in the U.S.</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/541030c">abroad</a> to update some of their thinking around what it means to genetically modify food.</p>
<h2>New frontiers for CRISPR</h2>
<p>One particularly controversial application of this powerful gene editing technology is the possibility of <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600689/we-have-the-technology-to-destroy-all-zika-mosquitoes/">driving certain species to extinction</a> – such as the <a href="https://www.gatesnotes.com/Health/Most-Lethal-Animal-Mosquito-Week">most lethal animal on Earth</a>, the malaria-causing <em>Anopheles gambiae</em> mosquito. This is, as far as scientists can tell, actually possible, and some serious players like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602304/bill-gates-doubles-his-bet-on-wiping-out-mosquitoes-with-gene-editing/">already investing in the project</a>. (The BMGF funds The Conversation Africa.)</p>
<p>Most CRISPR applications are not nearly as ethically fraught. Here at the University of Washington, CRISPR is helping researchers understand how <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb3264">embryonic stem cells mature</a>, how <a href="https://depts.washington.edu/jzlab/drupal/">DNA can be spatially reorganized inside living cells</a> and why <a href="http://depts.washington.edu/biowww/pages/faculty-Wills.shtml">some frogs can regrow their spinal cords</a> (an ability we humans do not share).</p>
<p>It is safe to say CRISPR is more than just hype. Centuries ago we were writing on clay tablets – in this century we will write the stuff of life.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77596/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Haydon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Researchers are starting to harness the potential of this much-hyped gene editing technique – with coming applications in medicine, biology and agriculture.Ian Haydon, Doctoral Student in Biochemistry, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/770122017-05-05T07:47:11Z2017-05-05T07:47:11ZGene drives may cause a revolution, but safeguards and public engagement are needed<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168026/original/file-20170505-21649-1vo48zq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Gene drives could prove useful for controlling mosquitoes which spread diseases like malaria, dengue and zika virus. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/download/confirm/433536676?src=fDmFnpr5vzKaUKMMSstLWw-1-49&size=huge_jpg">from www.shutterstock.com </a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A “<a href="http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v17/n3/full/nrg.2015.34.html">gene drive</a>” occurs when a specific gene is spread at an enhanced rate through an animal or plant population. </p>
<p>It’s something that happens in nature. Across the world, we’ve already seen examples of natural gene drives affecting gene frequencies in insects and <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/2406306?origin=crossref&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">mice</a>, and the successful use of natural gene drives in <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/full/nature10356.html">changing mosquito populations</a> to reduce disease transmission. </p>
<p>But new technologies such as CRISPR are enhancing opportunities for scientists to use gene drives in an applied manner. </p>
<p>This week, the Australian Academy of Science released a <a href="https://www.science.org.au/news-and-events/news-and-media-releases/%E2%80%98evolution-bending%E2%80%99-gene-editing-technology%E2%80%94do-potential">paper</a> to trigger discussion around the scientific, practical, regulatory and ethical issues in anticipation of gene drives becoming a tool for controlling pests and diseases in Australia. </p>
<h2>What is a gene drive?</h2>
<p>Offspring normally carry two copies of a gene, one being inherited from each parent. However, this pattern of inheritance is upset by a gene drive which increases the likelihood that both copies come from only one of the parents. </p>
<p>If we think of genes as the “selfish” elements within a chromosome, gene drives help the most selfish element to win, and eventually to take over in a population.</p>
<p>Gene drives are present in nature. Transposons, also known as “jumping genes”, represent an example of <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/218/4570/348">a natural gene drive</a>. A transposon copies itself to different parts of the genome and becomes transmitted to offspring at a rate higher than the usual 50%. </p>
<p>However, while some types of natural gene drives have been used in suppressing disease transmission, potential applications have greatly expanded with the advent of synthetic gene drives. This <a href="https://theconversation.com/now-we-can-edit-life-itself-we-need-to-ask-how-we-should-use-such-technology-68821">creates new issues</a>.</p>
<h2>The power of CRISPR</h2>
<p>It has recently become possible to <a href="http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v34/n1/full/nbt.3439.html">create or synthesise gene drives</a> via genetic engineering, using a gene editing tool known as CRISPR-Cas9. </p>
<p>This tool is used to link up selfish genes such as homing endonucleases (which cut DNA at specific locations) with genes targeted to be spread through a population. </p>
<p>When present on one chromosome, the resulting genetic construct is copied to the other chromosome through a process of being cut by the endonuclease and then repaired. </p>
<p>This process can potentially be used to drive almost any gene through a population. It is most likely to be effective in organisms that reproduce quickly and have a short generation time.</p>
<p>Although there are technical challenges to creating stable gene drives, scientific academies <a href="http://nas-sites.org/gene-drives/">around the world</a> including <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-02/aus-science-academy-calls-for-discussion-on-gene-editing/8487842">Australia</a> are discussing potential applications of this technology. Safeguards that need to be put in place are also being considered. Genes that spread by themselves present some unique opportunities as well as challenges. </p>
<h2>Why should Australia consider gene drives?</h2>
<p>Gene drives could be especially useful in Australia for controlling pests and diseases. </p>
<p>We are currently engaged in a losing battle with many invasive organisms. <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive-species">Damage to the environment and reduced agricultural output</a> are caused by incursions of pest mammals, insects, weeds, birds and fish. </p>
<p>Gene drives provide a way of potentially suppressing populations of these species and reducing damage. For example, the introduction of genes that alter sex ratios to become male biased can limit reproduction. </p>
<p>Drives also could be used to introduce genes that suppress the ability of vectors such as mosquitoes, ticks and midges to transmit diseases to humans and livestock, and to introduce genes that make weeds and pests susceptible to pesticides. </p>
<p>Use of a gene drive to eliminate a weed or pest could reduce the need for chemical spraying and potentially increase farmers’ crop yields.</p>
<h2>Safety, transparency and regulation</h2>
<p>Because gene drives are designed to spread by themselves, stringent safeguards are needed for developing, testing and using the technology. </p>
<p>This is why past applications of natural gene drives involving species such as <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/article?id=10.1371/journal.pntd.0003713">mosquitoes</a> and <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254305244_Autocidal_Technology_for_the_Control_of_Invasive_Fish">European carp</a> have involved extensive engagement with the public and regulators.</p>
<p>Transparency is critical, both about research on and regulation of synthetic gene drives. </p>
<p>Although Australia has a well established <a href="http://www.ogtr.gov.au/">regulatory framework for gene technology</a>, gene drives present different issues to traditional genetically modified organisms (GMOs). That’s because they aim to spread new traits throughout a population, and hence may spread beyond geographical boundaries. Thus international harmonisation of regulation will be critical. </p>
<p>Given the range of contexts in which gene drives might be deployed, coordination will be required across a number of Australian regulatory agencies. This includes those charged with oversight of environmental, human and animal health, quarantine, and food-related issues.</p>
<h2>Planning ahead</h2>
<p>Gene drives may cause public concern, particularly with regard to potential unintentional ecological and environmental effects. </p>
<p>As has been learned from debates over GMOs and particularly about the limitations of <a href="https://theconversation.com/making-a-meal-of-gm-food-labelling-28339">labelling GM-free products</a>, simply educating the public will not be sufficient. <a href="https://theconversation.com/perceptions-of-genetically-modified-food-are-informed-by-more-than-just-science-72865">Underlying values</a> are more important than information. </p>
<p>It is critical to ensure that the public is engaged on an ongoing basis about potential applications, risks and benefits of gene drive technologies in alignment with best practices for science engagement, and that funding be provided for research into these issues.</p>
<p>This is especially important for communities likely to be affected, such as the agricultural sector or those living close to areas where intentional release may occur. </p>
<p>Funding agencies can assist by providing resources to test physical containment facilities and develop molecular containment procedures such as a <a href="http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/06/057307">daisy chain system that limits the spread of a drive system</a>. </p>
<p>Modelling and experiments can be used to assess the broader ecological consequences of suppressing pest populations, and research is needed to identify the risks of drives losing effectiveness due to evolution of the target species. </p>
<p>All of these issues need to be explored on a case-by-case basis before any decisions are made about release of drives into the environment.</p>
<p>The wider implications of gene drives also must be carefully assessed. For instance, a gene drive targeting pest fruit flies may be a problem for countries such as Japan, which have highly specific regulations about fruit imports. </p>
<p>Trade relationships with countries with limits on GMOs <a href="https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/">such as many parts of the EU and Japan</a> could be negatively affected by use of gene drives in agriculture. </p>
<p>Domestic economic effects might include problems in obtaining organic certification for crops due to contact with organisms containing synthetic gene drives. Early engagement with various domestic and external stakeholders about these issues will be essential.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77012/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel A. Ankeny receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ary Hoffmann receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council, the WellcomeTrust, the Grains Research and Development Corporation and the National Institutes of Health. </span></em></p>A broad process of communication and consultation should be initiated before gene drives are applied to control pests and diseases in Australia.Rachel A. Ankeny, Professor of History, University of AdelaideAry Hoffmann, Professor, School of BioSciences and Bio21 Institute, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/719162017-01-26T18:25:34Z2017-01-26T18:25:34ZScientists have unlocked the secret of making tomatoes taste of something again<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154388/original/image-20170126-30424-1annqdy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you shop in a supermarket you may well have asked why the fruit and veg you buy there is so tasteless, especially if you’ve also tried homegrown alternatives. Traditional breeds of tomatoes usually grown in gardens, known as heirloom tomatoes, for example, are often small and strangely shaped and coloured but renowned for their delicious taste. Those in the supermarkets, meanwhile, are often pumped up in size but somewhat insipid to eat.</p>
<p>This is because plants used by most tomato farms have gone through an intensive artificial selection process to breed fruit that are big, red and round – but at the expense of taste. Now a 20-strong international research team <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aal1556">have identified</a> the chemical compounds responsible for the rich flavour of heirloom tomatoes and the genes that produce them. This information could provide a way for farmers to grow tomatoes that taste of something again.</p>
<p>The unique flavour of a tomato is determined by specific airborne molecules called volatiles, which emanate from flavour chemicals in the fruit. By asking a panel of consumers to rate over a hundred varieties of tomato, the researchers identified 13 volatiles that play an important role in producing the most appealing flavours. They also found that these molecules were significantly reduced in modern tomato varieties compared to the heirloom ones. And they found that bigger tomatoes tended to have less sugar, another reason why large supermarket fruits often fail to inspire.</p>
<p>Tomatoes <a href="https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/100/5/1085/136832/Domestication-and-Breeding-of-Tomatoes-What-have">originally hail</a> from the Andean region of South America and belong to the Solanaceae family, making them relatively close relations of potatoes and peppers. The original, ancestral tomato was very small, more like a pea, showing just how much human intervention has swollen the fruit. We don’t know how long they have been grown for human consumption but they had reached an advanced stage of domestication by the 15th century when they were taken to Europe.</p>
<p>Before the 20th century, tomato varieties were commonly developed in families and small communities (which <a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/06/14/heirloom_tomatoes_bizarre_evolution_the_secret_history_of_the_tastiest_summer_treat/">explains the name “heirloom</a>”). With the industrialisation of farming, the <a href="http://www.actahort.org/members/showpdf?booknrarnr=100_1">serious business of tomato breeding</a> began with intensive selection for fruit size and shelf life. </p>
<p>Some <a href="https://academic.oup.com/aob/article/100/5/1085/136832/Domestication-and-Breeding-of-Tomatoes-What-have">more recent effort</a> has been put into improving the flavour of tomatoes through breeding. But the new research appears to indicate that this has ultimately been unsuccessful and that earlier breeding efforts have doomed modern commercial varieties to mediocrity. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/154391/original/image-20170126-30413-1r3vpik.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Family heirlooms.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The new paper, <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.aal1556">published in Science</a>, emphasises what seems to be a constant conflict between the food industry’s desire for profit and what the public actually want. The researchers tactfully excuse the way tomatoes have been bred for size and shelf-life at the expense of taste as being down to breeders’ inability to analyse the fruit’s chemical composition and find the right volatiles.</p>
<p>But many people will find this hard to swallow. After all, the new research itself used the most ancient volatile analysis system there is: the human taster. It wouldn’t have taken much for farmers to incorporate taste trials into their breeding programmes.</p>
<p>Because modern farmed tomatoes have only lost their flavour in the last hundred years or so and varieties are still available that produce the tasty volatiles, it should be possible to reinsert the crucial taste genes back into commercial varieties. This could be done by genetic modification or conventional breeding. Just as we are seeing a resurgence in <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/ed0edb8e-d9ab-11e5-a72f-1e7744c66818">organic and artisan growing</a>, it would be great to see a new generation of tomato breeders interested in returning flavour to the fruit using wild and heirloom varieties, while maintaining other commercially desirable traits. </p>
<p>There is significant <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-scientists-failure-to-understand-gm-opposition-is-stifling-debate-and-halting-progress-62142">public opposition</a> to the idea of genetically modifying foods by inserting genes into a plant’s DNA in the lab. But the idea of reinserting lost genes <a href="https://theconversation.com/all-our-food-is-genetically-modified-in-some-way-where-do-you-draw-the-line-56256">may be more palatable</a> to the public than introducing completely new ones. Either way, it shows how perverse the food industry’s methods are that we may need to use one of the world’s most advanced technologies to give an inherently delicious food some flavour.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71916/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Colin Tosh receives funding from the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and previously has recived grants from the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). He is active at a local level with the Green Party, England and Wales. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Niall Conboy receives funding from BBSRC</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Thomas McDaniel receives funding from BBSRC. </span></em></p>New research pinpoints the genes that could counteract decades of bland breeding.Colin Tosh, Lecturer in Ecology, Evolution and Computational Biology, Newcastle UniversityNiall Conboy, PhD candidate, Newcastle UniversityThomas McDaniel, PhD candidate, Newcastle UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/597152016-05-24T11:54:24Z2016-05-24T11:54:24ZRoyal Society president: GM crops feed much of the world today – why not tomorrow’s generations?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123763/original/image-20160524-10984-i0nr0t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FEMA_-_2086_-_Photograph_by_Andrea_Booher_taken_on_07-09-1993_in_Missouri.jpg">Andrea Booher/FEMA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>My parents researched malnutrition and under-nutrition in India, especially among children, and found that many diets recommended by Western nutritionists were in fact completely inapplicable to the poor. So they formulated cheap, healthy diets based on indigenous food with which people were familiar. Yet despite their many other efforts, a quarter of people in Indian and nearly one in nine people around the world do not have enough food to live a healthy active life. </p>
<p>The World Bank estimates that we will need to <a href="http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/foodsecurity">produce about 50% more food by 2050</a> to feed a population of nine billion people. And the past 50 years have seen agricultural productivity soar – <a href="http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/260638/aib786d_1_.pdf">corn yields in the US have doubled</a>, for example. But this has come with sharp increases in the use of fertilisers, pesticides and water which has brought its own problems. There is also no guarantee that this rate of increase in yields can be maintained.</p>
<p>Just as new agricultural techniques and equipment spurred on food production in the Middle Ages, and scientific crop breeding, fertilisers and pesticides did so for the Green Revolution of the 20th century, so we must rely on the latest technology to boost food production further. Genetic modification, or GM, used appropriately with proper regulation, may be part of the solution. Yet GM remains a highly contentious topic of debate where, unfortunately, the underlying facts are often obscured.</p>
<p>Views on GM differ across the world. Almost <a href="http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/51/default.asp">half of all crops grown in the US are GM</a>, whereas widespread opposition in Europe means virtually no GM crops are grown there. In Canada, regulation is focused on the characteristics of the crop produced, while in the EU <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/gmo/index_en.htm">the focus is on how it has been modified</a>. GM crops do not damage the environment by nature of their modification; GM is merely a technology, and it is the resulting product that we should be concerned about and regulate, just as we would any new product.</p>
<p>There are outstanding plant scientists who work on GM in the UK, but the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments have declared their opposition to GM plants. Why is there such strong opposition in a country with great trust in scientists?</p>
<p>About 15 years ago when GM was just emerging, its main proponents and many of the initial products were from large multinational corporations – even though it was publicly funded scientists who produced much of the initial research. Understandably, many felt GM was a means for these corporations to impose a monopoly on crops and maximise their profits. This <a href="https://theconversation.com/seeds-of-doubt-why-consumers-weigh-up-gm-produce-and-turn-it-down-50106">perception</a> was not helped by some of the practices of these big companies, such as introducing herbicide resistant crops that led to the heavy use of herbicides – often made by the same companies.</p>
<p>The debate became polarised, and any sense that the evidence could be rationally assessed evaporated. There have been claims made about the negative <a href="https://www.elsevier.com/about/press-releases/research-and-journals/elsevier-announces-article-retraction-from-journal-food-and-chemical-toxicology">health effects</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-does-gm-cotton-lead-to-farmer-suicide-in-india-24045">economic costs</a> of GM crops – claims later shown to be unsubstantiated. Today, <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/348830/bis-14-p111-public-attitudes-to-science-2014-main.pdf">half of those in the UK do not feel well informed</a> about GM crops.</p>
<h2>Everyday genetic modification</h2>
<p>GM involves the introduction of very specific genes into plants. In many ways this is much more controlled than the random mutations that are selected for in traditional plant breeding. Most of the commonly grown crops that we consider natural actually bear little resemblance to their wild ancestors, having been selectively modified through cross-breeding over the thousands of years that humans have been farming crops – in a sense, this is <a href="https://theconversation.com/all-our-food-is-genetically-modified-in-some-way-where-do-you-draw-the-line-56256">a form of genetic modification itself</a>.</p>
<p>In any case, we accept genetic modification in many other contexts: insulin used to treat diabetes is now made by GM microbes and has almost completely replaced animal insulin, for example. Many of the top selling drugs are proteins such as <a href="http://www.britannica.com/science/genetically-modified-organism/GMOs-in-medicine-and-research">antibodies made entirely by GM</a>, and now account for a third of all new medicines (and over <a href="http://www.drugs.com/stats/top100/sales">half of the biggest selling ones</a>). These are used to treat a host of diseases, from breast cancer to arthritis and leukaemia.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123762/original/image-20160524-12397-eg8skv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123762/original/image-20160524-12397-eg8skv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/123762/original/image-20160524-12397-eg8skv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123762/original/image-20160524-12397-eg8skv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123762/original/image-20160524-12397-eg8skv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123762/original/image-20160524-12397-eg8skv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123762/original/image-20160524-12397-eg8skv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/123762/original/image-20160524-12397-eg8skv.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Millions of acres growing GM crops worldwide.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gmo_acreage_world_2009.PNG">Fafner/ISSSA</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>GM has been used to create insect-resistance in plants that greatly reduces or even eliminates the need for chemical insecticides, reducing the cost to the farmer and the environment. It also has the potential to make crops more nutritious, for example by adding healthier fats or more nutritious proteins. It’s been used to introduce nutrients such as beta carotene from which the body can make vitamin A – the so-called <a href="https://theconversation.com/golden-rice-naysayers-ignore-the-worlds-need-for-nutrition-19790">golden rice</a> – which prevents night blindness in children. And GM can potentially create crops that are drought resistant – something that as water becomes scarce will become increasingly important.</p>
<p>More than 10% of the world’s arable land is now used to grow GM plants. An <a href="http://nas-sites.org/ge-crops">extensive study</a> conducted by the US National Academies of Sciences recently reported that there has been no evidence of ill effects linked to the consumption of any approved GM crop since the widespread commercialisation of GM products 18 years ago. It also reported that there was no conclusive evidence of environmental problems resulting from GM crops.</p>
<p>GM is a tool, and how we use it is up to us. It certainly does not have to be the monopoly of a few multinational corporations. We can and should have adequate regulations to ensure the safety of any new crop strain (GM or otherwise) to both ourselves and the environment, and it is up to us to decide what traits in any new plant are acceptable. People may be opposed to GM crops for a variety of reasons and ultimately consumers will decide what they want to eat. But the one in nine people in poor countries facing malnutrition or starvation do not enjoy that choice. The availability of cheap, healthy and nutritious food for them is a matter of life and death.</p>
<p>Alongside other improvements in farming practices, genetic modification is an important part of a sustainable solution to global food shortages. However, the motto of the Royal Society is <a href="https://royalsociety.org/about-us/history/"><em>nullius in verba</em></a>; roughly, “take nobody’s word for it”. We need a well-informed debate based on an assessment of the evidence. The Royal Society has published <a href="http://www.royalsociety.org/gm-plants">GM Plants: questions and answers</a> which can play its part in this. People should look at the evidence – not just loudly voiced opinions – for themselves and make up their own minds.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59715/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Venki Ramakrishnan is President of the Royal Society.</span></em></p>Science and technology has always helped us feed the world. GM has more to offer, if we let it.Venki Ramakrishnan, Professor and Deputy Director, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/537402016-02-11T00:08:36Z2016-02-11T00:08:36ZOpposition to genetically modified animals could leave millions hungry<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110697/original/image-20160208-12837-17kk4r8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A few genetic tweaks can solve a lot of problems.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Chris Marchant/Flickr</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a world with a ballooning population and deteriorating environment, we will need to use every trick in the book to stave off mass starvation, disease and political chaos. </p>
<p>According the <a href="http://www.fao.org/home/en/">Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations</a>, there are <a href="http://www.fao.org/3/a4ef2d16-70a7-460a-a9ac-2a65a533269a/i4646e.pdf">795 million people</a> (more than 10% of the world population) who are chronically undernourished. This includes 161 million children, of which <a href="http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/child_hunger_facts.htm">3.1 million</a> die from hunger each year. </p>
<p>We need to double food production, with less land and less water, and prevent further environmental degradation. One of the most promising approaches is genetically modified (GM) animals to produce more food with less, and improve animal health and welfare.</p>
<h2>GM menagerie</h2>
<p>The first genetically modified animal has at last been approved by the FDA for the marketplace. The GM AquAdvantage salmon is a strain of Atlantic salmon that was derived by adding a growth hormone gene from another salmon species. It grows much faster and more efficiently and therefore can <a href="https://theconversation.com/gm-salmon-may-be-safe-but-theyre-not-coming-to-a-store-near-you-just-yet-51893">feed more people</a> for the same resource inputs. </p>
<p>There are several other animal strains already developed that grow faster and more efficiently, produce less waste, are resistant to disease or produce novel products of benefit to humans. These include breeds engineered to solve specific problems in developing countries.</p>
<p>For instance, there are <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070101103354.htm">cattle</a> that cannot get or transmit mad-cow disease; <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100330-bacon-pigs-enviropig-dead-zones/">pigs</a> that produce less phosphorous pollution; <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/super-muscly-pigs-created-by-small-genetic-tweak-1.17874">pigs</a> that develop more and leaner muscle; <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jun/23/could-these-piglets-become-britains-first-commercially-viable-gm-animals">pigs</a> resistant to African swine fever; and <a href="http://www.medicaldaily.com/genetically-modified-goat-milk-benefit-aids-digestion-fights-diarrhea-video-244622">goats</a> that produce milk containing an enzyme that could prevent deadly diarrhoea in a million children per year in developing countries.</p>
<p>Some of these strains have been ready to go for more than 10 years but they are still not being used to alleviate problems of malnutrition and disease. Much of this is due to opposition to GM foods.</p>
<h2>Opposing concerns</h2>
<p>Opposition to GM has come largely from the affluent West, although opponents are being recruited in India and China. </p>
<p>But concerns about safety have proved to be illusory, for the most part being more a product of ignorance about how genes work rather than being based on any evidence. </p>
<p>Nobody has ever died, or even got sick, from eating GM food. Safety regulations around GM foods are stricter than those that protect us from poisons or bad food. And GM foods are the most extensively monitored and regulated for safety in the history of the world.</p>
<p>Another fear is of the possible escape of inserted genes into the environment. These concerns have been met by stringent containment requirements; for instance, AquAdvantage salmon must be grown in <a href="https://aquabounty.com/sustainable/">onshore tanks</a>.</p>
<p>Some existing companies are concerned about the effect of GM animals on their business. Issues around price, market share (e.g. salmon fisherman) and acceptability in European markets are real, but comparatively minor. </p>
<p>It is unlikely that the availability of GM animals would restrict the choice of animal breeds. Beef cattle are very distributed, with many breeds and producers, and pigs and chickens are already controlled by a small number of breeders.</p>
<p>Animal welfare is unlikely to be an issue because only changes that make animals more healthy and productive will be commercially viable</p>
<p>Any new technology – think vaccinations, microwave ovens, even the provision of internal doors in houses – has initially been fiercely resisted. This usually resolves with time and experience.</p>
<p>Ideology is perhaps the most insidious force. There remains a quaint idea that we should not “tamper with nature”, despite the thousands of years of civilisation during which we have been doing just that by conventional, selective breeding.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110698/original/image-20160209-12814-1ek2pzi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110698/original/image-20160209-12814-1ek2pzi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/110698/original/image-20160209-12814-1ek2pzi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110698/original/image-20160209-12814-1ek2pzi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110698/original/image-20160209-12814-1ek2pzi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110698/original/image-20160209-12814-1ek2pzi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110698/original/image-20160209-12814-1ek2pzi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/110698/original/image-20160209-12814-1ek2pzi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The AquAdvantage Salmon was recently approved for sale by the US Food and Drug Administration.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://aquabounty.com/">AquaBounty</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Killing innovation</h2>
<p>Approval of GM salmon was not exactly a rush decision; it has been more than 20 years since the first application for approval. Nor will it provide a cheap and available source of protein since it is subject to onerous regulations, and the means of production is limited.</p>
<p>The worldwide regulatory dysfunction around the breeding of GM animals to produce food for human consumption has effectively limited advancement in this field. Expensive delays and uncertainties have stopped work and limited capacity building in virtually all the developed countries that were first to develop this technology (Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States). </p>
<p>At present, there appears to be little corporate support for using GM animals in agriculture. In the face of steep regulatory costs and long timeframes, even removing the roadblocks to approval may not be sufficient to renew commercial interest.</p>
<p>New laboratories undertaking the creation of GM livestock for use in agriculture are almost exclusively limited to Brazil, Argentina and China, where new breeds with extra muscling are already available.</p>
<p>A real impact, and the one that may seriously affect Australia, is how rapidly economies such as China and India will now move forward. China has put more resources into developing GM farm animals than the rest of the world combined over the past decade, and India is also now moving to establish laboratories in this area. </p>
<p>Will the West – including Australia – be left behind, or will sanity return and allow the new technologies to be applied?</p>
<h2>The future of GM animal breeding</h2>
<p>The newest technology for improving food plants and animals – <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-genome-editing-25072">gene editing</a> – does not use genetic engineering techniques to insert or replace bits of DNA. Instead, there are genetic tricks for simply tweaking the genetic code in known ways. </p>
<p>Why wait for a cosmic ray or a replication accident to make a favourable change in the genetic code? This can take many years because most natural mutations are bad. Now geneticists can alter the code in known ways to improve the growth, environmental tolerance, disease resistance or nutritional value of the organism. </p>
<p>This technology is already being used to create new animal breeds, such as <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/tiny-genetically-modified-micropigs-from-china-could-be-boon-for-science-and-pet-sellers">micropigs</a> developed in China as pets. It seems bizarre that GM breeds are readily available as exotic pets but not to alleviate hunger in developing countries. </p>
<p>Gene editing is extremely efficient, and leaves no trace. So a new strain will be indistinguishable from a random mutant. This may make stringent regulation unnecessary, or even impossible.</p>
<p>GM technology and gene editing have the potential to produce a historic advance in food availability. In the absence of serious safety or welfare concerns, we must question the ethics of comfortable, affluent Westerners imposing their lifestyle choices on millions of undernourished people.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53740/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>James D Murray receives funding from the USDA. He works for the University of California and collaborates with the CSIRO. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jenny Graves received funding from ARC and NHMRC. </span></em></p>Genetically modified animals can help to feed the world’s burgeoning population, but there is still a lot of misinformation concerning its safety.James D Murray, Professor of Animal Science and Population Health and Reproduction, University of California, DavisJenny Graves, Distinguished Professor of Genetics, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.