tag:theconversation.com,2011:/au/topics/genetic-engineering-10096/articlesGenetic engineering – The Conversation2024-02-07T13:11:13Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2141862024-02-07T13:11:13Z2024-02-07T13:11:13ZSynthetic human embryos let researchers study early development while sidestepping ethical and logistical hurdles<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/570406/original/file-20240119-29-b5qw5g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2323%2C1285&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Studying embryogenesis is key to unraveling the mysteries of early life.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/human-morula-cell-solid-ball-of-cells-resulting-royalty-free-image/1327013568">luismmolina/iStock via Getty Images Plus</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Embryonic development, also known as <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC156973/pdf/090989.pdf">embryogenesis</a>, is a cornerstone in understanding the origins of life. But studying this marvel of intricate and layered biological processes in people faces <a href="https://doi.org/10.1242%2Fdev.201797">considerable challenges</a>. Early-stage human embryos are difficult to obtain. Then there are ethical issues surrounding their use. This has made it difficult for scientists to understand early human development.</p>
<p>However, advances in genetic engineering and molecular and cellular biology have catalyzed the emergence of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.ydbio.2021.03.007">synthetic embryology</a>, a subfield dedicated to replicating and studying embryonic development in a petri dish using human stem cells. By offering new tools to explore the enigmatic earliest stages of human development, synthetic embryology can help researchers overcome the challenges of using real human embryos.</p>
<p>As a reproductive and developmental biologist, I develop stem cell models for embryogenesis. With these new models, researchers can also better understand conditions that affect human reproduction and development as well as maternal-fetal health, potentially leading to new therapies.</p>
<h2>Making human embryos from stem cells</h2>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.9.7.989">Embryogenesis</a> begins with the fertilization of an egg. This triggers the egg to rapidly divide into embryonic cells that soon form an inner cell mass that eventually develops into the fetus and a outer layer of cells that will give rise to the placenta.</p>
<p>Upon implantation in the uterus, the inner cell mass develops into the <a href="https://opentextbc.ca/biology/chapter/13-2-development-and-organogenesis/">three layers</a> that will create all the tissues and organs of the human body. Concurrently, the placenta begins to form as the embryo attaches itself to the uterine wall, a crucial step for maternal-fetal connection. This attachment enables the transfer of nutrients, oxygen and waste between mother and fetus. </p>
<p>Synthetic embryology artificially recreates these developmental stages using human <a href="https://doi.org/10.1155%2F2016%2F9451492">pluripotent stem cells</a> derived from human embryos or induced from adult human cells. Like early embryonic cells, these cells have the ability to develop into any type of cell in the human body. In carefully engineered lab environments, researchers can coax these cells to form multicellular structures that mimic various embryonic developmental stages, including early organ formation.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/570395/original/file-20240119-15-l7kh2l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Diagram depicting the first 23 days of embryogenesis, from fertilization to enlargement of the amniotic sac" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/570395/original/file-20240119-15-l7kh2l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/570395/original/file-20240119-15-l7kh2l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570395/original/file-20240119-15-l7kh2l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570395/original/file-20240119-15-l7kh2l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570395/original/file-20240119-15-l7kh2l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570395/original/file-20240119-15-l7kh2l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/570395/original/file-20240119-15-l7kh2l.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=602&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This diagram shows the first few weeks of human embryogenesis, which begins with fertilization.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Human_embryogenesis_-2.png">Jrockley/Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Researchers created the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.3016">first human embryo model</a> from embryonic stem cells in 2014. This pioneering model, also called a gastruloid, captured key aspects of early human development and showed that scientists can drive pluripotent stem cells to form patterned layers echoing the three germ layers and the outer layers of the embryo. </p>
<p>Gastruloids are easy to replicate and measure when studying early events in development. These 2D gastruloids can also help researchers precisely identify and image embryonic cells. However, this model lacks the complex 3D structure and spatial cell interactions seen in natural embryogenesis.</p>
<h2>Advancements in human embryo models</h2>
<p>Since the first gastruloid, the field has made substantial advancements.</p>
<p>Over the years, various models have been able to replicate different facets of human embryogenesis, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-00236-w">such as</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1535-2">amniotic sac development</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2021.08.003">germ layer formation</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-019-0349-7">body plan organization</a>. Researchers have also developed organ-specific models for early organ development, such as a model that captures <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2014.158">key events of</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0237-5">neural development</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2022.11.013">fetal lung organoids</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.stemcr.2023.03.015">that mimic</a> the process of lung formation.</p>
<p>However, none of these models fully captures the entire process of a single cell type developing into the complete structure of a whole embryo.</p>
<p>A significant breakthrough occurred in 2021 when several research groups successfully used human pluripotent stem cells with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03356-y">higher developmental potential to</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04267-8">create blastoids</a>, which resemble early-stage embryos prior to implantation. Blastoids form in a similar way to human embryos, starting from just a few cells that proliferate and organize themselves. </p>
<p>The developmental and structural similarity of blastoids to embryos make them useful for studying the early steps of how embryos form, especially before they attach to the womb. Blastoids can adhere to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stemcr.2023.11.005">lab dishes</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2023.08.005">undergo further growth</a>. They can also mimic embryo implantation in the uterus by integrating with maternal endometrial cells and developing into later embryonic stages <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1934590923002850?via%3Dihub">after implantation</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kYZt5ygmaTA?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Embryo models allow researchers to study key developmental processes, such as the formation of the spine.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Recently, researchers have successfully created more complex models in the lab that mimic what happens after embryos attach to the womb. Two research teams have used specially <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06368-y">engineered cells</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06604-5">to create structures</a> similar to those of human embryos at about one week postimplantation. These models are also able to form the cells that eventually turn into sperm and eggs in humans, mirroring what happens in natural development.</p>
<p>Another research group was also able to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2023.07.018">create a similar model</a> from pluripotent stem cells without needing to genetically engineer them. This model is able to mimic even later development stages and the beginning of nervous system formation.</p>
<h2>Choosing the right models</h2>
<p>In the evolving field of synthetic embryology, no single model can perfectly capture all aspects of embryogenesis. Consequently, the objective isn’t to play God, creating life in a petri dish, but rather to enhance our understanding of ourselves. This goal underscores the importance of carefully choosing the model best suited to the specific research objectives at hand. </p>
<p>For example, my previous work focused on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-021-00660-7">chromosomal abnormalities</a> in early human development. <a href="https://theconversation.com/chromosome-errors-cause-many-pregnancies-to-end-before-they-are-even-detected-39844">Aneuploidy</a>, or cells with an abnormal number of chromosomes, is a leading cause of pregnancy loss. But scientific knowledge about how these abnormal cells affect pregnancy and fetal development is very limited. </p>
<p>Since gastruloids can effectively model these aspects of early development, this system could be ideal for studying aneuploidy in early development. It allows researchers to precisely track and analyze how aneuploid cells behave and how they affect developmental processes.</p>
<p>Using this model, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-021-00660-7">my team and I discovered</a> that cells with chromosomal abnormalities are more likely to mature into placental cells and are likely eliminated during the development of fetal cells. This finding offers significant insight into why babies with normal chromosome numbers can be born healthy even with aneuploidy detected during pregnancy. Such discoveries are valuable for improving diagnostic and prognostic methods in prenatal care.</p>
<p>Future models that more completely replicate embryonic structures and more closely mirror biological events will not only advance understanding of the fundamentals of early development but also hold great potential in addressing clinical problems. Researchers can use them to model diseases and develop drugs for early life or genetic conditions. These models are also invaluable for studying tissue formation in regenerative medicine. Creating embryo models from a patient’s own cells could also allow researchers to study the genetics of development and aid in personalizing treatments.</p>
<p>Key to progress in the field of synthetic embryology is unwavering <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2023.06.007">adherence to ethical standards</a> and regulation.
Crucially, these embryo models are neither synthetic nor actual embryos. The <a href="https://www.isscr.org/isscr-news/isscr-statement-on-new-research-with-embryo-models#">International Society for Stem Cell Research</a> strictly prohibits transferring these embryo models into the uterus of a human or an animal. Although these models mimic certain features of early developmental stages, they cannot and will not develop into the equivalent of a human baby after birth. Grounding research in solid justifications and oversight will help ensure that scientific exploration into the fabric of life is conducted with the utmost respect and responsibility.</p>
<p>By embracing the complexities and potential of synthetic embryology, researchers stand on the brink of a new era in biological understanding and are poised to unravel the mysteries of life itself.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/214186/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Min (Mia) Yang receives funding from University of Washington</span></em></p>Early human development is a complex, multistep process that’s even more complicated to study in the lab. Models made from stem cells avoid some of the trouble with using real human embryos.Min Yang, Assistant Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1847232023-08-22T21:54:17Z2023-08-22T21:54:17ZNew research into genetic mutations may pave the way for more effective gene therapies<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543314/original/file-20230817-8328-bdaz8a.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=44%2C0%2C5000%2C3315&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A lab dish containing embryos that have been injected with Cas9 protein and PCSK9 sgRNA is seen in a laboratory in Shenzhen in southern China's Guangdong province.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" allow="clipboard-read; clipboard-write" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/new-research-into-genetic-mutations-may-pave-the-way-for-more-effective-gene-therapies" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>Consider a living cell, which can have thousands of genes. Now think of these genes as dials that can be tweaked to change how the cell grows in a given environment. Tweaking a gene can either increase or decrease growth, and this is made more complex considering these dials are interconnected with each other, like cogs in a machine. </p>
<p>While scientists are now able to edit genes in laboratory conditions and attempt to produce findings that may lead to cures, evolution has been doing this for billions of years. Evolution is the natural process that turns these dials, allowing populations to adapt. However, unlike scientists, evolution turns these dials randomly as mutations affect the function of genes.</p>
<p>One underlying hypothesis in evolutionary theory — the evolutionary contingency hypothesis — has been that this tuning can have chaotic behaviours. Or, in other words, dials tweaked early in the process can dramatically alter later evolutionary potential.</p>
<p>Stephen Jay Gould was a famous proponent of this theory, arguing in his 1989 book <a href="https://wwnorton.com/books/9780393307009"><em>Wonderful Life</em></a> that since beneficial mutations occur randomly, chance must play an important role in evolutionary diversification.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/does-our-dna-really-determine-our-intelligence-and-health-199266">Does our DNA really determine our intelligence and health?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>If this hypothesis is true, it affects how scientists should edit genes in the laboratory as they will face the chaotic interconnections of our cells. Our work set out to test this hypothesis.</p>
<h2>Resolving an evolutionary paradox</h2>
<p>We can observe the process of evolution in the laboratory under extremely well-controlled conditions. We have done so by growing populations of micro-organisms for hundreds — <a href="https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.63910">even thousands — of days</a>. </p>
<p>Since these organisms divide and reproduce so quickly, this process represents thousands of generations of growth. These experiments have allowed us to pinpoint <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1749-3">precisely when</a>, and how, beneficial mutations co-occur and compete to take over the population.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Image of a human genome." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543310/original/file-20230817-41912-psfxhj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543310/original/file-20230817-41912-psfxhj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543310/original/file-20230817-41912-psfxhj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543310/original/file-20230817-41912-psfxhj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=418&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543310/original/file-20230817-41912-psfxhj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543310/original/file-20230817-41912-psfxhj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543310/original/file-20230817-41912-psfxhj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=525&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Image readout of a human genome.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(NHGRI via AP)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One striking observation from every single one of these experiments is that increases in fitness slow down over time at a rate that is surprisingly reproducible. Despite accumulating different mutations, different populations show remarkably predictable diminishing returns in how fast they adapt.</p>
<p>In contrast with the seemingly chaotic behaviour of mutations, fitness or growth changes are highly predictable. This has led many to hypothesize that this order of mutation is an <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2015.00099">inherent consequence</a> of the way biological systems have evolved. </p>
<p>This striking hypothesis is at odds with the idea that the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-01286-y">specifics of an organism’s biology matter for evolution</a>. In other words, it has been difficult to prove that the order in which evolution turns dials has any impact on the future.</p>
<h2>The answer to the paradox</h2>
<p>My team was able to show that the answer to resolving this paradox lies within the interconnected gene network of the cell itself. </p>
<p>For evolution to work, the dial-tuning must be precise: even if the net outcome is beneficial, adjusting one set of linked dials can trickle down and affect other previously correctly placed dials. As evolution continues, the probability of breaking harmoniously-tuned dials grows. This seemingly simple principle explains why the rate of evolutionary improvements typically slows down over time. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A tray containing human DNA samples ready for genetic sequencing." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543312/original/file-20230817-23-a743da.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543312/original/file-20230817-23-a743da.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543312/original/file-20230817-23-a743da.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543312/original/file-20230817-23-a743da.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=521&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543312/original/file-20230817-23-a743da.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=654&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543312/original/file-20230817-23-a743da.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=654&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543312/original/file-20230817-23-a743da.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=654&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A tray containing human DNA samples ready for genetic sequencing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Patricia McDonnell)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Resolving this paradox experimentally was not an easy task. After all, how can one show the entanglement of dials within the cell? <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm4774">In our recent study</a>, we tackled this challenge by systematically trying out every possible combination of 10 key beneficial mutations and looking at how they affect the growth of cells.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/human-genome-editing-offers-tantalizing-possibilities-but-without-clear-guidelines-many-ethical-questions-still-remain-200983">Human genome editing offers tantalizing possibilities – but without clear guidelines, many ethical questions still remain</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>By testing out combinations of mutations, we were able to reliably understand which mutations were entangled together (this entanglement is known as epistasis) and for just 10 mutations, over 1,000 combinations had to be generated.</p>
<h2>How this affects genetic precision medicine</h2>
<p>Current futuristic technologies tout the ability to generate precise single mutations within our own genomes with the hope that this can be used to repair non-functional genetic variants. For example, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1711-4">prime editing</a> is an effective “search-and-replace” genome editing technology.</p>
<p>One important concern with these approaches is they can introduce undesired mutations at the same time. However, even as scientists solve these concerns, the field of human genetics has often <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-019-0127-1">overlooked the importance of the interconnectedness of genes</a>.</p>
<p>Our study demonstrates that bioengineers should think not only about the effect a mutation has on the gene it is in, but also about the effect of the mutation in the context of all other variations in our genomes. Altering the function of any of our genes can affect our interconnected cellular networks. </p>
<p>This is compounded by the fact that all of us carry hundreds of extremely rare variants, which means each of us carries a unique interconnected network of genes. These personalized networks make us who we are. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/somatic-genome-editing-therapies-are-becoming-a-reality-but-debate-over-ethics-equitable-access-and-governance-continue-201234">Somatic genome editing therapies are becoming a reality – but debate over ethics, equitable access and governance continue</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Genome interpretation is at the heart of genetic testing for disease. And while scientists have made some progress in identifying key pathogenic genetic variants (those that can cause disease), our findings demonstrate that classifying a variant as pathogenic or benign requires us to also understand how the other genetic dials in our cells are tuned.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/184723/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alex Nguyen Ba receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. </span></em></p>New research sheds light on the interconnected nature of the human genome and what this means for future gene therapies.Alex Nguyen Ba, Assistant Professor, Biology, University of TorontoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2112012023-08-10T20:00:31Z2023-08-10T20:00:31ZGenetically engineered bacteria can detect cancer cells in a world-first experiment<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/542040/original/file-20230809-28-ahhuk7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=122%2C14%2C1874%2C1107&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>As medical technology advances, many diseases could be detected, prevented and cured with cells, rather than pills.</p>
<p>This branch of medicine is called <a href="https://www.aabb.org/news-resources/resources/cellular-therapies/facts-about-cellular-therapies">cellular or cell therapy</a>. It’s already used in clinical practice in some situations, such as patients receiving faecal microbial transplants (“<a href="https://theconversation.com/poo-transplants-beyond-the-yuck-factor-what-works-what-doesnt-and-what-we-still-dont-know-82265">poo transplants</a>”) when they have a severe gastrointestinal infection, or a bone marrow transplant for treating blood cancer.</p>
<p>Using <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-synthetic-biology-revolution-is-now-heres-what-that-means-102399">synthetic biology</a>, we can also engineer new and improved cells that could help us manage various diseases. In a new study <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.adf3974">published today in Science</a>, my colleagues and I describe how we engineered bacteria to successfully detect cancer cells.</p>
<h2>Leveraging competent bacteria</h2>
<p>Our project started with a presentation by synthetic biologist Rob Cooper during our colleague Jeff Hasty’s weekly lab meeting at the University of California San Diego. Rob was studying genes and gene transfer in bacteria.</p>
<p>Genes are the fundamental unit of genetic inheritance. It’s the stuff that gives you your mother’s smile or your father’s eye colour.</p>
<p>Gene transfer (or inheritance) is the process by which genes are passed from one cell to another. They may be inherited vertically – when one cell replicates its DNA and divides into two separate cells. This is what happens in reproduction, and how <a href="https://theconversation.com/curious-kids-how-does-dna-affect-our-fingerprints-and-eye-colour-199225">children inherit DNA</a> from their parents.</p>
<p>Genes may also, however, be inherited horizontally – when DNA is passed between unrelated cells, outside of parent-to-offspring inheritance.</p>
<p>Horizontal gene transfer is quite common in the microbial world. Certain bacteria can salvage genes from cell-free DNA found in their immediate environment. This free-floating DNA is released when cells die. When bacteria hoover up cell-free DNA into their cells, it’s called natural competence.</p>
<p>So, competent bacteria can sample their nearby environment and, in doing so, acquire genes that may provide them with an advantage.</p>
<p>After Rob’s talk, we engaged in some frenzied speculation. If bacteria can take up DNA, and cancer is defined genetically by a change in its DNA, then, theoretically, bacteria could be engineered to detect cancer.</p>
<p>Colorectal cancer seemed a logical proof of concept as the bowel is not just full of microbes, but is also full of tumour DNA when it’s struck by cancer.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/one-test-to-diagnose-them-all-researchers-exploit-cancers-unique-dna-signature-108078">One test to diagnose them all: researchers exploit cancers' unique DNA signature</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>We put the bacterium through its paces</h2>
<p><em>Acinetobacter baylyi</em>, a naturally competent bacterium, was chosen to be the experimental biosensor – a disease-detecting cell.</p>
<p>Our team modified the <em>A. baylyi</em> genome to contain long sequences of DNA to mirror the DNA found in a human cancer gene we were interested in capturing. These “complementary” DNA sequences functioned as sticky landing pads – when specific tumour DNA was taken up by the bacteria, it was more likely to integrate into the bacterial genome.</p>
<p>It was important to integrate – hold in place – the tumour DNA. In doing so, we could activate other integrated genes, in this case an antibiotic resistance gene, as a signal for the cancer being detected. </p>
<p>The signal would work as follows: if bacteria could be grown on antibiotic-laden culture plates, their antibiotic resistance gene was active. Therefore they had detected the cancer.</p>
<p>We conducted a series of experiments in which our new bacterial biosensors and tumour cells were brought together in increasingly complex systems.</p>
<p>Initially, we simply marinated the biosensor with purified tumour DNA. That is, we presented our biosensor with the exact DNA it was built to detect – and it worked. Next, we grew the biosensor alongside living tumour cells. Again, it detected the tumour DNA.</p>
<p>Ultimately, we delivered the biosensor into live mice that either did or did not have tumours. In a mouse model of colorectal cancer, we inject mouse colorectal cancer cells into the colon, using mouse colonoscopy.</p>
<p>Over several weeks, the mice that were injected with cancer cells develop tumours, while the mice that were not injected serve as the healthy comparison group. Our biosensor perfectly discriminated between mice with and without colorectal cancer.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/yS7sqiXegL4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<h2>CATCH’s promising start – but more testing is needed</h2>
<p>After these encouraging results, we engineered the bacteria even further. The biosensor can now tell apart single base pair changes within the tumour DNA, allowing for finely tuned precision in how it detects and targets the genes. We have named this technology CATCH: cellular assay for targeted, CRISPR-discriminated horizontal gene transfer.</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>CATCH holds great promise. This technology uses cell-free DNA as a new input for synthetic biological circuits, and thus for the detection of a range of different diseases, particularly infections and cancers.</p>
<p>However, it is not yet ready to be used in the clinic. We’re actively working on the next steps – to increase the efficiency of DNA detection, to more critically evaluate the performance of this biosensor compared to other diagnostic tests, and, of course, to ensure patient and environmental safety.</p>
<p>The most exciting aspect of cellular healthcare, however, is not in the mere detection of disease. A laboratory can do that. </p>
<p>But what a laboratory cannot do is pair the detection of disease (a diagnosis) with the cells actually responding to the disease with an appropriate treatment.</p>
<p>This means biosensors can be programmed so that a disease signal – in this case, a specific sequence of cell-free DNA – could trigger a specific biological therapy, directly at the spot where the disease is detected in real time.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Acknowledgements: I am grateful to be part of this incredible team including Professor Jeff Hasty, Dr Rob Cooper, Associate Professor Susan Woods and Dr Josephine Wright.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211201/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dan Worthley owns shares in GenCirq, a synthetic biology company focussed on cancer therapeutics.
This work was supported by an NHMRC ideas grant (2020555) awarded to Dan Worthley.
Dan Worthley is listed as an inventor on a provisional patent application, “Detection of Cancer Mutations”, filed by the University
of California San Diego with the US Patent and Trademark Office (Application No. 63/239,100).</span></em></p>A proof-of-concept study using bacteria shows cell therapy can detect tumours – and may one day be able to treat them.Dan Worthley, Gastroenterologist and cancer scientist, South Australian Health & Medical Research InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2082762023-07-13T12:37:38Z2023-07-13T12:37:38ZPromising assisted reproductive technologies come with ethical, legal and social challenges – a developmental biologist and a bioethicist discuss IVF, abortion and the mice with two dads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534595/original/file-20230628-23-se3fkd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2000%2C1500&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A few days after successful fertilization, an embryo becomes a rapidly dividing ball of cells called a blastocyst.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/blastocyst-embryo-illustration-royalty-free-illustration/1498384521">Juan Gaertner/Science Photo Library via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Assisted reproductive technologies are medical procedures that help people experiencing difficulty having or an inability to have biological children of their own. From in vitro fertilization to genetic screening to creation of viable eggs from the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-05834-x">skin cells of two male mice</a>, each new development speaks to the potential of reproductive technologies to expand access to the experience of pregnancy.</em> </p>
<p><em>Translating advances from the lab to the clinic, however, comes with challenges that go far beyond the purely technical.</em></p>
<p><em>Conversations around the ethics and implications of cutting-edge research often happen after the fact, when the science and technology have advanced beyond the point at which open dialogue could best protect affected groups. In the spirit of starting such cross-discipline conversations earlier, we invited developmental biologist <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=i6SghEMAAAAJ&hl=en">Keith Latham</a> of Michigan State University and bioethicist <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mary-Faith-Marshall">Mary Faith Marshall</a> of the University of Virginia to discuss the ethical and technological potential of <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/05/27/1177191913/sperm-or-egg-in-lab-breakthrough-in-reproduction-designer-babies-ivg">in vitro gametogenesis</a> and assisted reproductive technology post-Roe.</em></p>
<h2>How new are the ethical considerations raised by assisted reproductive technologies?</h2>
<p><strong>Keith</strong></p>
<p>Every new technology raises many of the same questions, and likely new ones. On the safety and risk-benefit side of the ethical conversation, there’s nothing here that we haven’t dealt with since the 1970s with other reproductive technologies. But it’s important to keep asking questions, because the benefits are hugely dependent on the success rate. There are potential biological costs, but also possible social costs, financial costs, societal costs and many others.</p>
<p><strong>Mary Faith</strong> </p>
<p>It’s probably been that way even longer. One of my mentors, Joseph Francis Fletcher, a pioneering bioethicist and Episcopal priest, wrote a book called “<a href="https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691635224/morals-and-medicine">Morals and Medicine</a>” in 1954. It was the first non-Roman Catholic treatment of bioethics. And he raised a lot of these issues there, including the <a href="https://theconversation.com/jurassic-world-scientists-still-havent-learned-that-just-because-you-can-doesnt-mean-you-should-real-world-genetic-engineers-can-learn-from-the-cautionary-tale-184369">technological imperative</a> – the idea that because we can develop the technology to do something, we therefore should develop it.</p>
<p>Fletcher also said that the use of artifice, or human-made creations, is supremely human. That’s what we do: We figure out how things work and we develop new technologies like vaccines and heart-lung machines based on evolving scientific knowledge.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534596/original/file-20230628-30-nfjlun.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Microscopy image of mouse ovum being fertilized by mouse sperm" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534596/original/file-20230628-30-nfjlun.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534596/original/file-20230628-30-nfjlun.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534596/original/file-20230628-30-nfjlun.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534596/original/file-20230628-30-nfjlun.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=388&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534596/original/file-20230628-30-nfjlun.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534596/original/file-20230628-30-nfjlun.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534596/original/file-20230628-30-nfjlun.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=487&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scientists were able to create a mouse egg from the skin cells of male mice.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/fertilization-of-mouse-ovum-royalty-free-image/523741410">Clouds Hill Imaging Ltd./Corbis Documentary via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I think that in most cases, scientists should be involved in thinking about the implications of their work. But often, researchers focus more on the direct applications of their work than the potential indirect consequences. </p>
<p>Given the evolution of assisted reproductive technology, and the fact that its evolution is going to continue, I think one of the central questions to consider is, what are the goals of developing it? For assisted reproduction, it’s to help infertile people and people in nontraditional relationships have children.</p>
<h2>What are some recent developments in the field of assisted reproductive technology?</h2>
<p><strong>Keith</strong></p>
<p>One recent advance in assisted reproductive technology is the expansion of <a href="https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2020/03/preimplantation-genetic-testing">pre-implantation genetic testing</a> methods, particularly DNA sequencing. Many genes come in different variants, or alleles, that can be inherited from each parent. Providers can determine whether an embryo bears a “bad” allele that may increase the risk of certain diseases and select embryos with “healthy” alleles.</p>
<p>Genetic screening <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.03.017">raises several ethical concerns</a>. For example, the parents’ genetic profiles could be unwillingly inferred from that of the embryo. This possibility may deter prospective parents from having children, and such knowledge may also have potential effects on any future child. The cost of screening and potential need for additional cycles of IVF may also increase disparities.</p>
<p>There are also considerations about the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.03.019">accuracy of screening predictions</a> without accounting for environmental effects, and what <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s12687-021-00573-w">level of genetic risk</a> is “serious” enough for an embryo to be excluded. More extensive screening also raises concerns about possible misuse for purposes other than disease prevention, such as production of “<a href="https://theconversation.com/an-american-company-will-test-your-embryos-for-genetic-defects-but-designer-babies-arent-here-just-yet-126833">designer babies</a>.”</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uhb5gd5B-7g?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">In vitro gametogenesis involves making egg or sperm cells from other adult cells in the body.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At a <a href="https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2023/02/agenda-for-third-international-summit-on-human-genome-editing-march-6-8">genome-editing conference</a> in March 2023, researchers announced that they were able to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-05834-x">delete and duplicate whole chromosomes</a> from the skin cells of male mice to make eggs. This method is one potential way to make eggs that do not carry genetic abnormalities. </p>
<p>They were very upfront that this was done at 1% efficiency in mice, which could be lower in humans. That means something bad happened to 99% of the embryos. The biological world is not typically binary, so a portion of that surviving 1% could still be abnormal. Just because the mice survived doesn’t mean they’re OK. I would say at this point, it would be unethical to try this on people.</p>
<p>As with some forms of genetic screening, using this technique to reduce the risk of one disease could inadvertently increase the risk of another. Determining that it is absolutely safe to duplicate a chromosome would require knowing every allele of every gene on that chromosome, and what each allele could do to the health of a person. That’s a pretty tall order, as that could involve identifying hundreds to thousands of genes, and the effects of all their variants may not be known. </p>
<p><strong>Mary Faith</strong></p>
<p>That raises the issue of efficacy and costs to yet another order of magnitude.</p>
<p><strong>Keith</strong> </p>
<p>Genome editing with <a href="https://theconversation.com/human-genome-editing-offers-tantalizing-possibilities-but-without-clear-guidelines-many-ethical-questions-still-remain-200983">CRISPR technology</a> in people carries similar concerns. Because of potential limitations in how precise the technology can be, it may be difficult for researchers to say they are absolutely 100% certain there won’t be off-target changes in the genome. Proceeding without that full knowledge could be risky. </p>
<p>But that’s where bioethicists need to come into play. Researchers don’t know what the full risk is, so how do you make that risk-benefit calculation?</p>
<p><strong>Mary Faith</strong></p>
<p>There’s the option of a voluntary global moratorium on using these technologies on human embryos. But somebody somewhere is <a href="https://theconversation.com/did-he-jiankui-make-people-better-documentary-spurs-a-new-look-at-the-case-of-the-first-gene-edited-babies-196714">still going to do it</a>, because the technology is just sitting there, waiting to be moved forward.</p>
<h2>How will the legal landscape affect the development and implementation of assisted reproductive technologies?</h2>
<p><strong>Mary Faith</strong></p>
<p>Any research that involves human embryos is in some ways politicized. Not only because the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-00127-z">government provides funding</a> to the basic science labs that conduct this research, but because of the wide array of beliefs that members of the public at large have about <a href="https://theconversation.com/defining-when-human-life-begins-is-not-a-question-science-can-answer-its-a-question-of-politics-and-ethical-values-165514">when life begins</a> or <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-personhood-the-ethics-question-that-needs-a-closer-look-in-abortion-debates-182745">what personhood means</a>.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/roe-overturned-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-supreme-court-abortion-decision-184692">Dobbs decision</a>, which overturned the constitutional right to an abortion, has implications for assisted reproduction and beyond. Most people who are pregnant don’t even know they’re pregnant at the earliest stages, and somewhere around <a href="https://theconversation.com/most-human-embryos-naturally-die-after-conception-restrictive-abortion-laws-fail-to-take-this-embryo-loss-into-account-187904">60% of those pregnancies end naturally</a> because of genetic aberrations. Between 1973 and 2005, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-1966324">over 400 women were arrested for miscarriage in the U.S.</a>, and I think that number is going to grow. The implications for reproductive health care, and for assisted reproduction in the future, are challenging and frightening.</p>
<p>What will abortion restrictions mean for people who have <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/art/key-findings/multiple-births.html">multiple-gestation pregnancies</a>, in which they carry more than one embryo at the same time? In order to have one healthy child born from that process, the other embryos often need to be removed so they don’t all die. In the past 40 years, the number of twin births doubled and triplet and higher-order births quadrupled, primarily because of fertility treatments. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534477/original/file-20230628-27-v0r0uc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Needle touching eggs in petri dish under microscope in IVF" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534477/original/file-20230628-27-v0r0uc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534477/original/file-20230628-27-v0r0uc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534477/original/file-20230628-27-v0r0uc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534477/original/file-20230628-27-v0r0uc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534477/original/file-20230628-27-v0r0uc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534477/original/file-20230628-27-v0r0uc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534477/original/file-20230628-27-v0r0uc.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"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">IVF may involve transferring more than one embryo at a time.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/in-vitro-fertilization-royalty-free-image/1272954210">Antonio Marquez lanza/Moment via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Keith</strong> </p>
<p>IVF may transfer one, two, or sometimes three embryos at a time. The <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2022.11.038">cost of care for preterm birth</a>, which is one possible outcome of multiple-gestation pregnancies, can be high. That’s in addition to the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2013.10.005">cost of delivery</a>. IVF clinics are increasingly transferring just one embryo to mitigate such concerns.</p>
<p>The life-at-conception bills that have been put forth in some U.S. state legislatures and Congress may contain language claiming they are not meant to prevent IVF. But the language of the bills could be extended to affect procedures such as IVF with pre-implantation genetic testing to detect chromosomal abnormalities, particularly when single-embryo transfer is the goal. Pre-implantation genetic testing has been increasing, with one study estimating that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.1892">over 40% of all IVF cycles</a> in the U.S. in 2018 involved genetic screening. </p>
<p>Could life-at-conception bills criminalize clinics that don’t transfer embryos known to be genetically abnormal? Freezing genetically abnormal embryos could avoid destroying them, but that raises questions of, to what end? Who would pay for the storage, and who would be responsible for those embryos?</p>
<h2>How can we determine whether the risks outweigh the benefits when so much is unknown?</h2>
<p><strong>Keith</strong></p>
<p>Conducting studies in animal models is an important first step. In some cases, it either hasn’t been done or hasn’t been done extensively. Even with animal studies, you have to recognize that mice, rabbits and monkeys are not human. Animal models may reduce some risks before a technology is used in people, but they won’t eliminate all risks, because of biological differences between species.</p>
<p><strong>Mary Faith</strong> </p>
<p>We could look to the example of <a href="https://www.genome.gov/25520302/online-education-kit-1972-first-recombinant-dna">early recombinant DNA research in the U.S.</a> The federal government created the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1089%2Fhum.2013.2524">Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee at the National Institutes of Health</a> to oversee animal and early-phase human research involving synthetic or hybrid genetic material. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.307.5712.1028b">death of Jesse Gelsinger</a>, who was a participant in a gene therapy clinical trial in 1999, led to a halt in all gene therapy clinical trials in the U.S. for a time. When the Food and Drug Administration investigated what went wrong, they found huge numbers of adverse events in both humans and animals that should have been reported to the advisory committee but weren’t. Notably, the principal investigator of the trial was also the <a href="https://sciencehistory.org/stories/magazine/the-death-of-jesse-gelsinger-20-years-later/">primary shareholder</a> of the biotech company that made the drug being tested. That raises questions about the reality of oversight.</p>
<p>I think something like that earlier NIH advisory committee but for reproductive technologies would still be advisable. But researchers, policymakers and regulators need to learn from the lessons of the past to try to ensure that – especially in early-phase research – we’re very thoughtful about the potential risks and that research participants really understand what the implications are for participation in research. That would be one model for translating research from the animal into the human.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534481/original/file-20230628-30590-2nwhy8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Child looking into a slip lamp microscope for an eye exam with a doctor" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534481/original/file-20230628-30590-2nwhy8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/534481/original/file-20230628-30590-2nwhy8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534481/original/file-20230628-30590-2nwhy8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534481/original/file-20230628-30590-2nwhy8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534481/original/file-20230628-30590-2nwhy8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534481/original/file-20230628-30590-2nwhy8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/534481/original/file-20230628-30590-2nwhy8.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"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The FDA approved a gene therapy for a form of congenital vision loss in 2017. The child in this photo, then 8, first received gene therapy at age 4.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/BlindnessTreatmentPrice/c567cc3a2b244cac8afc2b5ae2c62ca3">Bill West/AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><strong>Keith</strong></p>
<p>A process to make sure that the people conducting studies don’t have a conflict of interest, like having the potential to commercially profit from the technology, would be useful. </p>
<p>Caution, consensus and cooperation should not take second place to profit motives. Altering the human genome in a way that allows human-made genetic changes to be <a href="https://doi.org/10.1089/crispr.2020.0096">propagated throughout the population</a> has a potential to alter the genetics of the human species as a whole. </p>
<p><strong>Mary Faith</strong></p>
<p>That raises the question of how long it will take for long-term effects to show. It’s one thing for an implanted egg not to survive. But how long will it take to know whether there are effects that aren’t obvious at birth?</p>
<p><strong>Keith</strong> </p>
<p>We’re still collecting long-term outcome data for people born using different reproductive technologies. So far there have been no obviously horrible consequences. But some abnormalities could take decades to manifest, and there are many variables to contend with. </p>
<p>One can arguably say that there’s substantial good in helping couples have babies. There can be a benefit to their emotional well-being, and reproduction is a natural part of human health and biology. And a lot of really smart, dedicated people are putting a lot of energy into making sure that the risks are minimized. We can also look to some of the practices and approaches to oversight that have been used over the past several decades.</p>
<p><strong>Mary Faith</strong></p>
<p>And thinking about international guidelines, such as from the <a href="https://cioms.ch">Council for International Medical Science</a> and other groups, could provide guidance on protecting human research subjects.</p>
<p><strong>Keith</strong></p>
<p>You hate to advocate for a world where the automatic response to anything new is “no, don’t do that.” My response is, “Show me it’s safe before you do it.” I don’t think that’s unreasonable.</p>
<p>Some people have a view that scientists don’t think about the ethics of research and what’s right and wrong, advisable or inadvisable. But we do think about it. I co-direct a research training program that includes teaching scientists how to responsibly and ethically conduct research, including speakers who specifically address the ethics of reproductive technologies. It is valuable to have a dialogue between scientists and ethicists, because ethicists will often think about things from a different perspective. </p>
<p>As people go through their scientific careers and see new technologies unfold over time, these discussions can help them develop a deeper appreciation and understanding of the broader impact of their research. It becomes our job to make sure that each generation of scientists is motivated to think about these things. </p>
<p><strong>Mary Faith</strong></p>
<p>It’s also really important to include stakeholders – people who are nonscientists, people who experience barriers to reproduction and people who are opposed to the idea – so they have a voice at the table as well. That’s how you get good policies, right? You have everyone who should be at the table, at the table.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/208276/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 organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Scientists can create viable eggs from two male mice. In the wake of CRISPR controversies and restrictive abortion laws, two experts start a dialogue on ethical research in reproductive biology.Keith Latham, Professor of Animal Science, Adjunct Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, Michigan State UniversityMary Faith Marshall, Professor of Biomedical Ethics, University of VirginiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2027562023-05-22T04:14:32Z2023-05-22T04:14:32ZWhere have all the Luddites gone? Exploring what makes us human – and whether modern technology threatens to destroy it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/526362/original/file-20230515-23727-om8jpj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=285%2C38%2C3949%2C2781&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>The great – if sometimes overlooked – 20th-century philosopher and cultural critic <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-an-obscure-austrian-philosopher-saw-through-our-empty-rhetoric-about-sustainability-77884">Günther Anders</a> once proposed that our modern age is characterised by a dangerous and pervasive “<em>Apocalypse-Blindheit</em>”: a blindness to the apocalypse. </p>
<p>Writing in the midst of the 20th-century nuclear arms race, he suggested an unquestioning faith in science and progress prevents us from seeing the technological catastrophe spreading out all around us.</p>
<p>The reality of human-created climate change has, in recent years, perhaps begun to cure this condition. And there are at least some indications a significant number of people are becoming aware of the mess we’re in.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>Review: Here Be Monsters: Is Technology Reducing Our Humanity – Richard King (Monash University Press)</em></p>
<hr>
<p>But, as Richard King notes in his sweeping and ambitious <a href="https://publishing.monash.edu/product/here-be-monsters/">Here Be Monsters</a>, our philosophical or intellectual responses to technology have not really kept pace with events.</p>
<p>Instead, what King calls “the techno-critical tradition”, or a tradition of thinkers who view technological modernity as fundamentally damaging and foreboding, has more or less disappeared.</p>
<p>Thus, once-towering philosophers of technology – figures like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford">Lewis Mumford</a>, who was already warning in the 1950s that unrestricted technological expansion threatened the durability of both the human and the natural worlds, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Postman">Neil Postman</a>, who in the 1980s described modern society as a “technopoly” in which human behaviour is thoroughly governed and regulated by machines - hardly receive any attention at all.</p>
<p>And the more “techno-critical” elements of those who <em>are</em> studied widely (notably the ubiquitous <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Arendt">Hannah Arendt</a>) are quickly glossed over or pushed to the margins.</p>
<p>Why, then, have full-throated critiques of technology become so scarce at the exact moment when they might seem most pertinent? Where have all the Luddites gone?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/feed-me-4-ways-to-take-control-of-social-media-algorithms-and-get-the-content-you-actually-want-204374">Feed me: 4 ways to take control of social media algorithms and get the content you actually want</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Recovering human nature</h2>
<p>King argues one crucial reason for the decline of the techno-critical tradition is its tendency to rely on the concept of human nature. </p>
<p>We can only maintain our technologies corrupt us if we have some relatively fixed sense of who we would be without them.</p>
<p>But, particularly in the rarefied atmosphere of universities, the concept of human nature has been decidedly unfashionable (indeed all but forbidden) for nearly half a century. It has become commonplace to suggest every definition of the human, no matter how loose or how broad, exists primarily to exclude its opposite. We define the “human”, the argument goes, to mark off forms of life that can be labelled <em>inhuman</em>, and thus justify their elimination.</p>
<p>As King sees it, the widespread abandonment of the concept of human nature might be well-intentioned. But it has inadvertently left us vulnerable to an unthinking veneration of technology - one particularly amendable to the interests of capitalism.</p>
<p>For to strip the human of all natural limits is to present it as nothing more than what King calls a “blank slate” – a programmable machine capable of being engineered for optimal production and consumption, void of any essential needs or desires.</p>
<p>“The danger,” King writes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>is not that we create a monster that runs amok, or a plague of zombies, or a rogue AI – or a planet of the apes, for that matter – but that we begin to see ourselves and others as something less than fully human, as machines to be rewired or recalibrated in line with the dominant ideological worldview. </p>
<p>In that case, we would <em>already</em> have arrived at a perilous situation – a situation where our perception of ourselves as bounded by and connected through nature had given way to the “post-humanist” view that humans are fleshy automata, subject to endless modification.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>For King, this danger is at a historical tipping point. And we must face it immediately. Doing so, however, will require more than an examination of technology itself.</p>
<p>It will require what King dubs a “radical humanism”, and a fundamental reassessment of what we are – including our relations with ourselves, with one another, and with our common world.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/ai-pioneer-geoffrey-hinton-says-ai-is-a-new-form-of-intelligence-unlike-our-own-have-we-been-getting-it-wrong-this-whole-time-204911">AI pioneer Geoffrey Hinton says AI is a new form of intelligence unlike our own. Have we been getting it wrong this whole time?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Homo Faber, or the tool-making animal</h2>
<p>Here Be Monsters proposes to develop nothing less than a new definition of human nature.</p>
<p>King, of course, is fully aware of the immensity of the task, and he is careful to qualify his approach in important ways. He acknowledges, for example, the basic difficulty of distinguishing between nature and culture. Any consistent understanding of the former would eventually have to envelop the latter.</p>
<p>It’s part of human nature to produce culture, King allows. The human is “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_faber">homo faber</a>”, he proposes, “man the maker”. And “no less than the instinct for self-preservation or sexual desire, technological creativity is fundamental to our being”.</p>
<p>But from King’s perspective, there is a qualitative difference between building tools that harness the power of nature (for example, a windmill) and using technology to alter its very fabric (for example, splitting the atom).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/526359/original/file-20230515-24689-pj3w3l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/526359/original/file-20230515-24689-pj3w3l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/526359/original/file-20230515-24689-pj3w3l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/526359/original/file-20230515-24689-pj3w3l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/526359/original/file-20230515-24689-pj3w3l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/526359/original/file-20230515-24689-pj3w3l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/526359/original/file-20230515-24689-pj3w3l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/526359/original/file-20230515-24689-pj3w3l.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"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">King sees a qualitative difference between creating tools that harness the power of nature and those that alter its very fabric.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Charlie Riedel/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The line might be hard to pinpoint. But as King sees it, in the age of nuclear energy, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, machine learning, and much more, it was crossed long ago.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-the-latest-on-gmos-and-gene-edited-foods-and-what-are-the-concerns-an-expert-explains-204275">What’s the latest on GMOs and gene-edited foods – and what are the concerns? An expert explains</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>King similarly acknowledges his tendency to frame the problem in ways that primarily concern the wealthy inhabitants of the <a href="https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/global-north-countries">Global North</a> - and that the same issues will look entirely different from the perspective of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_South">Global South</a>. It must be infuriating to hear those who have already reaped most of the benefits of technological development now insist that limits be placed on those who have paid most of the costs.</p>
<p>“Nevertheless,” King insists, “the Global North and Global South […] are at very different stages of development”. And precisely because it has advanced further into the belly of the beast, “the North has problems the South doesn’t have, or has to a lesser degree”. The North, in other words, should not be seen as a model, but as a warning. </p>
<h2>Social, embodied, creative</h2>
<p>Following these introductory remarks, King divides his book into three parts. Each addresses a crucial aspect of the human experience, and the way modern technology threatens to destroy it.</p>
<p>The first part describes humans as essentially social creatures, who require both the physical presence of other humans and a robust political community in order to become themselves.</p>
<p>It argues that social media, algorithmic manipulation, and what King calls “technologies of absence” corrupt this aspect of our existence.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/526360/original/file-20230515-19748-5pl73m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/526360/original/file-20230515-19748-5pl73m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/526360/original/file-20230515-19748-5pl73m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/526360/original/file-20230515-19748-5pl73m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/526360/original/file-20230515-19748-5pl73m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/526360/original/file-20230515-19748-5pl73m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/526360/original/file-20230515-19748-5pl73m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/526360/original/file-20230515-19748-5pl73m.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"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A crowd in Tokyo earlier this month. Humans are essentially social creatures, writes King.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kimimasa Mayama/AP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The second part takes up the related question of our embodiment. King proposes neither the mind nor the body can be reduced to mechanistic calculations, and warns against the pernicious effects of attempting to do so.</p>
<p>For King, when we view our mind as nothing more than a large calculator and our body as an object to be constructed and reconstructed at will, we risk losing sight of the very limits that make it possible for us to flourish.</p>
<p>Finally, the third part explores the human capacity for free creation and “the pleasures of practical activity”. Here King seeks to revitalise the familiar Marxist theme of alienation, or the sense in which technological modes of production distance us from the products of our labour. And he begins to sketch out the parameters of what he calls “a new relationship with technology”.</p>
<p>As King sees it, we stand on the verge of a precipice. The technologies we have constructed to make our way in the world are very close to depriving us of any world whatsoever.</p>
<p>“In order to avoid this trap,” King concludes, “we will need to develop a radical humanism that puts the social and creative needs of human beings front and centre” – one that, once again, “is not afraid […] to invoke the concept of human nature”.</p>
<h2>Historicising the human</h2>
<p>Here Be Monsters deals extensively with specific technologies, offering a kind of pessimistic catalogue of their worst potential. But some of its most intriguing arguments concern philosophical and ideological positions that were established long before the advent of either the atomic or the digital age. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/526356/original/file-20230515-25-dpd9i2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/526356/original/file-20230515-25-dpd9i2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/526356/original/file-20230515-25-dpd9i2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=921&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/526356/original/file-20230515-25-dpd9i2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=921&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/526356/original/file-20230515-25-dpd9i2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=921&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/526356/original/file-20230515-25-dpd9i2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1157&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/526356/original/file-20230515-25-dpd9i2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1157&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/526356/original/file-20230515-25-dpd9i2.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1157&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>King spends a considerable amount of time dismantling the platitudes of utilitarianism, liberalism, and capitalism. </p>
<p>And he shows how these phenomena, which have their roots in the 17th and 18th centuries, provided the intellectual and material foundations of what we now call “neoliberalism”. This is a way of thinking that King takes to be fundamentally at odds with human wellbeing, and with the project of humanity as such. </p>
<p>The problem is, we cannot really historicise one concept of the human – namely the neoliberal concept, which treats humans as self-interested, profit-maximising machines – without historicising the concept of “humanity” as a whole.</p>
<p>That is to say, while the biological species “human being” has obviously existed for a very long time, the notion that all members of that species share a common world, that we all have some common interests, and even that we all possess common rights, is not that old at all.</p>
<p>In this sense, it might be best to think of our humanity, not as an object we might investigate and describe, like a part of the natural world, but more like a response to a crisis or an event. </p>
<p>As we arguably witnessed for fleeting moments during the COVID pandemic, humanity is called into existence – and we belong to it – when something larger than life grips us all, and we are compelled to act in concert.</p>
<p>The question is whether we will ever be able to do this in the sustained manner required to address the overwhelming existential catastrophes outlined by King.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/202756/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Charles Barbour 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>A new book argues our philosophical and intellectual responses to technology have not kept pace with events.Charles Barbour, Associate Professor, Philosophy, Western Sydney UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1926362022-10-26T14:07:57Z2022-10-26T14:07:57ZKenya has lifted its ban on genetically modified crops: the risks and opportunities<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/491070/original/file-20221021-21-42ncw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An Egyptian worker gathers the crop at a maize field, the country’s first harvest of genetically modified maize in 2008.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Khaled Desouki/AFP via Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Kenya recently lifted a ban on the cultivation and importation of genetically modified crops amid the <a href="https://reliefweb.int/report/kenya/health-and-violence-risks-multiply-women-and-girls-kenya-worst-drought-40-years-takes-hold">worst drought in 40 years</a> and soaring food prices. This includes <a href="https://theconversation.com/kenyas-maize-price-has-doubled-in-a-year-6-ways-to-avoid-a-staple-food-shortage-190149">white maize</a>, the country’s main staple. The decision was <a href="https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2001458514/gmo-is-not-a-monster-its-a-tool-for-farming-says-experts">welcomed by scientists</a> who see GM crops as the answer for food security. But it is <a href="https://www.africanews.com/2022/10/06/kenyan-ngos-protest-approval-of-gm-crops//">opposed</a> by a spirited lobby who are concerned about potential risks to health and the environment. Benard Odhiambo Oloo, who is a food safety and quality expert, provides insights into the debate.</em></p>
<h2>What are GMOs?</h2>
<p>Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) refer to plants, microbes or animals that have had their genetic make-up altered through the introduction of a select gene from another unrelated species. For crops this is usually for the purpose of <a href="https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetically-modified-organisms-gmos-transgenic-crops-and-732/">conferring a desired characteristic</a> such as increased yield, insect tolerance or drought resistance among others. </p>
<p>Genetic engineering refers to the <a href="https://msupress.org/9781611860085/environmental-safety-of-genetically-engineered-crops/">science involved</a> in the selection of desired genes responsible for specific traits from a species and transferring them into the genes of another organism, thus modifying the second species’ genetic makeup. </p>
<p>Humans have been <a href="https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/gmo">improving the quality of domesticated</a> crops for thousands of years. But this has mostly been through conventional breeding, where important traits are <a href="https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US2018H01475">encouraged, selected and passed down</a> from one generation to the next. </p>
<p>Conventional breeding would typically take 10-15 years. The turnaround for genetic engineering is usually less than five years. But, due to the <a href="https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2021/08/bad-press-and-wild-claims-have-unfairly-slowed-gm-crops-on-the-continent-african-scientists-say/">strict regulations</a> on commercialisation, most GM crops have been in the pipeline for decades especially in Africa. </p>
<h2>How prevalent is their cultivation in Africa?</h2>
<p>The approval and cultivation of GMOs in Africa has been <a href="https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2021/08/bad-press-and-wild-claims-have-unfairly-slowed-gm-crops-on-the-continent-african-scientists-say/">slow</a>. Only a few countries have allowed their commercialisation. South Africa has been a <a href="https://www.nepad.org/content/development-of-gm-crops-africa#:%7E:text=South%20Africa%20has%20been%20growing,www.sanbi.org">leader in adoption of GMO crops</a> in Africa and has had experience spanning over a decade. The number of countries in Africa where GM crops are cultivated has <a href="https://www.isaaa.org/blog/entry/default.asp?BlogDate=5/11/2022">grown</a> from three in 2016 to 10 by 2022. These 10 countries have commercialised different types of GMO crops. </p>
<p>Apart from South Africa, Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Burkina Faso, Malawi, Nigeria, Ghana and eSwatini have allowed the planting of GMO seeds. A number of other countries are at different stages of development and commercialisation of a number of GMOs. </p>
<p>The leading GMO <a href="https://www.nepad.org/content/development-of-gm-crops-africa">crops</a> under consideration across different countries (Kenya, Malawi, Uganda, Nigeria, Ghana and others) are GM cotton (tolerant to African bollworm), GM cassava (resistant to cassava brown streak disease) and GM maize (resistant to stem borer) among many more. </p>
<p>This year Ghana <a href="https://africenter.isaaa.org/biotech-cowpea-will-game-changer-ghanaian-farmers-economy/">approved</a> the release of pod borer resistant cowpea, thus joining the growing list of African countries to commercialise GM crops. This is the first genetically modified crop to be approved in the country. </p>
<p>In December 2019 the Kenyan government <a href="https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2019-12-19-cabinet-approves-commercial-farming-of-gmo-cotton/">gave the nod</a> for the commercialisation of GMO cotton. After more than two seasons of growing GM cotton, Kenyan farmers have <a href="https://africenter.isaaa.org/kenyan-farmers-express-satisfaction-bt-cotton-performance/">expressed satisfaction</a> with the good yield from Bt cotton in spite of the drought conditions in the last few seasons. </p>
<p>Elsewhere in Africa, farmers have also reported <a href="https://unu.edu/publications/articles/are-transgenic-crops-safe-gm-agriculture-in-africa.html#:%7E:text=Around%20the%20globe%2C%20GM%20crop,developing%20world%2C%20including%20in%20Africa">significant reduction</a> in the cost of production through reduced spraying for control of insect pests and diseases. Controlling African bollworm, for example, was costly and the pest caused losses in cotton farming. </p>
<p>This list is expected to keep growing even though in most African countries the cultivation of GMOs has experienced <a href="https://allianceforscience.cornell.edu/blog/2021/08/bad-press-and-wild-claims-have-unfairly-slowed-gm-crops-on-the-continent-african-scientists-say/">protracted delays</a> through regulatory, political and social blockades.</p>
<h2>Why did Kenya ban GMOs? What has changed?</h2>
<p>Kenya <a href="https://www.biosafetykenya.go.ke/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43&Itemid=134#:%7E:text=The%20Government%20of%20Kenya%20on,ban%20is%20still%20in%20force">banned</a> GM crops in 2012. The ministerial <a href="https://allafrica.com/view/group/main/main/id/00021157.html">statement</a> on the ban was largely informed by a 2012 <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5790416/#cit0027">a scientific report</a> dubbed the Séralini study that associated GMOs with cancer in rats. </p>
<p>Anti-GMO activists have <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/confession-of-an-anti-gmo-activist-1529679465">often referred</a> to that report and in addition presented the unknown impact of the modifications as the main reason for pushing for bans. The other issues range from fears about the effect of GMO, the <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645698.2016.1270488">mixed signals</a> from EU about health and safety of GM foods, and the potential risk of GMOs to the <a href="https://academicjournals.org/journal/AJB/article-abstract/CF0B22664974">environment and biodiversity</a>.</p>
<p>The activists also cite the <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/confession-of-an-anti-gmo-activist-1529679465">fear of possible effects</a> of GMOs on non-target organisms and potential development of resistance to insect-pests by the GM crops. Lastly, food safety <a href="https://www.africanews.com/2022/10/06/kenyan-ngos-protest-approval-of-gm-crops//">fears</a> of GMOs remain pertinent in some parts of the continent. </p>
<p>The Kenyan government’s change of stance was underpinned by a number of developments. First of which was the report by a task force on genetically modified foods that resulted in proper scientific regulation and presence of a <a href="https://www.devex.com/news/kenya-lifts-ban-on-genetically-modified-foods-despite-strong-opposition-104170">strong regulatory framework</a>. </p>
<p>Another factor is the lingering drought in which over 4 million Kenyans currently face food insecurity. This may have led the government to consider more radical solutions despite <a href="https://www.devex.com/news/kenya-lifts-ban-on-genetically-modified-foods-despite-strong-opposition-104170">opposition</a>. </p>
<p>The government has decided to review each application for introduction of GMOs on a case-by-case basis.</p>
<h2>What could go wrong? And what mitigation plans are there?</h2>
<p>There are three main <a href="https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2016/05/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects-new-report">concerns</a> about what could go wrong with GMOs. These are unintended harmful effects, food safety, environmental safety and social attitudes, including fears that GMOs are a case of <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111629">“man playing God”</a>.</p>
<p>There is also the concern of <a href="https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/10562657">unintended harmful effects</a> of GMOs on the environment. In anticipation of these risks, scientists working in the field of GMO have created a raft of regulations. These regulations aim to evaluate whether GMOs are just as safe to humans and the environment as their conventional counterparts before they can be <a href="https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-1-4614-5797-8_837">accepted for commercialisation</a>. </p>
<p><strong>Food safety:</strong> Food safety studies including tests of <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7123983/#:%7E:text=Allergenicity%20refers%20to%20the%20ability,function%20disorder%20or%20tissue%20damage.">allergenicity</a> (the ability of an antigen to induce an abnormal immune response) are a mandatory <a href="https://gmo.uconn.edu/topics/gmo-regulation/">requirement</a> for commercialisation of GMOs. Countries have also instituted biosafety authorities with a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791249/">mandate</a> to regulate the development and commercialisation of GMOs. </p>
<p><strong>Environmental safety:</strong> An <a href="https://bch.cbd.int/protocol/#:%7E:text=The%20Cartagena%20Protocol%20on%20Biosafety%20to%20the%20Convention%20on%20Biological,diversity%2C%20taking%20also%20into%20account">international agreement</a> provides a framework for handling, transport and use of GMOs. It provides a clear road-map for evaluation of the impact of GMOs on the environment. It has instituted the practice of post release monitoring and evaluation for 10 years or more after the release of a GM crop. </p>
<p>The potential development of weeds that can resist one or more specific herbicides – so-called super weeds – is a case in point. Herbicide tolerance has helped farmers to control weeds and significantly reduce cost of GM crop production. This is because crops can be genetically modified to confer resistance to common herbicides, such as glyphosate. There is a chance however that farmers can over-rely on this technique of weed control to the detriment of the weeds developing resistance.</p>
<p>The potential for such resistance must be closely monitored. In Kenya, it would fall upon county governments through the extension officers to report any early cases – and to take action – if there are any potential signs of resistance. The aim should be to use multiple approaches to weeds and pest control also referred to as <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fbioe.2019.00024/full">integrated pest managanent systems</a>.</p>
<p><strong>Socio-cultural aspects:</strong> The government must make every effort to address people’s concerns about GMOs. This includes pointing out that humans have modified crops for thousands of years. GM foods have now been grown and consumed for over 20 years in different countries. There is so far no scientific evidence to confirm any of the fears. GM crops have been <a href="https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/article/default.asp?ID=15486">evaluated</a> to be just as safe for human consumption and to the environment as conventional crops.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/192636/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benard Odhiambo Oloo 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>Kenya’s GMO policy about-turn was underpinned by improved safeguards on top of a commitment to review each new application on a case-by-case basis.Benard Odhiambo Oloo, Lecturer of Food Science and Technology, Department of Dairy and Food Science and Technology., Egerton UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1914112022-10-11T12:14:29Z2022-10-11T12:14:29ZGenetically engineered bacteria make living materials for self-repairing walls and cleaning up pollution<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/489067/original/file-20221010-18-99ydyr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1986%2C1508&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">As a material, bacteria's ability to rapidly multiply and adapt to different conditions is an asset.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/illustration/ecoli-bacteria-sem-royalty-free-illustration/1133641663">Gschmeissner/Science Photo Library via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>With just an incubator and some broth, researchers can grow reusable filters made of bacteria to clean up polluted water, detect chemicals in the environment and protect surfaces from rust and mold.</p>
<p>I am a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=jz4z2zMAAAAJ&hl=en">synthetic biologist</a> who studies <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matt.2021.08.001">engineered living materials</a> – substances made from living cells that have a variety of functions. In my <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33191-2">recently published research</a>, I programmed bacteria to form living materials that can not only be modified for different applications, but are also quick and easy to produce.</p>
<h2>From living cells to usable materials</h2>
<p>Like human cells, bacteria contain DNA that provides the instructions to build proteins. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-19092-2">Bacterial DNA can be modified</a> to instruct the cell to build new proteins, including ones that don’t exist in nature. Researchers can even control exactly where these proteins will be located within the cell.</p>
<p>Because engineered living materials are made of living cells, they can be genetically engineered to perform a broad variety of functions, almost like programming a cellphone with different apps. For example, researchers can turn bacteria into sensors for environmental pollutants by modifying them to <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/s8074062">change color in the presence of certain molecules</a>. Researchers <a href="https://theconversation.com/buildings-grown-by-bacteria-new-research-is-finding-ways-to-turn-cells-into-mini-factories-for-materials-131279">have also used bacteria</a> to create limestone particles, the chemical used to make Styrofoam and living photovoltaics, among others.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/7pMhqyteR5g?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Living organisms can be used to “grow” materials to make clothes and furniture.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A primary challenge for engineered living materials has been figuring out how to induce them to produce a matrix, or substances surrounding the cell, that allows researchers to control the physical properties of the final material, such as its viscosity, elasticity and stiffness. To address this, my team and I created a system to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-33191-2">encode this matrix in the bacteria’s DNA</a>. </p>
<p>We modified the DNA of the bacteria <em>Caulobacter crescentus</em> so that the bacterial cells would produce on their surfaces a matrix made of large amounts of elastic proteins. These elastic proteins have the ability to bind to each other and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.biomac.9b01541">form hydrogels</a>, a type of material that can retain large amounts of water.</p>
<p>When two genetically modified bacterial cells come in close proximity, these proteins come together and keep the cells attached to each other. By surrounding each cell with this sticky, elastic material, bacterial cells will cluster together to form a living slime.</p>
<p>Furthermore, we can modify the elastic proteins to change the properties of the final material. For example, we could turn bacteria into hard construction materials that have the ability to self-repair in the event of damage. Alternatively, we could turn bacteria into soft materials that could be used as fillers in products.</p>
<h2>The living material advantage</h2>
<p>Usually, creating multifunctional materials is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-009-2428-6">extremely difficult</a>, due in part to very expensive processing costs. Like a tree growing from a seed, living materials, on the other hand, grow from cells that have minimal nutrient and energy requirements. Their biodegradability and minimal production requirements allow for sustainable and economical production.</p>
<p>The technology to make living materials is unsophisticated and cheap. It only takes a <a href="https://www.biocompare.com/Lab-Equipment/19614-Laboratory-Incubator-Shakers-Standard/">shaking incubator</a>, proteins and sugars to grow a multifunctional, high-performing material from bacteria. The incubator is just a metal or plastic box that keeps the temperature at about 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit (37 Celsius), which is much lower than a conventional home oven, and shakes the cells at speeds slower than a blender.</p>
<p>Transforming bacteria into living materials is also a quick process. My team and I were able to grow our bacterial living materials in about 24 hours. This is pretty fast compared to the manufacturing process of other materials, including living materials like wood that can take years to produce.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/T69vpk3eR4A?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">As shown in this video of <em>Caulobacter crescentus</em> colonizing a surface, bacteria multiply very quickly and very easily.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Moreover, our living bacterial slime is easy to transport and store. It can survive in a jar at room temperature for up to three weeks and placed back into a fresh medium to regrow. This could lower the cost of future technology based on these materials. </p>
<p>Lastly, engineered living materials are an environmentally friendly technology. Because they are made of living cells, they are biocompatible, or nontoxic, and biodegradable, or naturally decomposable.</p>
<h2>Next steps</h2>
<p>There are still some aspects of our bacterial living material that need to be clarified. For example, we don’t know exactly how the proteins on the bacterial cell surface interact with each other, or how strongly they bind to each other. We also don’t know exactly how many protein molecules are required to keep cells together. </p>
<p>Answering these questions will enable us to further customize living materials with desired qualities for different functions. </p>
<p>Next, I’m planning to explore growing different types of bacteria as living materials to expand the applications they can be used for. <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/life3030482">Some</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-2229.12794">types</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.ampbs.2014.08.005">of bacteria</a> are better than others for different purposes. For example, some bacteria survive best in specific environments, such as the human body, soil or fresh water. Some, on the other hand, can adapt to different external conditions, like varying temperature, acidity and salinity. </p>
<p>By having many types of bacteria to choose from, researchers can further customize the materials they can create.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/191411/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sara Molinari 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>The walls of your house could someday be built with living bacteria. Synthetic biologists are engineering microbes into living materials that are cheap and sustainable.Sara Molinari, Postdoctoral Research Associate in Synthetic Biology, Rice UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1852842022-07-08T12:16:44Z2022-07-08T12:16:44ZCotton breeders are using genetic insights to make this global crop more sustainable<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472873/original/file-20220706-14-c5u37u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1908%2C1245&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A cotton field in Lubbock, Texas</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/CottonAcresAbandoned/1d595485640243258e8e2a4d0e5a7da8/photo">AP Photo/LM Otero</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Products derived from the cotton plant show up in <a href="https://science.jrank.org/pages/1832/Cotton-Cotton-by-products.html">many items that people use daily</a>, including blue jeans, bedsheets, paper, candles and peanut butter. In the United States cotton is <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/cotton-wool/cotton-sector-at-a-glance/">a US$7 billion annual crop</a> grown in 17 states from Virginia to Southern California. Today, however, it’s at risk.</p>
<p>Cotton plants from fields in India, China and the U.S. – the world’s top three producers – all grow, flower and produce cotton fiber very similarly. That’s because they are genetically very similar.</p>
<p>This can be a good thing, since breeders select the best-performing plants and cross-breed them to produce better cotton every generation. If one variety produces the best-quality fiber that sells for the best price, growers will plant that type exclusively. But after many years of this cycle, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-020-0614-5">cultivated cotton all starts to look the same</a>: high-yielding and easy for farmers to harvest using machines, but wildly underprepared to fight disease, drought or insect-borne pathogens.</p>
<p>Breeding alone may not be enough to combat the low genetic diversity of the cultivated cotton genome, since breeding works with what exists, and what exists all looks the same. And genetic modification may not be a realistic option for creating cotton that is useful for farmers, because getting engineered crops approved is expensive and heavily regulated. <a href="https://genetics.tamu.edu/featuring-serina-taluja/">My research</a> focuses on possible solutions that lie at the intersection between these tools.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QHgNoSYlhYs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Mechanical harvesting and processing take cotton from field to baled fibers and seeds.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>How to retool cotton</h2>
<p>In a perfect world, scientists could <a href="https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/what-is-Genome-Editing">change just a few key components</a> of the cotton genome to make plants more resilient to stresses such as pests, bacteria, fungi and water limitations. And the plants would still produce high-quality cotton fiber. </p>
<p>This strategy isn’t new. Some <a href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=99424">88% of the cotton grown in the U.S.</a> has been genetically modified to resist caterpillar pests, which are expensive and hard to manage with traditional insecticides. But as new problems emerge, new solutions will be required that will demand more complex changes to the genome.</p>
<p>Recent advances in plant tissue culture and regeneration make it possible to develop a whole new plant from a few cells. Scientists can use good genes from other organisms to replace the defective ones in cotton, yielding cotton plants with all the resistance genes and all the agriculturally valuable genes. </p>
<p>The problem is that getting regulatory approval for a genetically modified crop to go to market is a <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/gmo-faq/what-does-it-take-to-bring-a-new-gm-product-to-market/">long process</a>, often eight to 10 years. And it’s usually <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2019.1612689">expensive</a>.</p>
<p>But genetic modification isn’t the only option. Researchers today have access to a gigantic amount of data about all living things. Scientists have <a href="https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/timeline-organisms-that-have-had-their-genomes-sequenced/">sequenced the entire genomes of numerous organisms</a> and have annotated many of these genomes to show where the genes and regulatory sequences are within them. Various <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sequence_alignment_software">sequence comparison tools</a> allow scientists to line up one gene or genome against another and quickly determine where all the differences are.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472882/original/file-20220706-14-1ef52y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Map showing U.S. states where cotton was harvested in 2017." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472882/original/file-20220706-14-1ef52y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/472882/original/file-20220706-14-1ef52y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472882/original/file-20220706-14-1ef52y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472882/original/file-20220706-14-1ef52y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472882/original/file-20220706-14-1ef52y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472882/original/file-20220706-14-1ef52y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/472882/original/file-20220706-14-1ef52y.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cotton is grown in 13 states across the southern U.S. The western half of this belt has been in drought since 2000.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/charts/99698/CottonAcreage2017.png?v=1148.3">USDA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Plants have very large genomes with lots of repetitive sequences, which makes them <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biology1020439">very challenging</a> to unpack. However, a team of researchers changed the game for cotton genetics in 2020 by releasing <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-020-0614-5">five updated and annotated genomes</a> – two from cultivated species and three from wild species. </p>
<p>Having the wild genomes assembled makes it possible to start using their valuable genes to try to improve cultivated varieties of cotton by breeding them together and looking for those genes in the offspring. This approach combines traditional plant breeding with detailed insights into cotton’s genome.</p>
<p>We now know which genes we need to make cultivated cotton more resistant to disease and drought. And we also know where to avoid making changes to important agricultural genes.</p>
<h2>Analyzing cotton hybrids</h2>
<p>These genomes also make it possible to develop new screening tools to characterize interspecific hybrids – the offspring of two cotton plants from different species. Before this information was available, there were two primary forms of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.115.018416">hybrid characterization</a>. Both were based on <a href="https://www.nature.com/scitable/definition/single-nucleotide-polymorphism-snp-148">single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs</a> – differences between species in a single <a href="https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-terms/def/base-pair">base pair</a>, the individual building blocks that make up DNA. Even plants with small genomes have <a href="https://www.darwintreeoflife.org/news_item/genomes-great-and-small-the-diversity-of-plants/">millions of base pairs</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/261105/original/file-20190226-150698-16cc1zu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/261105/original/file-20190226-150698-16cc1zu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/261105/original/file-20190226-150698-16cc1zu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=520&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261105/original/file-20190226-150698-16cc1zu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=520&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261105/original/file-20190226-150698-16cc1zu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=520&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261105/original/file-20190226-150698-16cc1zu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=653&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261105/original/file-20190226-150698-16cc1zu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=653&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/261105/original/file-20190226-150698-16cc1zu.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=653&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bases are the parts of DNA that store information and give DNA the ability to encode an organism’s visible traits. There are four types of bases in DNA: adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T).</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://knowgenetics.org/nucleotides-and-bases/">National Human Genome Research Institute</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>SNPs work well if you know exactly where they are located in the genome, if there are no mutations that change the SNPs, and if there are plenty of them. While cotton has SNPs that have been identified and verified in specific regions of the genome, they are few and far between. So characterizing cotton hybrids by focusing exclusively on SNPs would result in incomplete information about those hybrids’ genetic composition.</p>
<p>These new genomes open the door for developing <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/biology1030460">sequencing-based screening</a> of hybrids, which is something I’ve incorporated into my work. In this approach, scientists still use SNPs as a starting point, but they can also sequence the surrounding DNA. This helps to fill in gaps and sometimes discover new, previously undocumented SNPs.</p>
<p>Sequence-based screening helps scientists make more informed and robust maps of the genomes of hybrids. Determining which parts of the genome are from which parent can give breeders a better idea of which plants to cross together to subsequently create better, more productive cotton in every generation.</p>
<h2>What cotton needs to thrive</h2>
<p>As the world’s population rises toward a <a href="https://www.un.org/en/desa/world-population-projected-reach-98-billion-2050-and-112-billion-2100">projected 9.8 billion by 2050</a>, demand for all agricultural products will also rise. But making cotton plants more productive is not the only goal of genetic improvement. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/edolx7n0Uuw?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Beyond the U.S., much of the world’s cotton is grown in low- and middle-income countries.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Climate change is <a href="https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/global/time-series/globe/land_ocean/ann/12/1880-2019">raising average global temperatures</a>, and some important cotton-producing regions like the U.S. Southwest are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01290-z">becoming drier</a>. Cotton is already a crop accustomed to heat – our research plots can thrive in temperatures as high as 102 degrees Fahrenheit (39 C) – but one cotton plant requires about <a href="http://www.ugacotton.com/vault/rer/2003/p72.pdf">10 gallons (38 liters) of water</a> over the course of a four-month growing season to achieve its maximum yield potential. </p>
<p>Researchers have started to search for cultivated cotton that can tolerate drought at the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.26717/BJSTR.2020.29.004738">seedling stage</a>, and also in <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19061614">hybrid lines</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-015-0422-2">genetically modified lines</a>. Scientists are optimistic that they can develop plants that have higher drought resilience. Along with many other cotton breeders around the world, my goal is to create more sustainable and genetically diverse cotton so that this essential crop can thrive in a changing world.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/185284/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Serina DeSalvio 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>Plant breeding, informed by genetic analysis, could be critical to the future of one of the world’s oldest crops.Serina DeSalvio, Ph.D. Candidate in Genetics and Genomics, Texas A&M UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1843692022-06-09T12:41:46Z2022-06-09T12:41:46Z‘Jurassic World’ scientists still haven’t learned that just because you can doesn’t mean you should – real-world genetic engineers can learn from the cautionary tale<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/467795/original/file-20220608-13-magyim.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2000%2C1500&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">While resurrecting dinosaurs may not be on the docket just yet, gene drives have the power to alter entire species. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/dinosaur-in-the-lab-image-what-something-new-life-royalty-free-image/1080567850">Hiroshi Watanabe/DigitalVision via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>“<a href="https://www.jurassicworld.com">Jurassic World: Dominion</a>” is hyperbolic Hollywood entertainment at its best, with an action-packed storyline that refuses to let reality get in the way of a good story. Yet just like its predecessors, it offers an underlying cautionary tale of technological hubris that’s very real.</p>
<p>As I discuss in my book “<a href="https://filmsfromthefuture.com/">Films from the Future</a>,”
Stephen Spielberg’s 1993 “Jurassic Park,” based on Michael Crichton’s 1990 novel, didn’t shy away from grappling with the dangers of unfettered entrepreneurship and irresponsible innovation. Scientists at the time were getting closer to being able to manipulate DNA in the real world, and both book and movie captured emerging concerns that playing God with nature’s genetic code could lead to devastating consequences. This was famously captured by one of the movie’s protagonists, Dr. Ian Malcolm, played by Jeff Goldblum, as he declared, “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”</p>
<hr>
<iframe id="noa-web-audio-player" style="border: none" src="https://embed-player.newsoveraudio.com/v4?key=x84olp&id=https://theconversation.com/jurassic-world-scientists-still-havent-learned-that-just-because-you-can-doesnt-mean-you-should-real-world-genetic-engineers-can-learn-from-the-cautionary-tale-184369&bgColor=F5F5F5&color=D8352A&playColor=D8352A" width="100%" height="110px"></iframe>
<p><em>You can listen to more articles from The Conversation, narrated by Noa, <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/audio-narrated-99682">here</a>.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>In the latest iteration of the “Jurassic Park” franchise, society is coming to terms with the consequences of innovations that were, at best, ill-conceived. A litany of “coulds” over “shoulds” has led to a future in which resurrected and redesigned dinosaurs roam free, and humanity’s dominance as a species is under threat. </p>
<p>At the heart of these films are questions that are more relevant than ever: Have researchers learned the lesson of “Jurassic Park” and sufficiently closed the gap between “could” and “should”? Or will the science and technology of DNA manipulation continue to outpace any consensus on how to use them ethically and responsibly?</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NkEU6fC_nhY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Imagine a world where dinosaurs and humans coexist.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>(Re)designing the genome</h2>
<p>The first draft of the human genome <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/35057062">was published to great fanfare</a> in 2001, setting the stage for scientists to read, redesign and even rewrite complex genetic sequences. </p>
<p>However, existing technologies were time-consuming and expensive, placing genetic manipulation out of reach for many researchers. The first draft of the human genome cost an estimated <a href="https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/fact-sheets/DNA-Sequencing-Costs-Data">US$300 million</a>, and subsequent whole-genome sequences just under $100 million – a prohibitive amount for all but the most well-funded research groups. As existing technologies were refined and new ones came online, however, smaller labs – and even <a href="https://igem.org/">students</a> and <a href="https://www.wired.com/2014/11/diybio-comes-of-age/">“DIY bio” hobbyists</a> – could experiment more freely with reading and writing genetic code.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/467797/original/file-20220608-22-ddjvfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A DIY bio lab with equipment arranged on counters and cabinets against the walls." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/467797/original/file-20220608-22-ddjvfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/467797/original/file-20220608-22-ddjvfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467797/original/file-20220608-22-ddjvfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467797/original/file-20220608-22-ddjvfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467797/original/file-20220608-22-ddjvfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467797/original/file-20220608-22-ddjvfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467797/original/file-20220608-22-ddjvfi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">You can manipulate DNA in the comfort of your own home-based DIY bio lab.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/macowell/4821488307/in/pool-diylabs/">Mackenzie Cowell/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In 2005, bioengineer Drew Endy proposed that it should be possible to work with DNA the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04342">same way that engineers work with electronic components</a>. Much as electronics designers are less concerned with the physics of semiconductors than they are with the components that rely on them, Endy argued that it should be possible to create standardized DNA-based parts called “<a href="https://biobricks.org/">biobricks</a>” that scientists could use without needing to be experts in their underlying biology.</p>
<p>Endy’s and others’ work was foundational to the emerging field of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro3239">synthetic biology</a>, which applies engineering and design principles to genetic manipulation. </p>
<p>Scientists, engineers and even <a href="https://www.vice.com/en/article/9anmk7/bioart-synthetic-biology-projects">artists</a> began to approach DNA as a biological code that could be digitized, manipulated and redesigned in cyberspace in much the same way as digital photos or videos are. This in turn opened the door to reprogramming plants, microorganisms and fungi to produce <a href="https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S58049">pharmaceutical drugs</a> and other <a href="https://fortune.com/2021/08/06/synthetic-biology-plant-based-meats-bioengineering-environmental-impact/">useful substances</a>. Modified yeast, for example, produces the meaty taste of vegetarian <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-20122-2">Impossible Burgers</a>.</p>
<p>Despite increasing interest in gene editing, the biggest barrier to the imagination and vision of the early pioneers of synthetic biology was still the speed and cost of editing technologies.</p>
<p>Then CRISPR changed everything.</p>
<h2>The CRISPR revolution</h2>
<p>In 2020, scientists Jennifer Doudna and Emanuelle Charpentier won the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-02765-9">Nobel Prize in chemistry</a> for their work on a revolutionary new gene-editing technology that allows researchers to precisely snip out and replace DNA sequences within genes: CRISPR.</p>
<p>CRISPR was quick, cheap and relatively easy to use. And it unleashed the imagination of DNA coders.</p>
<p>More than any previous advance in genetic engineering, CRISPR enabled techniques from digital coding and systems engineering to be applied to biology. This cross-fertilization of ideas and methods led to breakthroughs ranging from using <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/scientists-write-hello-world-bacterial-dna-electricity-and-crispr-180976763/">DNA to store computer data</a> to creating 3D “<a href="https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/crispr-cleans-up-dna-origami/">DNA origami” structures</a>.</p>
<p>CRISPR also opened the way for scientists to explore redesigning entire species – including <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/pictureshow/2013/03/15/174322143/its-called-de-extinction-its-like-jurassic-park-except-its-real">bringing back animals from extinction</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-02087-5">Gene drives</a> use CRISPR to directly insert a piece of genetic code into an organism’s genome and ensure that specific traits are inherited by all subsequent generations. Scientists are currently experimenting with this technology to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01186-6">control disease-carrying mosquitoes</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KgvhUPiDdq8?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Gene drives have the potential to alter the genetic makeup of an entire species.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Despite the potential benefits of the technology, gene drives raise serious ethical questions. Even when applied to clear public health threats like mosquitoes, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/magazine/gene-drive-mosquitoes.html">these questions are not easy to navigate</a>. They get even more complex when considering hypothetical applications in people, such as <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2019/12/crispr-prime-editing-gene-doping-athletes.html">increasing athletic performance in future generations</a>.</p>
<h2>Gain of function</h2>
<p>Advances in gene editing have also made it easier to genetically alter the behavior of individual cells. This is at the heart of <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/12/how-to-fuel-the-biomanufacturing-revolution/">biomanufacturing technologies</a> that reengineer simple organisms to produce useful substances ranging from <a href="https://simpleflying.com/united-airlines-jet-fuel-from-thin-air/">aviation fuel</a> to <a href="https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2022/05/09/Synthetic-biology-and-the-future-of-food.-In-conversation-with-biology-by-design-co-Ginkgo-Bioworks">food additives</a>. </p>
<p>It’s also at the center of controversies surrounding genetically engineered viruses.</p>
<p>Since the beginning of the pandemic, there have been rumors that the virus that causes COVID-19 resulted from genetic experiments gone wrong. While these rumors <a href="https://www.newyorker.com/science/elements/the-mysterious-case-of-the-covid-19-lab-leak-theory">remain unsubstantiated</a>, they’ve renewed debate around the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/20/science/covid-lab-leak-wuhan.html">ethics of gain-of-function research</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/467800/original/file-20220608-20-kw2z6q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Gloved hands holding biohazard sample in lab" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/467800/original/file-20220608-20-kw2z6q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/467800/original/file-20220608-20-kw2z6q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467800/original/file-20220608-20-kw2z6q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467800/original/file-20220608-20-kw2z6q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467800/original/file-20220608-20-kw2z6q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467800/original/file-20220608-20-kw2z6q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/467800/original/file-20220608-20-kw2z6q.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=425&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Modifying the genetic makeup of organisms and pathogens has both risks and benefits.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/arselectronica/36320619976">Ars Electronica/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/why-gain-of-function-research-matters-162493">Gain-of-function</a> research uses DNA editing techniques to alter how organisms function, including increasing the ability of viruses to cause disease. Scientists do this to predict and prepare for potential mutations of existing viruses that increase their ability to cause harm. However, such research also raises the possibility of a dangerously enhanced virus’s being released outside the lab, either accidentally or intentionally.</p>
<p>At the same time, scientists’ increasing mastery over biological source code is what has allowed them to <a href="https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/07/everything-you-need-to-know-about-mrna-vaccines/">rapidly develop the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines</a> to combat COVID-19. By precisely engineering the genetic code that instructs cells to produce harmless versions of viral proteins, vaccines are able to prime the immune system to respond when it encounters the actual virus.</p>
<h2>Responsible biological source code manipulation</h2>
<p>Prescient as Michael Crichton was, it’s unlikely that he could have envisioned just how far scientists’ abilities to engineer biology have advanced over the past three decades. <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/these-are-extinct-animals-we-can-should-resurrect-180954955/">Bringing back extinct species</a>, while an active area of research, remains <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fgenes9110548">fiendishly difficult</a>. However, in many ways, our technologies are substantially further along than those in “Jurassic Park” and the subsequent films.</p>
<p>But how have we done on the responsibility front?</p>
<p>Fortunately, consideration of the social and ethical side of gene editing has gone hand in hand with the science’s development. In 1975, scientists <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.72.6.198">agreed on approaches</a> to ensure that emerging recombinant DNA research would be carried out safely. From the get-go, the ethical, legal and social dimensions of the science were hard-wired into the <a href="https://www.genome.gov/Funded-Programs-Projects/ELSI-Research-Program-ethical-legal-social-implications">Human Genome Project</a>. DIY bio communities have been at the forefront of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/531167a">safe and responsible gene-editing research</a>. And social responsibility is integral to <a href="https://blog.igem.org/blog/2020/9/23/igem-and-the-value-of-responsibility">synthetic biology competitions</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/12VfS2hAi7c?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">DNA was never destiny.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Yet as gene editing becomes increasingly powerful and accessible, a community of well-meaning scientists and engineers is unlikely to be sufficient. While the “Jurassic Park” movies take dramatic license in their portrayal of the future, they do get one thing right: Even with good intentions, bad things happen when you mix powerful technologies with scientists who haven’t been trained to think through the consequences of their actions – and haven’t thought to ask experts who have.</p>
<p>Maybe this is the abiding message of “Jurassic World: Dominion” – that despite incredible advances in genetic design and engineering, things can and will go wrong if we don’t embrace the development and use of the technology in socially responsible ways.</p>
<p>The good news is that we still have time to close the gap between “could” and “should” in how scientists redesign and reengineer genetic code. But as “Jurassic World: Dominion” reminds moviegoers, the future is often closer than it might appear.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/184369/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew Maynard 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>As genetic engineering and DNA manipulation tools like CRISPR continue to advance, the distinction between what science ‘could’ and ‘should’ do becomes murkier.Andrew Maynard, Professor of Responsible Innovation, Arizona State UniversityLicensed 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/1750032022-01-21T13:40:41Z2022-01-21T13:40:41ZWhat is bioengineered food? An agriculture expert explains<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441322/original/file-20220118-21-1wa4viq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C7%2C5001%2C3249&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Most U.S.-grown soybeans are genetically modified, so products containing them may be required to carry the new 'bioengineered' label.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/farmer-holds-soybean-from-the-2018-harvest-on-may-5-at-her-news-photo/1141949584">Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The U.S. Department of Agriculture <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/be">defines bioengineered food</a> as food that “contains detectable genetic material that has been modified through certain lab techniques that cannot be created through conventional breeding or found in nature.” </p>
<p>If that definition sounds familiar, it is because it is essentially how <a href="https://ag.purdue.edu/GMOs/Pages/WhatareGMOs.aspx">genetically modified organisms, or GMOs</a>, are defined – common vocabulary many people use and understand. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441319/original/file-20220118-17-17rcgzs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Green seal with plant graphic and 'BIOENGINEERED' text." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441319/original/file-20220118-17-17rcgzs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441319/original/file-20220118-17-17rcgzs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441319/original/file-20220118-17-17rcgzs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441319/original/file-20220118-17-17rcgzs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441319/original/file-20220118-17-17rcgzs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441319/original/file-20220118-17-17rcgzs.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441319/original/file-20220118-17-17rcgzs.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"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">As of Jan. 1, 2022, foods that are genetically modified must carry this label.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Bioengineered.png">USDA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>On Jan. 1, 2022, the USDA implemented a new <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/be">U.S. bioengineered food disclosure standard</a>. Shoppers are seeing labels on food products with the terms “bioengineered” or “derived from bioengineering” printed on a green seal with the sun shining down on cropland. </p>
<p><a href="https://downloads.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/j098zb09z/00000x092/kw52k657g/acrg0621.pdf">More than 90%</a> of U.S.-grown corn, soybeans and sugar beets are genetically modified. This means that many processed foods containing high-fructose corn syrup, beet sugar or soy protein may fall under the new disclosure standard. Other whole foods on the USDA’s list of <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/be/bioengineered-foods-list">bioengineered foods</a>, such as certain types of eggplant, potatoes and apples, may have to carry labels as well.</p>
<h2>Disclosure debates</h2>
<p>Food manufacturers have historically <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/food-companies-fear-even-one-state-gmo-label-law/">opposed labeling</a>. They argue that it misleads consumers into thinking that bioengineered foods are unsafe. Countless <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23395/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects">studies</a>, the <a href="https://www.fda.gov/food/consumers/agricultural-biotechnology">USDA</a> and the <a href="https://www.who.int/health-topics/food-genetically-modified#tab=tab_2">World Health Organization</a> have concluded that eating genetically modified foods does not pose health risks. </p>
<p>However, many consumers have demanded labels that let them know whether foods contain genetically modified material. In 2014, Vermont enacted a strict law mandating GMO food labeling. Fearing a checkerboard of state laws and regulations, food manufacturers lobbied successfully for a <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Final%20Bill%20S764%20GMO%20Discosure.pdf">federal disclosure law</a> to preempt other states from doing the same. Now, the U.S. joins <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/ge-map/">64 countries</a> that require some sort of labeling.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441321/original/file-20220118-21-8kjjmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Disclosure label in French on canned corn" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441321/original/file-20220118-21-8kjjmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/441321/original/file-20220118-21-8kjjmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441321/original/file-20220118-21-8kjjmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441321/original/file-20220118-21-8kjjmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=396&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441321/original/file-20220118-21-8kjjmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441321/original/file-20220118-21-8kjjmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/441321/original/file-20220118-21-8kjjmv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A label on corn sold in France in 1999 certifying that it does not contain genetically modified material.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/corn-and-gmo-in-france-in-october-1999-corn-gmo-free-news-photo/115158955">Alain LE BOT/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Consumer and right-to-know advocates are not happy with the new federal disclosure standard. The <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/press-releases/6517/legal-challenge-to-usdas-deceptive-and-discriminatory-gmo-labeling-scheme-moves-forward">Center for Food Safety</a>, the lead organization representing a coalition of food labeling nonprofits and retailers, has filed suit against the USDA, arguing that the standard not only fails to use common language but is <a href="https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/976/ge-food-labeling">deceptive and discriminatory</a>. </p>
<p>According to this view, the standard is deceptive because loopholes exclude many bioengineered foods from mandatory disclosure, which critics say is inconsistent with consumer expectations. If the genetic material is undetectable or less than 5% of the finished product, no disclosure is required. As a result, many highly refined products – for example, sugar or oil made from a bioengineered crop – may be excluded from labeling requirements.</p>
<p>Bioengineered foods served in restaurants, cafeterias and transport systems, including food trucks, are also excluded. And the standard excludes meat, poultry and eggs, as well as products that list those foods as either their first ingredient or their second ingredient after water, stock or both. It takes a 43-minute USDA <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxE2FgrZPVs">webinar</a> to explain what’s in and what’s out under this new disclosure standard.</p>
<p>Advocates say the standard is discriminatory because it gives food manufacturers disclosure options that can substitute for the green bioengineered seal. They include listing a phone number to call or text for information or a QR code. But critics point out that many people in the U.S. <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/">lack access to smartphones</a>, particularly those over 65 and those earning less than $30,000 annually. </p>
<p>In my view, consumers who want to avoid bioengineered foods may best be served by buying products that are certified organic, which prohibits genetically modified ingredients. Or they can search for the voluntary <a href="https://www.nongmoproject.org/">Non-GMO Project Verified</a> label, which features a butterfly. It was launched in 2010 and appears on tens of thousands of grocery items. Both labels indicate that a third-party inspector verified that the non-GMO standard has been met. </p>
<p>The new federal labeling standard came to market with little fanfare – probably because neither side in the battle over genetic modification and food sees it as a win.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/175003/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kathleen Merrigan directs the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems at Arizona State University, which receives funding from the Organic Trade Association. She is co-director of a project on inadvertent chemical contamination of organic crops funded by the US Department of Agriculture. Merrigan is a member of the Advisory Committee for the Organic Farming Research Foundation. She also is an advisor to S2G Ventures and a Venture Partner at Astanor Ventures, two agtech firms that have some organic companies in their much broader portfolios. </span></em></p>There’s a new label on many US food products – here’s what it means and who pushed to add it.Kathleen Merrigan, Executive Director, Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems, Arizona State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1690782021-11-03T12:29:54Z2021-11-03T12:29:54ZUnlike the US, Europe is setting ambitious targets for producing more organic food<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/429622/original/file-20211101-19-1mjepl0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C19%2C4252%2C2488&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">An organic food market in Berlin.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/germany-berlin-prenzlauer-berg-organic-food-shop-lpg-news-photo/548153731">Schöning/ullstein bild via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>President Joe Biden has called for an <a href="https://theconversation.com/biden-plans-to-fight-climate-change-in-a-way-no-u-s-president-has-done-before-152419">all-of-government response</a> to climate change that looks for solutions and opportunities in every sector of the U.S. economy. That includes agriculture, which emits <a href="https://cfpub.epa.gov/ghgdata/inventoryexplorer/#agriculture/entiresector/allgas/select/all">over 600 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent every year</a> – more than the total national emissions of the <a href="https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AIR_GHG">United Kingdom, Australia, France or Italy</a>.</p>
<p>Recent polls show that a majority of Americans are concerned about climate change and willing to <a href="https://theconversation.com/pews-new-global-survey-of-climate-change-attitudes-finds-promising-trends-but-deep-divides-167847">make lifestyle changes to address it</a>. Other surveys show that many U.S. consumers are worried about possible health risks of eating food produced with <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2018/11/19/public-perspectives-on-food-risks/">pesticides, antibiotics and hormones</a>.</p>
<p>One way to address all of these concerns is to expand organic agriculture. Organic production generates <a href="https://rodaleinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/fst-30-year-report.pdf">fewer greenhouse gas emissions than conventional farming</a>, largely because it doesn’t use synthetic nitrogen fertilizer. And it prohibits using synthetic pesticides and giving hormones or antibiotics to livestock.</p>
<p>But the U.S. isn’t currently setting the bar high for growing its organic sector. Across the Atlantic, Europe has a much more focused, aggressive strategy.</p>
<h2>The EU’S Farm to Fork plan</h2>
<p>The European Union’s <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/food/horizontal-topics/farm-fork-strategy_en">Farm to Fork</a> strategy, often described as the heart of the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/european-green-deal_en?_ga=2.201656977.1662622590.1631910401-1915539932.1631910401">European Green Deal</a>, was adopted in 2020 and <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/farm-to-fork-strategy-europe-food-production-sustainability-agriculture/">strengthened</a> in October 2021. It sets forth ambitious 2030 targets: a 50% cut in greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, a 50% cut in pesticide use and a 20% cut in fertilizer use. </p>
<p>Recognizing that organic production can make important contributions to these goals, the policy calls for increasing the percentage of EU farmland under organic management from 8.1% to 25% by 2030. The European Parliament has adopted a detailed <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/12555-Organic-farming-action-plan-for-the-development-of-EU-organic-production_en">organic plan</a> to achieve this goal. </p>
<p>Today the U.S. is the world’s largest <a href="https://www.fibl.org/fileadmin/documents/shop/1150-organic-world-2021.pdf">organic marketplace</a>, with US$51 billion in sales in 2019. But the EU is not far behind, at $46 billion, and if it achieves its Farm to Fork targets, it is likely to become the global leader. </p>
<p>And that ambition is reflected in national food policies. For example, in Copenhagen 88% of ingredients in meals served at the city’s 1,000 public schools <a href="https://www.fibl.org/fileadmin/documents/shop/1150-organic-world-2021.pdf">are organic</a>. Similarly, in Italy school meals in more than 13,000 schools countrywide contain organic ingredients. </p>
<p><iframe id="jhUPe" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/jhUPe/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>The U.S. strategy is technology-driven</h2>
<p>In contrast with the EU, the U.S. has no plan at the national level for expanding organic production, or even a plan to make a plan.</p>
<p>Less than 1% of U.S. farmland – about 5.6 million acres (2.3 million hectares) is farmed according to national organic standards, compared with 36 million acres (14.6 million hectares) in the EU. This small sector doesn’t produce enough organic food to meet consumer demand, so much of the organic food consumed in the U.S. is imported from nearly <a href="https://organic.ams.usda.gov/integrity/">45,000 foreign operations</a>. While the U.S. government tracks imports of only 100 organic food products – a small sliver of what comes in – spending in 2020 on these items alone <a href="https://news.wp.prod.gios.asu.edu/files/2021/08/US-organic-imports.pdf">exceeded $2.5 billion</a>. </p>
<p>I see this gap as a huge missed opportunity. President Biden has called for a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/04/29/remarks-by-president-biden-in-address-to-a-joint-session-of-congress/">“Buy American” strategy</a> to bolster the U.S. economy, but today consumers are spending money on organic imports without reaping the <a href="https://nifa.usda.gov/topic/organic-agriculture">environmental</a> or <a href="https://www.stlouisfed.org/community-development/publications/harvesting-opportunity">economic</a> benefits of having more land under organic management. More domestic production would improve soil and water quality and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2017.1394416">create jobs in rural areas</a>. </p>
<p><iframe id="7f996" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/7f996/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>While the U.S. and the EU are working together to <a href="https://twitter.com/SecVilsack/status/1455243583251001349">address agriculture’s contribution to climate change</a>, they have <a href="https://www.farmprogress.com/farm-policy/vilsack-defends-us-farm-practices-world-stage">very different views on the role of organic farming</a>. At a U.N. <a href="https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/summit">Food Systems Summit</a> on Sept. 23, 2021, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack launched a new international coalition on <a href="https://www.fas.usda.gov/newsroom/secretary-vilsack-remarks-g20-open-forum-sustainability">sustainable productivity growth</a>, calling on countries and organizations to join the U.S. in the cause of increasing yields to feed a growing world population. In his press briefings, Vilsack promoted <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/farm-to-fork-europe-united-states-food-agriculture-trade-climate-change/">voluntary, incentive-based and technological approaches</a> to producing more food, such as gene editing, precision agriculture and artificial intelligence. </p>
<p>Vilsack asserts that the European Union’s emphasis on organic production will <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/farm-to-fork-europe-united-states-food-agriculture-trade-climate-change/">reduce output and push up food prices</a>. This argument reflects a long-standing debate about whether organic farming can <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01410-w">produce enough food to meet demand while using fewer chemical inputs</a>.</p>
<p>The strongest <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2021/10/26/usda-announces-initial-supporters-sustainable-productivity-growth">support for the USDA strategy</a> is no surprise. It comes mostly from conventional agriculture groups, including Syngenta, Bayer and Corteva – three of the four <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/257489/ranking-of-leading-agrochemical-companies-worldwide-by-revenue/">largest global agrichemical companies</a> – along with their lobbying arm, <a href="https://www.croplifeamerica.org/">CropLife America</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe src="https://player.vimeo.com/video/541541773" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitallowfullscreen="" mozallowfullscreen="" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Patrick Barbour, winner of a climate-friendly farming competition sponsored by the National Farmers Union of Scotland, explains steps he is taking on his organic sheep and cattle farm to reduce carbon emissions and deliver environmental benefits.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>More organic doesn’t mean going backward</h2>
<p>In my view, these U.S. talking points are outdated. The world’s farmers already produce enough food to feed the world. The question is why <a href="https://www.who.int/news/item/15-07-2019-world-hunger-is-still-not-going-down-after-three-years-and-obesity-is-still-growing-un-report">many people still go hungry</a> when <a href="https://www.fao.org/3/cb1329en/online/cb1329en.html#chapter-2_1">production increases year over year</a>. </p>
<p>At the U.N. Food Systems Summit, many world leaders called for reforms to <a href="https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/first-un-food-systems-summit-seeks-new-recipe-healthy-people-and-planet">eradicate hunger, poverty and inequality, and address climate change</a>. Food systems experts understand that global <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-019-0002-4">nutrition security</a> depends on empowering women, eliminating corruption, addressing food waste, preserving biodiversity and embracing environmentally responsible production – including organic agriculture. Not on the list: increasing yields.</p>
<p>Addressing agriculture’s role in climate change means changing how nations produce, process, transport, consume and waste food. I believe that when leaders call for cutting-edge, science-based solutions, they need to embrace and support a broad spectrum of science, including <a href="https://www.fao.org/3/i9037en/i9037en.pdf">agroecology</a> – sustainable farming that works with nature and reduces reliance on external inputs like fertilizers and pesticides. </p>
<p>The Biden-Harris administration could do this by developing a comprehensive plan to realize the untapped potential of organic agriculture, with clear goals and strategies to increase organic production and with it, the number of organic farmers. Consumers are ready to buy what U.S. organic farmers raise.</p>
<p>[<em>Get the best of The Conversation, every weekend.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/weekly-highlights-61?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=weeklybest">Sign up for our weekly newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/169078/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kathleen Merrigan directs the Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems at Arizona State University, which receives funding from the Organic Trade Association. She is co-director of a project on inadvertent chemical contamination of organic crops funded by the US Department of Agriculture. Merrigan is a member of the Advisory Committee for the Organic Farming Research Foundation. She also is an advisor to S2G Ventures and a Venture Partner at Astanor Ventures, two agtech firms that have some organic companies in their much broader portfolios. As a US Senate staffer, Merrigan drafted the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. She has served on the National Organic Standards Board, as Administrator of the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service and as Deputy Secretary of Agriculture. </span></em></p>An expert on organic agriculture argues that the US is missing an economic and environmental opportunity by not working to scale up organic production.Kathleen Merrigan, Executive Director, Swette Center for Sustainable Food Systems, Arizona State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1602302021-06-22T16:42:56Z2021-06-22T16:42:56ZHow engineered bacteria could clean up oilsands pollution and mining waste<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/407272/original/file-20210618-21-w0x9j5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=46%2C98%2C3835%2C2368&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A tailings pond at an oilsands facility near Fort McMurray, Alta., in July 2012. The estimated cost of reclaiming oilsands mines is almost $31 billion. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh </span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Rampant industrialization has <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/">caused our planet to warm at an unprecedented rate</a>. Glaciers are melting away and <a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/">sea levels are rising</a>. Droughts last <a href="https://www.drought.gov/">longer and are more devastating</a>. Forest fires are <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/climate-change-increases-risk-fires-western-us">more intense</a>. Extreme, once-in-a-generation weather events — such as <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-how-climate-change-affects-extreme-weather-around-the-world">Category 5 hurricanes — seem to be occurring on an annual basis</a>. </p>
<p>The environment is indeed in grave health and urgent action is desperately needed. But there is genuine optimism that solutions to some of the largest environmental challenges may finally be at hand. </p>
<p>Take, for example, the decades-long problem of oilsands tailings ponds in Canada, the <a href="https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/energy-sources-distribution/clean-fossil-fuels/what-are-oil-sands/18089">third-largest reserve of crude oil in the world</a>. The <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tar-sands-extraction-without-strip-mining/">recovery of this oil consumes nearly threefold its volume in water</a> and leaves behind a slurry of water, solids and organic contaminants as waste. Oilsands operations are into their seventh decade, and more than a <a href="http://www.cec.org/wp-content/uploads/wpallimport/files/17-1-ffr_en.pdf">trillion litres of wastewater now resides in tailings ponds</a>.</p>
<p>But a rapidly growing collective of engineers, scientists, activists and entrepreneurs are delivering some of the biggest gains in environmental remediation in recent decades by blurring the lines between physical, biological and digital sciences. We call ourselves synthetic biologists. </p>
<p>I have extensively contributed to research, education, commercialization and regulation of synthetic biology, including as the founder of Metabolik Technologies, an environmental biotechnology venture, that commercialized a first-of-its-kind, low-energy, low-cost and sustainable solution to decontaminate oilsands tailings ponds. </p>
<h2>A quick guide to synthetic biology</h2>
<p>The underlying premise of synthetic biology is as simple as it is elegant: Nature assembles, dismantles and recycles molecules in the cleanest and most efficient manner imaginable. The unique instructions required to achieve these tasks are found in DNA. </p>
<p>Synthetic biologists investigate natural systems in order to understand these remarkable processes and then use lab-synthesized DNA to reprogram them to perform new tasks or existing tasks more efficiently.</p>
<p>Synthetic biology has been used to improve enzymes, cells and populations of cells for diverse applications <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.618373">such as sensing</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2008.03897.x">breaking down hydrocarbons and other “forever chemicals” such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)</a> in soil and water and <a href="https://doi.org/10.34133/2020/1016207">sequestering carbon dioxide and methane</a>. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/toxic-long-lasting-contaminants-detected-in-people-living-in-northern-canada-141256">Toxic, long-lasting contaminants detected in people living in northern Canada</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Importantly, many of the protagonists and influencers of synthetic biology are the millennials and zoomers who were raised on a steady diet of Saturday morning cartoons. </p>
<h2>Once fiction, now a real solution</h2>
<p>Genetically engineered bacteria that mopped up oil spills were a staple in <a href="https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6l2xj4"><em>Captain Planet and the Planeteers</em></a>, the animated environmental superhero series that launched in 1990. Whereas two decades ago these concepts were confined to the pages of fiction, they are now a reality owing to advances in molecular biology such as CRISPR genome editing and the advent of <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymben.2017.06.003">fully automated genomic foundries — robotic systems that conduct thousands of experiments a day — for accelerated design-build-test-learn cycles</a>. </p>
<p>Crucially, the successes of synthetic biology in the sphere of environmental remediation have not been one-off demonstrations in academic laboratories. They have been proven in the field at sizeable scales and they have taken large bites out of some of the greatest environmental challenges in the world. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Arial image of Alberta oilsands facility" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/407273/original/file-20210618-28-klp34w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/407273/original/file-20210618-28-klp34w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407273/original/file-20210618-28-klp34w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407273/original/file-20210618-28-klp34w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407273/original/file-20210618-28-klp34w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407273/original/file-20210618-28-klp34w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/407273/original/file-20210618-28-klp34w.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">Oilsands operations are into their seventh decade, and more than a trillion litres of wastewater now resides in tailings ponds.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Translating innovations to the field</h2>
<p>Tailings ponds contain organic compounds such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.107">naphthenic acid fraction compounds (NAFCs) and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) that are harmful to aquatic life and human health</a> and are notoriously <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.05.062">difficult to eliminate from water</a>. They are also teeming with microbial life. </p>
<p>These microbes do not merely survive, but thrive in the contaminated water. They sense, ingest and metabolize the toxic compounds in the water, albeit at very slow rates. My team at the University of British Columbia and our colleagues at Allonnia isolated and studied the genomics of these unique creatures and, in collaboration with Ginkgo Bioworks, are now increasing their appetite for and metabolism of the toxic compounds. </p>
<p>After validating the performance of the micro-organisms in the field, the UBC-Allonnia team designed some of the largest treatment systems of their kind to achieve the rates and scales needed <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2020.04.007">to remediate the water</a> within the timeline prescribed in Alberta’s <a href="https://open.alberta.ca/publications/9781460121740">Tailings Management Framework</a>.</p>
<p>We will test our treatment system at the tailings ponds in early 2022 to fine-tune the micro-organisms and the reactors, and assess the risks. Some of these risks include the inefficacy or higher than expected costs of the technology, the potential damage the microbes may cause to the ecosystem and whether regulators and shareholders are comfortable with deploying engineered micro-organisms in the environment. </p>
<p>This small group of synthetic biologists succeeded thanks to the ingenuity of the approach and new models of collaboration. The team also involved oilsands operators, engineering design firms, contract manufacturing companies and regulatory experts who were able to leverage each partner’s strengths to reduce the time, expense and uncertainty of developing a practical solution.</p>
<h2>The fun has only just begun</h2>
<p>Synthetic biologists are only getting started and have now set their sights on a number of similarly large problems. One, in particular, has significant implications for our electric future.</p>
<p>Widespread adoption of <a href="https://www.nrdc.org/experts/luke-tonachel/study-electric-vehicles-can-dramatically-reduce-carbon-pollution">electric vehicles could reduce carbon emissions from the transportation sector by nearly 50 per cent</a>. Unfortunately, mining the metals used in electric vehicles damages the environment.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1403096990385311744"}"></div></p>
<p>The manufacture of a single electric vehicle generates 250,000 kilograms of mining waste and 150,000 litres of an <a href="https://unctad.org/news/developing-countries-pay-environmental-cost-electric-car-batteries">extremely toxic liquid called acid rock drainage</a>, a major threat to the environment owing to its potentially <a href="https://www.earthworks.org/issues/acid_mine_drainage/">devastating effect on rivers, streams and aquatic habitats</a>. </p>
<p>Mining is wasteful and unsustainable, and the industry is in desperate need of effective solutions to treat its large bodies of waste. My new start-up company ArqMetal is developing microbial solutions to do away with tailings ponds entirely. If we and others like us are successful, we will eliminate waste, deliver decarbonization, preserve biodiversity, generate employment and achieve equitable social development. Isn’t this <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/climate/green-new-deal-questions-answers.html">what the architects of the Green New Deal had in mind?</a></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/160230/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vikramaditya G. Yadav is an Associate Professor in the Department of Chemical & Biological Engineering and the School of Biomedical Engineering and Director of the Master of Engineering Leadership in Sustainable Process Engineering at the University of British Columbia (UBC). He founded Metabolik Technologies Inc. and was its Chief Technology Officer until its recent acquisition by Allonnia, a Bill Gates-backed environmental biotechnology company. He is also the Chief Technology Officer of ArqMetal Mining Solutions Inc., which is developing biotechnological solutions for the mining industry. He also serves on the boards of InMed Pharmaceuticals and Reazent.</span></em></p>Solutions to some of the globe’s most daunting environmental challenges may be closer than you think. Scientists are harnessing nature to clean up toxic chemicals and mining waste.Vikramaditya G. Yadav, Associate Professor of Chemical, Biological & Biomedical Engineering, University of British ColumbiaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1578432021-04-22T12:25:43Z2021-04-22T12:25:43ZLab-grown embryos and human-monkey hybrids: Medical marvels or ethical missteps?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/396376/original/file-20210421-23-1cklx15.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1198%2C808&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Researchers have grown mammal embryos later into development than ever before in an artificial womb.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Geometric_Progression.jpg#/media/File:Geometric_Progression.jpg">Vitalii Kyryk/WikimediaCommons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel “<a href="https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095525181">Brave New World</a>,” people aren’t born from a mother’s womb. Instead, embryos are grown in artificial wombs until they are brought into the world, a process called ectogenesis. In the novel, technicians in charge of the hatcheries manipulate the nutrients they give the fetuses to make the newborns fit the desires of society. Two recent scientific developments suggest that Huxley’s imagined world of functionally manufactured people is no longer far-fetched.</p>
<p>On March 17, 2021, an Israeli team announced that it had grown mouse embryos for 11 days – about half of the gestation period – in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03416-3">artificial wombs</a> that were essentially bottles. Until this experiment, no one had grown a mammal embryo outside a womb this far into pregnancy. Then, on April 15, 2021, a U.S. and Chinese team announced that it had successfully grown, for the first time, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.020">embryos that included both human and monkey cells</a> in plates to a stage where organs began to form. </p>
<p>As both a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=wQsQxFoAAAAJ">philosopher and a biologist</a> I cannot help but ask how far researchers should take this work. While creating chimeras – the name for creatures that are a mix of organisms – might seem like the more ethically fraught of these two advances, ethicists think the medical benefits far outweigh the ethical risks. However, ectogenesis could have far-reaching impacts on individuals and society, and the prospect of babies grown in a lab has not been put under nearly the same scrutiny as chimeras.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tNb2npuiF3Q?wmode=transparent&start=7" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Mouse embryos were grown in an artificial womb for 11 days, and organs had begun to develop.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Growing in an artificial womb</h2>
<p>When in vitro fertilization first emerged in the late 1970s, the press called IVF embryos “test-tube babies,” though they are nothing of the sort. These embryos are implanted into the uterus within a day or two after doctors fertilize an egg in a petri dish.</p>
<p>Before the Israeli experiment, researchers had not been able to grow mouse embryos outside the womb for more than four days – providing the embryos with enough oxygen had been too hard. The team spent <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abi5734">seven years</a> creating a system of slowly spinning glass bottles and controlled atmospheric pressure that simulates the placenta and provides oxygen.</p>
<p>This development is a major step toward ectogenesis, and scientists expect that it will be possible to extend mouse development further, possibly <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/03/17/1020969/mouse-embryo-grown-in-a-jar-humans-next/">to full term outside the womb</a>. This will likely require new techniques, but at this point it is a problem of scale – being able to accommodate a larger fetus. This appears to be a <a href="http://hdl.handle.net/10822/547926">simpler challenge to overcome</a> than figuring out something totally new like supporting organ formation.</p>
<p>The Israeli team plans to <a href="https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/03/17/1020969/mouse-embryo-grown-in-a-jar-humans-next/">deploy its techniques on human embryos</a>. Since mice and humans have similar developmental processes, it is likely that the team will succeed in growing human embryos in artificial wombs. </p>
<p>To do so, though, members of the team need permission from their ethics board. </p>
<p>CRISPR – a technology that can cut and paste genes – already allows scientists to manipulate an embryo’s genes after fertilization. Once fetuses can be grown outside the womb, as in Huxley’s world, researchers will also be able to modify their growing environments to further influence what <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/134.9.2169">physical and behavioral qualities these parentless babies exhibit</a>. Science still has a way to go before fetus development and births outside of a uterus become a reality, but researchers are getting closer. The question now is how far humanity should go down this path.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/396377/original/file-20210421-21-17un52t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A drawing of a half–eagle, half–horse griffin." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/396377/original/file-20210421-21-17un52t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/396377/original/file-20210421-21-17un52t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=634&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396377/original/file-20210421-21-17un52t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=634&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396377/original/file-20210421-21-17un52t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=634&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396377/original/file-20210421-21-17un52t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=797&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396377/original/file-20210421-21-17un52t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=797&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396377/original/file-20210421-21-17un52t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=797&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chimeras evoke images of mythological creatures of multiple species – like this 15th-century drawing of a griffin – but the medical reality is much more sober.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Martin_Schongauer,_The_griffin_(15th_century).jpg#/media/File:Martin_Schongauer,_The_griffin_(15th_century).jpg">Martin Schongauer/WikimediaCommons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Human-monkey hybrids</h2>
<p>Human–monkey hybrids might seem to be a much scarier prospect than babies born from artificial wombs. But in fact, the recent research is more a step toward an important medical development than an ethical minefield.</p>
<p>If scientists can grow human cells in monkeys or other animals, it should be possible to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.044">grow human organs</a> too. This would solve the problem of <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56767517">organ shortages</a> around the world for people needing transplants.</p>
<p>But keeping human cells alive in the embryos of other animals for any length of time has proved to be extremely difficult. In the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.020">human-monkey chimera experiment</a>, <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56767517">a team of researchers implanted</a> 25 human stem cells into embryos of crab-eating macaques – a type of monkey. The researchers then <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.044">grew these embryos</a> for 20 days in petri dishes.</p>
<p>After 15 days, the human stem cells had disappeared from most of the embryos. But at the end of the 20-day experiment, three embryos still contained human cells that had grown as part of the region of the embryo where they were embedded. For scientists, the challenge now is to figure out how to maintain human cells in chimeric embryos for longer.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/396400/original/file-20210421-17-162zdc2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A drawing of test tubes with embryos inside." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/396400/original/file-20210421-17-162zdc2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/396400/original/file-20210421-17-162zdc2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396400/original/file-20210421-17-162zdc2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396400/original/file-20210421-17-162zdc2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396400/original/file-20210421-17-162zdc2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396400/original/file-20210421-17-162zdc2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/396400/original/file-20210421-17-162zdc2.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"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The ability to grow true test–tube babies raises many ethical questions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/conceptual-image-of-human-cloning-royalty-free-image/1287023975?adppopup=true">Carol Yepes/Moment via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Regulating these technologies</h2>
<p>Some ethicists have begun to worry that researchers are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.044">rushing into a future</a> of chimeras without adequate preparation. Their main concern is the <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56767517">ethical status of chimeras</a> that contain human and nonhuman cells – especially if the human cells integrate into sensitive regions <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.044">such as a monkey’s brain</a>. What rights would such creatures have?</p>
<p>However, there seems to be an emerging consensus that the potential medical benefits justify a step-by-step extension of this research. Many ethicists are urging <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.044">public discussion</a> of appropriate regulation to determine how close to viability these embryos should be grown. One proposed solution is to limit growth of these embryos to the first trimester of pregnancy. Given that researchers don’t plan to grow these embryos beyond the stage when they can <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2021.03.044">harvest rudimentary organs</a>, I don’t believe chimeras are ethically problematic compared with the true test–tube babies of Huxley’s world.</p>
<p>Few ethicists have broached the problems posed by the ability to use ectogenesis to engineer human beings to fit societal desires. Researchers have yet to conduct experiments on human ectogenesis, and for now, scientists lack the techniques to bring the embryos to full term. However, without regulation, I believe researchers are likely to try these techniques on human embryos – just as the now-infamous He Jiankui <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/422891-how-we-proceed-with-human-gene-editing-will-be-the-debate-of-the-future">used CRISPR to edit human babies</a> without properly assessing safety and desirability. Technologically, it is a matter of time before mammal embryos can be brought to term outside the body. </p>
<p>[<em>Over 100,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=100Ksignup">Sign up today</a>.]</p>
<p>While people may be uncomfortable with ectogenesis today, this discomfort could pass into familiarity as happened with IVF. But scientists and regulators would do well to reflect on the wisdom of permitting a process that could allow someone to engineer human beings without parents. As <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1552-146x.2011.tb00098.x">critics have warned</a> in the context of CRISPR-based genetic enhancement, pressure to change future generations to meet societal desires will be unavoidable and dangerous, regardless of whether that pressure comes from an authoritative state or cultural expectations. In Huxley’s imagination, hatcheries run by the state grew a large numbers of identical individuals as needed. That would be a very different world from today.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157843/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sahotra Sarkar 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 have grown the first human-monkey hybrid embryos as well as mouse embryos in artificial wombs late into development. These biomedical breakthroughs raise different ethical quandaries.Sahotra Sarkar, Professor of Philosophy and Integrative Biology, The University of Texas at AustinLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1434442020-11-10T03:17:32Z2020-11-10T03:17:32ZGene editing is revealing how corals respond to warming waters. It could transform how we manage our reefs<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368490/original/file-20201110-24-1m0606o.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=43%2C14%2C1155%2C783&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mikaela Nordborg/Australian Institute of Marine Science</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Genetic engineering has already cemented itself as an invaluable tool for studying gene functions in organisms. </p>
<p>Our new study, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920779117">published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences</a>, now demonstrates how gene editing can be used to pinpoint genes involved in corals’ ability to withstand heat stress.</p>
<p>A better understanding of such genes will lay the groundwork for experts to predict the natural response of coral populations to climate change. And this could guide efforts to improve coral adaptation, through the selective breeding of naturally heat-tolerant corals. </p>
<h2>A threatened national treasure</h2>
<p>The Great Barrier Reef is among the world’s most <a href="https://nature.new7wonders.com/wonders/great-barrier-reef-australia-papua-new-guinea/#">awe-inspiring, unique</a> and <a href="https://www.barrierreef.org/the-reef/the-value">economically valuable</a> ecosystems. It spans more than 2,000 kilometres, has more than <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/the-reef/corals">600 types of coral</a>, <a href="http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/the-reef/reef-facts">1,600 types of fish</a> and is of immense cultural significance — especially for Traditional Owners. </p>
<p>But warming ocean waters caused by climate change are leading to the mass bleaching and mortality of corals on the reef, threatening the reef’s long-term survival.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-first-step-to-conserving-the-great-barrier-reef-is-understanding-what-lives-there-146097">The first step to conserving the Great Barrier Reef is understanding what lives there</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Many research efforts are focused on how we can prevent the <a href="https://theconversation.com/if-we-can-put-a-man-on-the-moon-we-can-save-the-great-barrier-reef-121052">reef’s deterioration</a> by helping it adapt to and recover from the conditions causing it stress. </p>
<p>Understanding the genes and molecular pathways that protect corals from heat stress will be key to achieving these goals.</p>
<p>While hypotheses exist about the roles of particular genes and pathways, rigorous testings of these have been difficult — largely due to a lack of tools to determine gene function in corals.</p>
<p>But over the past <a href="https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/who-really-discovered-crispr-emmanuelle-charpentier-and-jennifer-doudna-or-the-broad-institute/">decade or so</a>, CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing has emerged as a powerful tool to study gene function in non-model organisms. </p>
<h2>CRISPR: a technological marvel</h2>
<p>Scientists can use CRISPR to make precise changes to the DNA of a living organisms, by “cutting” its DNA and editing the sequence. This can involve inactivating a specific gene, introducing a new piece of DNA or replacing a piece. </p>
<p>In our <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/115/20/5235">2018 research</a>, we showed it is possible to make precise mutations in the coral genome using CRISPR technology. However, we were unable to determine the functions of our specific target genes.</p>
<p>For our latest research, we used an updated CRISPR method to sufficiently disrupt the Heat Shock Transcription Factor 1, or HSF1, in coral larvae.</p>
<p>Based on this protein-coding gene’s role in model organisms, including closely related sea anemones, we hypothesised it would play an important role in the heat response of corals. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368429/original/file-20201109-18-1bxese3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Injection going into coral egg." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368429/original/file-20201109-18-1bxese3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368429/original/file-20201109-18-1bxese3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368429/original/file-20201109-18-1bxese3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368429/original/file-20201109-18-1bxese3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368429/original/file-20201109-18-1bxese3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368429/original/file-20201109-18-1bxese3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368429/original/file-20201109-18-1bxese3.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"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We injected CRISPR components into the fertilised eggs of the coral species <em>Acropora millepora</em> to inactivate the HSF1 gene.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Phillip Cleves (Carnegie Institute for Science)/Patrick Buerger (CSIRO)</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Past research had also demonstrated HSF1 can influence a large number of heat response genes, acting as a kind of “master switch” to turn them on. </p>
<p>By inactivating this master switch, we expected to see significant changes in the corals’ heat tolerance. Our prediction proved accurate.</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>
<h2>What we discovered by injecting coral eggs</h2>
<p>We spawned corals at the Australian Institute of Marine Science during the annual <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-mass-coral-spawning-a-wonder-of-the-natural-world-87253">mass spawning</a> event in November, 2018. </p>
<p>We then injected CRISPR/Cas9 components into fertilised coral eggs to target the HSF1 gene in the common and widespread staghorn coral <em><a href="http://www.coralsoftheworld.org/species_factsheets/species_factsheet_summary/acropora-millepora/">Acropora millepora</a></em>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368491/original/file-20201110-17-j64d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="_Acropora millepora_ coral colony during a mass spawning event." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368491/original/file-20201110-17-j64d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/368491/original/file-20201110-17-j64d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368491/original/file-20201110-17-j64d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368491/original/file-20201110-17-j64d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=286&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368491/original/file-20201110-17-j64d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368491/original/file-20201110-17-j64d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/368491/original/file-20201110-17-j64d4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"><em>Acropora millepora</em> colonies can be found widely on the Great Barrier Reef. They reproduce sexually in ‘mass spawning’ events.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Mikaela Nordborg/Australian Institute of Marine Science</span>, <span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We were able to demonstrate a strong effect of HSF1 on corals’ heat tolerance. Specifically, when this gene was mutated using CRISPR (and no longer functional) the corals were more vulnerable to heat stress.</p>
<p>Larvae with knocked-out copies of HSF1 died under heat stress when the water temperature was increased from 27°C to 34°C. In contrast, larvae with the functional gene survived well in the warmer water.</p>
<h2>Let’s understand what we already have</h2>
<p>It may be tempting now to focus on using gene-editing tools to engineer heat-resistant strains of corals, to fast-track the Great Barrier Reef’s adaptation to warming waters. </p>
<p>However, genetic engineering should first and foremost be used to increase our knowledge of the fundamental biology of corals and other reef organisms, including their response to heat stress. </p>
<p>Not only will this help us more accurately predict the natural response of coral reefs to a changing climate, it will also shed light on the risks and benefits of new management tools for corals, such as selective breeding. </p>
<p>It is our hope these genetic insights will provide a solid foundation for future reef conservation and management efforts.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4ZI_dGa6C9g?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">During mass spawning events, corals release little balls that float to the ocean’s surface in a spectacle resembling an upside-down snowstorm.</span></figcaption>
</figure><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/143444/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dimitri Perrin has received funding from the Australian Research Council (ARC), the Australian-French Association for Innovation and Research (AFRAN), and the Advance Queensland programme.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Line K Bay receives funding from AIMS, the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, the National Environment Science Program and the Agouron Institute.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Phillip Cleves receives funding from the Carnegie Institute for Science.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jacob Bradford 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>New research involving CRISPR technology has furthered our understanding of corals’ gene functions. Specifically, it has revealed a mechanism underpinning how corals withstand heat stress.Dimitri Perrin, Senior Lecturer, Queensland University of TechnologyJacob Bradford, Queensland University of TechnologyLine K Bay, Principal Research Scientist and Team Leader, Australian Institute of Marine SciencePhillip Cleves, Principal Investigator, Carnegie Institution for ScienceLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1418502020-07-13T12:29:58Z2020-07-13T12:29:58ZHere’s how scientists know the coronavirus came from bats and wasn’t made in a lab<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/347086/original/file-20200713-18-nt7yxv.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/lab-assistant-studying-samples-detect-pathologies-761873584">Motortion Films/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>One of the conspiracy theories that have plagued attempts to keep people informed during the pandemic is the idea that the coronavirus was created in <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/06/03/exclusive-coronavirus-began-accident-disease-escaped-chinese/">a laboratory</a>. But the vast majority of scientists who have studied the virus agree that it evolved naturally and crossed into humans from an animal species, most likely a bat.</p>
<p>How exactly do we know that this virus, SARS-CoV-2, has a “zoonotic” animal origin and not an artificial one? The answers lie in the genetic material and evolutionary history of the virus, and understanding the ecology of the bats in question.</p>
<p>An estimated 60% of known infectious diseases and 75% of all new, emerging, or re-emerging diseases in humans <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5711306">have animal origins</a>. SARS-CoV-2 is the newest of seven coronaviruses found in humans, all of which <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7098031">came from animals</a>, either from bats, mice or domestic animals. Bats were also the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-020-0394-z">source of the viruses</a> causing Ebola, rabies, Nipah and Hendra virus infections, Marburg virus disease, and strains of Influenza A virus.</p>
<p>The genetic makeup or “genome” of SARS-CoV-2 has been sequenced and <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/sars-cov-2-seqs/">publicly shared</a> thousands of times by scientists all over the world. If the virus had been genetically engineered in a lab there would be signs of manipulation in the genome data. This would include evidence of an existing viral sequence as the backbone for the new virus, and obvious, targeted inserted (or deleted) genetic elements. </p>
<p>But <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9">no such evidence exists</a>. It is very unlikely that any techniques used to genetically engineer the virus would not leave a <a href="https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190521162437.htm">genetic signature</a>, like specific identifiable pieces of DNA code. </p>
<p>The genome of SARS-CoV-2 is similar to that of other bat coronaviruses, as well as those of pangolins, all of which have a similar overall genomic architecture. Differences between the genomes of these coronaviruses show natural patterns typical of <a href="https://jbiomedsci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12929-020-00665-8">coronavirus evolution</a>. This suggests that SARS-CoV-2 <a href="https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.03.30.015008">evolved from</a> a previous wild coronavirus. </p>
<p>One of the key features that makes SARS-CoV-2 different from the other coronaviruses is a particular “spike” protein that binds well with another protein on the outside of human cells <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-ace2-receptor-how-is-it-connected-to-coronavirus-and-why-might-it-be-key-to-treating-covid-19-the-experts-explain-136928">called ACE2</a>. This enables the virus to hook into and infect a variety of human cells. However, other related coronaviruses do have <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9">similar features</a>, providing evidence that they have evolved naturally rather than being artificially added in a lab.</p>
<p>Coronaviruses and bats are locked in an <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/116/3/923?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=308ba0c753d1cf67fd2d99fcd3027f0f2fba70e2-1593547005-0-ATp7ZjJaaCUXcBv29yjeiVMnFsilrGcfh3GPXx2qVvuJ4y7EEnNXpcjSANvHd9zpRprn2JDUox308KDezjW6zVJ2SlcsqezVNX0Qh7bRHt7yonWASZvcB0YaHX-8PZ4vubnpRsbKCQ-nqyLgL0jre0hk6tPvp2-kr44KxKQmzNJ6WjwIydhIymSi2HHgXhhUkyHFpBgBQXvLBpUxW3LmaXW6mGE_5zBTOYkaRZvKu19t2MTaijMqxtttvNP8WfjvswJ7nw4QtuOEzNWCFaOJnkmLxzys3q-znGzKApn0MPWJ">evolutionary arms race</a> in which the viruses are <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/91/11/4821.full.pdf">constantly evolving</a> to evade the bat immune system and bats are evolving to withstand infections from coronaviruses. A virus will evolve multiple variants, most of which will be destroyed by the bat’s immune system, but some will survive and pass to other bats.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/347088/original/file-20200713-62-2ptrz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/347088/original/file-20200713-62-2ptrz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347088/original/file-20200713-62-2ptrz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347088/original/file-20200713-62-2ptrz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347088/original/file-20200713-62-2ptrz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347088/original/file-20200713-62-2ptrz0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/347088/original/file-20200713-62-2ptrz0.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">The ‘genome’ of SARS-CoV-2 has been sequenced and publicly shared thousands of times by scientists worldwide.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/coronavirus-disease-covid19-infection-3d-medical-1642467388">Corona Borealis Studio/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/seven-year-covid-trail-revealed-l5vxt7jqp">Some scientists</a> have suggested that SARS-CoV-2 may have come from another known bat virus (RaTG13) found by researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The genomes of these two viruses are 96% similar to one another. </p>
<p>This might sound very close but in evolutionary terms this actually makes them <a href="https://jbiomedsci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12929-020-00665-8">significantly different</a> and the two have been shown to share a <a href="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.015008v1">common ancestor</a>. This shows that RaGT13 is not the ancestor of SARS-CoV-2. </p>
<p>In fact, SARS-CoV-2 most likely evolved from a viral variant that couldn’t survive for a long period of time or that persists at low levels in bats. Coincidentally, it evolved the ability to invade human cells and accidentally found its way into us, possibly by means of an <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9">intermediate animal host</a>, where it then thrived. Or an initially harmless form of the virus might have jumped directly into humans and then evolved to become harmful as it passed between people.</p>
<h2>Genetic variations</h2>
<p>The mixing or “recombination” of distinct coronavirus genomes in nature is one of the mechanisms that brings about novel coronaviruses. There is now further evidence that this process could be involved in the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41594-020-0468-7">generation of SARS-CoV-2</a>. </p>
<p>Since the pandemic started, the SARS-CoV-2 virus appears to have started evolving into <a href="http://www.ijmr.org.in/article.asp?issn=0971-5916;year=2020;volume=151;issue=5;spage=450;epage=458;aulast=Biswas">two distinct strains</a>, acquiring adaptations for more efficient invasion of human cells. This could have occurred through a mechanism known as a selective sweep, through which beneficial mutations help a virus to infect more hosts and so become more common in the viral population. This is a natural process that can ultimately reduce the genetic variation between individual viral genomes. </p>
<p>The same mechanism would account for the <a href="http://www.ijmr.org.in/article.asp?issn=0971-5916;year=2020;volume=151;issue=5;spage=450;epage=458;aulast=Biswas">lack of diversity</a> seen in the many SARs-CoV-2 genomes that have been sequenced. This indicates that the ancestor of SARS-CoV-2 could have been circulating in bat populations for a <a href="https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.015008v1">considerable amount of time</a>. It then would have acquired the mutations that allowed it to spill over from bats into other animals, including humans.</p>
<p>It is also important to remember that around one in five of all mammal species on Earth are bats, with some found only in certain locations and others migrating across vast distances. This <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-020-0394-z">diversity and geographical spread</a> makes it a challenge to identify which group of bats SARS-CoV-2 originally came from.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/wuhan-seafood-market-may-not-be-source-novel-virus-spreading-globally">There is evidence</a> that early cases of COVID-19 occurred outside of Wuhan in China and had no clear link to the city’s wet market where the pandemic is thought to have begun. But that isn’t evidence of a conspiracy. </p>
<p>It could simply be that infected people accidentally brought the virus into the city and then the wet market, where the enclosed, busy conditions increased the chances of the disease spreading rapidly. This includes the possibility of one of the scientists involved in bat coronavirus research in Wuhan unknowingly becoming infected and <a href="https://jbiomedsci.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12929-020-00665-8">bringing the virus back</a> from where their subject bats lived. This would still be considered natural infection, not a laboratory leak.</p>
<p>Only through robust science and the study of the natural world will we be able to truly understand the natural history and origins of zoonotic diseases like COVID-19. This is pertinent because our ever-changing relationship and increasing contact with wildlife is raising the risk of new deadly zoonotic diseases emerging in humans. SARS-CoV-2 is not the first virus that we have acquired from animals and certainly will not be the last.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/141850/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Polly Hayes 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 evidence suggests the novel coronavirus evolved naturally.Polly Hayes, Lecturer in Parasitology and Medical Microbiology, University of WestminsterLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1358702020-04-20T17:20:05Z2020-04-20T17:20:05ZThere is no evidence that the coronavirus was created in a laboratory<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/326087/original/file-20200407-91406-46z6bt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C305%2C12000%2C7706&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">No, this person is not creating a deadly virus.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/_HvUN5xlv7I">CDC / Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019%E2%80%9320_coronavirus_pandemic">Covid-19</a> pandemic, which is disrupting our lives and shaking our health systems and economies, is at the root of what Dr. Sylvie Briand, director of the Department of Pandemic and Epidemic Diseases of the World Health Organization (WHO), rightly described as an <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30461-X/fulltext">infodemic</a> – the viral circulation of rumours and false information.</p>
<h2>The Covid-19 infodemic</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.msn.com/it-it/video/amici/paolo-liguori-questo-virus-nasce-in-un-laboratorio/vi-BBZjDhw">Journalists</a> and <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/26/coronavirus-link-to-china-biowarfare-program-possi/">so-called experts</a> have seriously suggested that the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus at the heart of the epidemic could have been produced in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosafety_level">Level 4 Biosafety Laboratory</a> (BL4) in China’s Wuhan region, the epicentre of the epidemic.</p>
<p>These theories have gone viral, to the point that <a href="https://jean-jaures.org/sites/default/files/redac/commun/productions/2020/2803/117275_rapport_covid_19.pdf">recent polls</a> show that 23% of Americans and 17% French believe that the new coronavirus was made intentionally in a laboratory.</p>
<p>The wave of conspiracy theories surrounding the Covid-19 epidemic has also been spurred on by a few governments waging a veritable information war by politicizing the epidemic. In a speech on March 11, 2020, US president Donald Trump called Covid-19 the “Chinese virus”. In response, a spokesperson for the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs posted on <a href="https://twitter.com/zlj517/status/1238269193427906560?s=20">his Twitter account</a> an article allegedly demonstrating that SARS-CoV-2 was already present in 2019 in the United States and was brought to China by American soldiers.</p>
<p>The spread of such false information can hamper the response to real epidemics, and it is therefore crucial to establish the verifiable facts about SARS-CoV-2 virus.</p>
<h2>What do we know about the origins of Covid-19?</h2>
<p>The results of the <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9">genomic analysis of SARS-CoV-2</a> are clear: its sequence is 96% identical to that of the RaTG13 coronavirus isolated from a bat collected in the Chinese province of Yunan. The sequence of the receptor binding domain (RBD) present on the surface of SARS-CoV-2 that allows it to infect human cells, however, diverges strongly from the equivalent sequence observed in RaTG13. On the other hand, the RBD sequence of SARS-CoV-2 is very close (99%) to that of a coronavirus isolated in the pangolin. This suggests that SARS-CoV-2 is the result of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-origins-genome-analysis-suggests-two-viruses-may-have-combined-134059">recombination of two viruses</a>. This recombination mechanism has <a href="https://jvi.asm.org/content/84/7/3134">already been observed</a> in coronaviruses.</p>
<p>Comparison of coronavirus sequences present in nature supports a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 contains no trace of any human-mediated genetic manipulation. More specifically, it does not contain residual sequences related to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering">vector systems</a> conventionally used for genetic manipulation, which suggests that it is indeed the product of natural random selection.</p>
<h2>BL4 laboratory, genetic manipulation: reality and myths</h2>
<p>There is indeed a BL4 laboratory in Wuhan: the Wuhan National Biosafety Laboratory. Built in partnership with France, it obtained certification in 2017. Following the SARS epidemics of 2002-2004 and H1N1 in 2009, China wanted to improve its capacity to fight epidemics. The laboratory primarily carries out research on Ebola, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever and SARS. The only documented accident linked to a laboratory working on coronaviruses in China was the <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/sars/media/2004-05-19.html">infection of nine individuals in April 2004 with the SARS-CoV-1 virus</a> responsible for the SARS epidemic of 2002-2004. The people infected were two students working at the National Institute of Virology Laboratory and their relatives.</p>
<p>There are almost 30 BL4 laboratories listed worldwide. Their operations have always been a source of controversy and suspicion, in particular because some were previously involved in the manufacture of biological weapons. With the signing of the 1972 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention">Convention on the Prohibition of Biological Weapons</a>, which banned the development, acquisition, stockpiling and use of biological weapons, the purpose of the laboratories changed. They now officially work to fight epidemics and biological weapons. However, it has been shown that certain countries, including the former Soviet Union, continued to fund biological-weapons research programs, such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopreparat">Biopreparat</a>, despite having signed the convention.</p>
<p>These BL4 laboratories have indeed already been linked to accidents. For example, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sverdlovsk_anthrax_leak">1979 Sverdlovsk disaster</a>, which involved the <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/266/5188/1202">accidental spread of spores of the bacterium <em>Bacillus anthracis</em></a> that causes anthrax, caused dozens of deaths. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks">2001 anthrax attacks</a> in the United States were linked to a microbiologist, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Edwards_Ivins">Bruce Ivins</a>, who was working in a US Army BL4 laboratory. These high security laboratories have thus provided fertile ground for the development of highly extravagant conspiracy theories.</p>
<p>It is also true that ancient deadly viruses have been resuscitated in the laboratory, that new viruses are created by genetic manipulation for research purposes, and that some viruses have already been disseminated in the wild by countries. In 2005, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu">1918 Spanish influenza virus</a> was <a href="https://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5745/77.long">genetically engineered and tested in the laboratory</a> to <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0042682218302502?via%3Dihub">better understand its exceptional virulence</a>. In 2012, the H5N1 flu virus was modified in the laboratory to give it the ability to <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10831">infect ferrets by air</a> to understand how the virus could mutate to infect humans by the same route. In 2017, the Australian government authorised the spread of a <a href="https://www.agric.wa.gov.au/biological-control/rabbit-biocontrol-rhdv1-k5-national-release">strain of rabbit hemorrhagic disease virus</a> (RHDV1 K5) to reduce the population of wild rabbits on its territory. These well-documented events have also provided good fodder for an infinite variety of scenarios.</p>
<h2>Russel’s teapot and Covid-19</h2>
<p>What do a “celestial teapot” and the conspiracy theories surrounding Covid-19 have in common? More than you might think at first glance.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot">metaphor of the celestial teapot</a> was proposed by the philosopher <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell">Bertrand Russell</a> to challenge the idea that it is up to the sceptic to refute the unverifiable bases of religion and to affirm that the burden of proof falls instead to the believer. Russell suggested that a teapot is in orbit around the sun, precisely between Earth and the planet Mars. We cannot demonstrate that this teapot does not exist, so we have to believe it is there. Russel’s teapot is the cosmic version of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor">Ockham’s razor</a>, also known as the principle of parsimony or simplicity. This principle recommends eliminating complex explanations for a phenomenon from reasoning if simpler explanations prove plausible. There remains a fundamental principle of logical reasoning in science: it does not state that the simplest explanation is necessarily true, only that it must be considered first.</p>
<p>In the case of Covid-19, there is no verifiable fact to support the hypothesis that SARS-CoV-2 was intentionally manufactured in a laboratory. Various conspiracy theories are only supported by correlations, such as the existence of a BL4 in Wuhan. The RBD sequences of the virus could, in theory, result from an adaptation of the virus in the laboratory when cultured in human cells. But the existence of an RBD sequence that is 99% identical in a coronavirus infecting the pangolin supports a more parsimonious hypothesis: the infection of a bat or a pangolin with two coronaviruses that recombined to form a new virus that in turn infected a human, who would then be the famous and still unknown patient zero behind the Covid-19 epidemic.</p>
<p>The success of conspiracy theories about Covid-19 reveals much about our visceral need to reassure ourselves by inventing simplistic explanations for terrifying natural phenomena. Which hypothesis is the most unbearable – that mad scientists subsidised by a foreign power sparked an epidemic capable of shaking our modern societies, or that new epidemics emerge because of our invasion and destruction of natural ecosystems? In the first case, it would be easy to end the nightmare. In the second, it is our way of life and our economic system that must change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/135870/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Eric Muraille received funding from Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (FNRS-FRS), Belgium.</span></em></p>The conspiracy theory that Covid-19 was created in a laboratory has been widely reported, yet there is no evidence to support it. Why such theories thrive can easily be explained, however.Eric Muraille, Biologiste, Immunologiste. Maître de recherches au FNRS, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1148002019-04-09T11:07:09Z2019-04-09T11:07:09ZMysterious museum shows how humans have modified nature for themselves – with important consequences<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/268340/original/file-20190409-2898-njp1m4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1003%2C782&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Genetically modified mice express a green fluorescent protein which causes them to glow in the dark.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GFP_Mice_01.jpg">Moen et al. (2012)/Wikipedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Humans have shaped aspects of the living world to suit themselves throughout their history. We’ve domesticated plants and animals for food, security and companionship for tens of <a href="https://www.britannica.com/science/domestication">thousand of years</a>, ensuring <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature01019">early civilisations could survive</a>, develop, and eventually <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/domestication/">trade</a> with each other.</p>
<p>Throughout history, our relationship with other species has been tied to meeting human needs. Species have been <a href="https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-selective-breeding">selectively bred</a> so that their offspring over-express particular genetic traits, such as obedient behaviour in dogs or larger size and power in horses. </p>
<p>Over time humans have become more ambitious about <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/316/5833/1866">choosing behavioural and physical traits</a> to embed in other life forms. In recent decades, humans have also become increasingly capable of <a href="https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-genetic-engineering">genetically engineering</a> species – manipulating their DNA by splicing or inserting genetic material from other species into their genome.</p>
<p>A museum which opened in Pittsburgh, USA in 2012 has sought to chart the human influence in the biology of other species. The <a href="https://postnatural.org/">Center for PostNatural History</a> invites visitors to explore how humans have shaped the living world, <a href="https://postnatural.org/About">defining “postnatural history”</a> as: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>the study of the origins, habitats, and evolution of organisms that have been intentionally and heritably altered by humans.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Center’s director and founder, <a href="https://www.cmu.edu/cas/people/pell_richard.html">Richard Pell</a>, went further in <a href="https://theinfluencers.org/en/center-for-postnatural-history/video/1">explaining the postnatural</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It’s not just giving a dog a weird haircut, it’s breeding a dog that has weird hair. And its offspring will have weird hair forever. It’s sculpting the evolutionary process. […] It’s that moment at which culture intervenes in nature, and the organism has not just a story to tell about evolution or habitat, but has a story to tell about us.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The postnatural planet</h2>
<p>The Center claims to be the world’s only museum that is exclusively focused on postnatural lifeforms, exhibiting species often <a href="https://vimeo.com/56855772">omitted from typical natural history museums</a>. There’s a <a href="https://theinfluencers.org/en/center-for-postnatural-history/video/2">hairless, obese rat</a>, fish which <a href="https://postnatural.org/Press-1/Nature-Interview">glow in the dark</a>, and <a href="https://postnatural.org/Exhibits/Transgenic-Mosquito-of-Southern-California">transgenic mosquitoes</a> which have been bred so they can’t carry dengue fever. There’s also a mix of familiar species – different breeds of dogs and chickens – and species often less associated with human interference, such as <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/143/3606/538">corn</a>, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405985416300295">bananas</a> and <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=G95hgSRYy9kC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=domestication+%2522chestnut+tree%2522&ots=pcIuLzmX3n&sig=midn-DHfvCaYdWdzVfHGQCE2tNA#v=onepage&q=domestication%2520%2522chestnut%2520tree%2522&f=false">chestnut trees</a>. </p>
<p>All these species, and many others, have different genetic traits over-expressed to accentuate desirable features. Dogs, for example, have been domesticated and selectively bred out from a common wolf ancestor to more than <a href="http://www.fci.be/en/Nomenclature/">350 breeds</a>, according to strict guidelines in keeping with particular cultural desires around behavioural traits and visual qualities.</p>
<p>Often these human whims to breed dogs with flattened faces, aggressive behaviour or short legs have had <a href="https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ZOoRn4KgIawC&oi=fnd&pg=PR15&dq=dog+breeds+cause+health+disease+problems&ots=DvEXITZ9XH&sig=ijj7VYNsAAMFPLSY7JfN-hzyER4#v=onepage&q=dog%2520breeds%2520cause%2520health%2520disease%2520problems&f=false">little or no regard</a> for the species’ <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1558787809001348">long-term welfare</a>.</p>
<p>These standards reflect the values and desires of those who bred them and are particularly evident in three exhibits at the museum. The Silkie chicken originated in China and has fluffy plumage - bred to satisfy visual desires rather than Western appetites for <a href="https://www.aspca.org/sites/default/files/chix_white_paper_nov2015_lores.pdf">enormous breasted</a> factory-farmed chickens, which are bred for <a href="https://theinfluencers.org/en/center-for-postnatural-history/video/1">uniform size</a> to fit in processing machines. </p>
<p>The Center also has a stuffed mount of an “alcoholic” rat, bred to choose alcohol over water when given the choice, as part of a laboratory experiment by researchers in Finland to <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ncb437">help find a cure for alcoholism</a>. Then there’s “Freckles” – a stuffed goat bred by the company Nexia to produce spider silk in her milk as a potential <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1748-5967.2007.00121.x">replacement for Kevlar in military uniforms</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/B0zT9CN3-50?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>These three exhibits demonstrate how non-humans have been moulded to reflect human <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/622652?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents">expectations and desires</a>. The cultural systems which govern human life also increasingly apply to non-humans. It’s also no coincidence that the species discussed here have been bred in pursuit of profit, directly or indirectly. This suggests the pervasive influence of <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1006419715108">consumer capitalism</a> in human behaviour.</p>
<p>The most profitable organisms – such as cattle – have received the most investment and attention. The Belgian Blue cow, for example, has been bred for enormous, succulent and tasty shoulder and thigh muscles. But these mean <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2006.00825.x">Caesarean sections</a> are needed to avoid <a href="https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/farm/beef/keyissues">birth canal blockages</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267639/original/file-20190404-123405-tngn42.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267639/original/file-20190404-123405-tngn42.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267639/original/file-20190404-123405-tngn42.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267639/original/file-20190404-123405-tngn42.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267639/original/file-20190404-123405-tngn42.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267639/original/file-20190404-123405-tngn42.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267639/original/file-20190404-123405-tngn42.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Belgian Blue’s muscular build reflects consumer demand for succulent thigh and shoulder meat but causes severe health problems for the animal.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spitzenbulle.JPG">Mastiff/Wikipedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Profitable crop species are usually <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/18/warning-of-ecological-armageddon-after-dramatic-plunge-in-insect-numbers">treated with pesticides to kill insects</a>, or <a>habitats are destroyed</a> to farm profitable species on. We leave little room for the species we haven’t exploited – <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/biomass-humans-animals-2571413930.html">humans and livestock account for 96% of mammal biomass</a>.</p>
<p>This has created <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/29/earth-lost-50-wildlife-in-40-years-wwf">dangerous imbalances in ecosystems</a>, while many of the species we exploit are being <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/12/what-is-biodiversity-and-why-does-it-matter-to-us">consumed faster than they can reproduce</a>. Humans have <a href="https://www.ufaw.org.uk/dogs/english-bulldog-dystocia">inserted themselves into the life cycles</a> of much of the living world, and these changes are heritable – their genetic trajectory is irreversibly set.</p>
<p>The Center for PostNatural History therefore shows us our collective power to shape the living world in our image. This power must be used responsibly.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114800/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dominic Walker 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>Human changes to the living world have benefited us, but the ecological consequences are mounting.Dominic Walker, Researcher in Cultural Geography, Royal Holloway University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1140682019-03-27T10:32:18Z2019-03-27T10:32:18ZThe science and politics of genetically engineered salmon: 5 questions answered<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/265743/original/file-20190326-36248-s6pdon.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=83%2C83%2C3882%2C2527&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">After decades of work, a salmon product engineered to grow faster may be coming to the U.S.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/danielmennerich/12549936463/in/photolist-k7ZGST-bpWsQ6-d6ZYnA-8HErgR-27QKcRU-bQ6Nyt-fopZfG-BGRB8-dsLrJJ-5adcV-8goftT-4wXuNV-e2eeVe-gdVL6v-8NxyDS-4WWjGT-8gongB-29T9gqK-dwYpLM-L7SDYY-q5BD9e-q3FY3A-5pAkX8-oyVxe8-inxi6x-e5f2nf-qRQLu8-LEYjJL-VWePiz-foaHxr-XFBB2u-gTnj1e-aDzfAK-oyVHqm-47FTFc-77BaeN-c4Uj6h-dL2Msq-c4Uj2h-MvCEfP-eiZJWE-oR9Acn-ehUwDC-9ppCQM-VrPHew-6RboSQ-VWdvkx-8oPFo1-apuZKp-9DLz4R">Daniel Mennerich</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>Editor’s note: A Massachusetts-based company earlier this month <a href="https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm632952.htm">cleared the last regulatory hurdle</a> from the Food and Drug Administration to sell genetically engineered salmon in the U.S. Animal genomics expert Alison Van Eenennaam, who served on an advisory committee to the FDA to evaluate the AquAdvantage salmon, explains the significance of the FDA’s move and why some have criticized its decision.</em></p>
<h2>1. How is AquaBounty’s salmon different from a conventional salmon?</h2>
<p>The main difference is that AquaBounty’s <a href="https://aquabounty.com/our-salmon/">AquAdvantage salmon</a> grows faster than conventional salmon, and therefore gets to market weight in less time. This is desirable for fish farmers because it means the fish require less feed, which is one of the main costs in aquaculture. </p>
<p>Fast growth is a commonly selected characteristic in food animal breeding programs. The growth rate of chickens, for example, has increased dramatically over the past 50 years thanks to conventional breeding based on the naturally occurring variation in growth rate that exists between individual chickens. </p>
<p>To produce the AquAdvantage salmon, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt0292-176">Canadian researchers</a> introduced DNA from the King salmon, <em>Oncorhynchus tshawytscha</em>, a fast-growing Pacific species, into an Atlantic salmon genome <a href="https://www.aquabounty.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Chronology-of-AquAdvantage-Salmon-F1.pdf">30 years ago</a>. The AquAdvantage salmon are several generations removed from that original fast-growing founder fish. These fish inherited the King salmon fast-growth gene from their parents in the normal way, <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11248-006-0020-5">passed down</a> through sexual reproduction. </p>
<h2>2. The Food and Drug Administration approved AquAdvantage salmon in 2015. Why couldn’t it be sold in the United States until now?</h2>
<p>Because the AquAdvantage salmon is a genetically engineered animal, it was required to undergo a mandatory premarket <a href="https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/BiotechnologyProductsatCVMAnimalsandAnimalFood/AnimalswithIntentionalGenomicAlterations/UCM605678.pdf">FDA safety evaluation</a>. The agency completed that evaluation and determined the fish was safe in <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/BiotechnologyProductsatCVMAnimalsandAnimalFood/AnimalswithIntentionalGenomicAlterations/ucm466214.htm">November 2015</a>, after almost two decades of regulatory scrutiny. </p>
<p>Following this approval, Alaskan Sen. Lisa Murkowski <a href="https://www.murkowski.senate.gov/press/release/murkowski-works-to-support-alaskas-fisheries-and-protect-consumers-through-omnibus-bill">introduced language</a> into the 2016 federal budget bill that banned importation and sale of the genetically engineered salmon until such time as the FDA “publishes final labeling guidelines for informing consumers of such content.” According to her press release, she did this to protect Alaska’s fishing interests and Pacific “salmon stocks from the many threats of ‘Frankenfish.’”</p>
<p>Soon afterward, the U.S. Department of Agriculture was tasked with developing the “<a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/12/21/2018-27283/national-bioengineered-food-disclosure-standard">National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard</a>,” also known as the GMO labeling rule, which became effective on Feb. 19, 2019. This rule requires the fish to be labeled as bioengineered food. </p>
<p>In response, the FDA <a href="https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm632952.htm">deactivated the 2016 import alert</a> that prevented the genetically engineered salmon from entering the United States, clearing the way for its sale here. The fish had already been approved in Canada in 2016, and has been <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature.2017.22116">sold there since 2017</a>.</p>
<h2>3. Is there evidence that eating genetically engineered salmon could be harmful to people’s health?</h2>
<p>No. The FDA evaluated the fast-growing salmon and <a href="https://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/BiotechnologyProductsatCVMAnimalsandAnimalFood/AnimalswithIntentionalGenomicAlterations/ucm280853.htm">concluded</a> that it was as safe as conventional salmon. The agency determines safety by compositional analysis – basically, grinding up genetically engineered salmon and control fish samples and comparing them. In these analyses, the genetically engineered salmon and wild Atlantic salmon were not found to differ. </p>
<p>It was also determined that the introduced King salmon gene was not a novel allergen. Needless to say if you are allergic to fish, don’t eat this AquAdvantage salmon or any other salmon either. In reality, there’s no such thing as a completely “safe food,” so what the FDA scientists concluded was that the food from AquAdvantage salmon “<a href="https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/BiotechnologyProductsatCVMAnimalsandAnimalFood/AnimalswithIntentionalGenomicAlterations/UCM466215.pdf">is as safe as food from non-GE Atlantic salmon</a>.”</p>
<h2>4. Some critics argue that the genetically modified salmon will escape and mix with wild stocks of fish. How likely is that?</h2>
<p>AquaBounty is using multiple, redundant biological, geographical and physical containment measures that collectively decrease the possibility of its salmon escape and interbreeding with wild stocks of fish. </p>
<p>Currently it is growing its engineered fish in land-based freshwater tanks in an FDA-inspected facility in the highlands of Panama. This limits their interaction with wild stocks of fish. They are also being raised to be all-female and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180493">triploid</a>. Triploidy means the fish have three complete sets of chromosomes rather than the usual two. Triploidy renders females essentially infertile. </p>
<p>The fertile broodstock fish as maintained in a closed FDA-approved facility on Prince Edward Island in Canada that has physical and geographical containment measures. After reviewing those safeguards, Canadian health and environmental authorities concluded that “<a href="https://waves-vagues.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Library/361091.pdf">The likelihood of (genetically engineered salmon) exposure to the Canadian environment is concluded to be negligible with reasonable certainty</a>.” </p>
<p>In 2017 AquaBounty <a href="https://indianapublicmedia.org/news/fish-freshwater-gmo-salmon-making-ground-indiana-153692/">purchased a fish farm in Indiana</a> where they plan to grow out genetically engineered salmon. This site was <a href="https://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/newsevents/cvmupdates/ucm605841.htm">approved</a> by the FDA in 2018 as a grow-out facility. The advantage of growing the salmon in land-based facilities in the United States is that it provides a local source of domestically produced Atlantic salmon. Currently, most salmon eaten in the United States is <a href="https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/pls/webpls/trade_prdct.data_in?qtype=IMP&qmnth=12&qyear=2018&qprod_name=SALMON&qoutput=TABLE">farmed Atlantic salmon</a> imported from Chile, Norway, and Canada incurring considerable transportation costs and carbon emissions.</p>
<p>The Pacific coast has a wild salmon fishery, and some of its representatives say the genetically engineered salmon is <a href="https://www.akmarine.org/fisheries-conservation/protect-alaska-salmon/genetically-engineered-salmon/">an ecological and genetic threat</a> to native gene pools. But Atlantic salmon (<em>Salmo salar</em>) are in a different genus from Pacific salmon (<em>Oncorhynchus spp.</em>) species. This means they cannot interbreed. </p>
<p>In my view, <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060127455">claims that AquAdvantage salmon will negatively affect</a> wild Pacific salmon populations are unfounded, due not only to the fact that AquAdvantage salmon are being raised in land-based tanks with multiple redundant physical, geographical and biological containment measures to prevent fish from escaping, but also due to the basic genetic incompatibility of these two distinct genera of salmon. </p>
<h2>5. Where can I read more?</h2>
<p>There are two comprehensive yet comprehensible write-ups that I highly recommend for readers looking for more detailed information on the science and politics of the AquAdvantage salmon. The first is from <a href="https://www.factcheck.org/">factcheck.org</a>, a project of The Annenberg Public Policy Center, entitled “<a href="https://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/false-claims-about-frankenfish/">False Claims about ‘Frankenfish,’</a>” and the second is by the independent educational site <a href="https://biofortified.org/">biofortified.org</a>, entitled “<a href="https://biofortified.org/2019/03/gmo-salmon-approved/">Fast-growing genetically engineered salmon approved</a>.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114068/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alison Van Eenennaam was an unpaid temporary voting member of the 2010 FDA Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee meeting on the AquAdvantage salmon. </span></em></p>The FDA has given the green light to sell the first genetically engineered animal – farmed salmon –in the US.Alison Van Eenennaam, Researcher, Department of Animal Science, University of California, DavisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1015852018-10-10T10:49:30Z2018-10-10T10:49:30ZOrganic farming with gene editing: An oxymoron or a tool for sustainable agriculture?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233152/original/file-20180822-149463-1yjj5bp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Many farmers cultivating organic crops believe that genetically modified crops pose threats to human health.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/organic-vegetables-on-wood-farmer-holding-529914715">mythja/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A University of California, Berkeley professor stands at the front of the room, delivering her invited talk about the potential of genetic engineering. Her audience, full of organic farming advocates, listens uneasily. She notices a man get up from his seat and move toward the front of the room. Confused, the speaker pauses mid-sentence as she watches him bend over, reach for the power cord, and unplug the projector. The room darkens and silence falls. So much for listening to the ideas of others.</p>
<p>Many organic advocates claim that genetically engineered crops are <a href="https://www.downtoearth.org/label-gmos/risks-genetic-engineering">harmful</a> to human health, the environment, and the farmers who work with them. Biotechnology advocates fire back that genetically engineered crops are <a href="https://doi.org/10.17226/23395">safe</a>, reduce insecticide use, and allow farmers in developing countries to produce enough food to feed themselves and their families. </p>
<p>Now, sides are being chosen about whether the new gene editing technology, CRISPR, is really just “<a href="https://usrtk.org/gmo/gmo-2-0-foods-coming-your-way-will-they-be-labeled/">GMO 2.0</a>” or a helpful <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2018.04.013">new tool</a> to speed up the plant breeding process. In July, the European Union’s Court of Justice <a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=204387&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=44391">ruled</a> that crops made with CRISPR will be classified as genetically engineered. In the United States, meanwhile, the regulatory system is <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/03/28/secretary-perdue-issues-usda-statement-plant-breeding-innovation">drawing distinctions</a> between genetic engineering and specific uses of genome editing.</p>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233146/original/file-20180822-149490-24y18u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233146/original/file-20180822-149490-24y18u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233146/original/file-20180822-149490-24y18u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233146/original/file-20180822-149490-24y18u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=394&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233146/original/file-20180822-149490-24y18u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233146/original/file-20180822-149490-24y18u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233146/original/file-20180822-149490-24y18u.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=495&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">For many, perception of genetically modified foods has changed little from those of this protester dressed as a genetically altered ‘Killer Tomato’ marching through downtown San Diego, June 24, 2001.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Associated-Press-Domestic-News-California-Unite-/ef3ae3e1ede6da11af9f0014c2589dfb/5/0">Joe Cavaretta/AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I am a plant molecular biologist and appreciate the awesome potential of both CRISPR and genetic engineering technologies. But I don’t believe that pits me against the goals of organic agriculture. In fact, biotechnology can help meet these goals. And while rehashing the arguments about genetic engineering seems counterproductive, genome editing may draw both sides to the table for a healthy conversation. To understand why, it’s worth digging into the differences between genome editing with CRISPR and genetic engineering.</p>
<h2>What’s the difference between genetic engineering, CRISPR and mutation breeding?</h2>
<p>Opponents argue that CRISPR is a <a href="https://foe.org/news/2017-01-usda-proposal-for-biotech-regulations-falls-short/">sneaky way</a> to trick the public into eating genetically engineered foods. It is tempting to toss CRISPR and genetic engineering into the same bucket. But even “genetic engineering” and “CRISPR” are too broad to convey what is happening on the genetic level, so let’s look closer.</p>
<p>In one type of genetic engineering, a gene from an unrelated organism can be introduced into a plant’s genome. For example, much of the <a href="http://bteggplant.cornell.edu/content/news/blog/director-general-bari-remarks-about-bt-brinjal">eggplant grown in Bangladesh</a> incorporates a gene from a common bacterium. This gene makes a protein called Bt that is harmful to insects. By putting that gene inside the eggplant’s DNA, the plant itself becomes lethal to eggplant-eating insects and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600850">decreases the need for insecticides</a>. Bt is safe for humans. It’s like how chocolate makes dogs sick, but doesn’t affect us. </p>
<p>Another type of genetic engineering can move a gene from one variety of a plant species into another variety of that same species. For example, researchers identified a gene in wild apple trees that makes them resistant to <a href="https://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/intropp/lessons/prokaryotes/Pages/FireBlight.aspx">fire blight.</a>They <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143980">moved that gene</a> into the “Gala Galaxy” apple to make it resistant to disease. However, this new apple variety has not been commercialized. </p>
<p>Scientists are unable to direct where in the genome a gene is inserted with traditional genetic engineering, although they use DNA sequencing to identify the location after the fact. </p>
<p>In contrast, CRISPR is a tool of precision.</p>
<p>Just like using the “find” function in a word processor to quickly jump to a word or phrase, the CRISPR molecular machinery finds a specific spot in the genome. It cuts both strands of DNA at that location. Because cut DNA is problematic for the cell, it quickly deploys a repair team to mend the break. There are two pathways for repairing the DNA. In one, which I call “CRISPR for modification,” a new gene can be inserted to link the cut ends together, like pasting a new sentence into a word processor. </p>
<p>In “CRISPR for mutation,” the cell’s repair team tries to glue the cut DNA strands back together again. Scientists can direct this repair team to change a few DNA units, or base pairs (A’s, T’s, C’s and G’s), at the site that was cut, creating a small DNA change called a mutation. This technique can be used to tweak the gene’s behavior inside the plant. It can also be used to silence genes inside the plant that, for example, are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2969">detrimental to plant survival</a>, like a gene that increases susceptibility to fungal infections.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/239543/original/file-20181005-72100-8199mg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/239543/original/file-20181005-72100-8199mg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/239543/original/file-20181005-72100-8199mg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/239543/original/file-20181005-72100-8199mg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/239543/original/file-20181005-72100-8199mg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/239543/original/file-20181005-72100-8199mg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/239543/original/file-20181005-72100-8199mg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/239543/original/file-20181005-72100-8199mg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In genetic engineering, a new gene is added to a random location in a plant’s genome. CRISPR for modification also allows a new gene to be added to a plant, but targets the new gene to a specific location. CRISPR for mutation does not add new DNA. Rather, it makes a small DNA change at a precise location. Mutation breeding uses chemicals or radiation (lightning bolts) to induce several small mutations in the genomes of seeds. Resulting plants are screened for beneficial mutations resulting in desirable traits.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Rebecca Mackelprang</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><a href="https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mDjLBAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=mutation+breeding&ots=hOXPUt2p5H&sig=qcnBWrcHGIayvZ6YifclAT2sjYk#v=onepage&q=mutation%20breeding&f=false">Mutation breeding</a>, which in my opinion is also a type of biotechnology, is already used in organic food production. In mutation breeding, radiation or chemicals are used to randomly make mutations in the DNA of hundreds or thousands of seeds which are then grown in the field. Breeders scan fields for plants with a desired trait such as disease resistance or increased yield. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1023/B:EUPH.0000014914.85465.4f">Thousands of new crop varieties</a> have been created and commercialized through this process, including everything from varieties of <a href="https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/quinoa-farmers-increase-yields-using-nuclear-derived-farming-practices">quinoa</a> to varieties of <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2013/11/27/popular-sweet-grapefruit-rio-red-a-product-of-unregulated-risky-process-of-mutagenesis/">grapefruit</a>. Mutation breeding is considered a <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/NOP-PM-13-1-CellFusion.pdf">traditional breeding technique</a>, and thus is not an “<a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=9c79a660d1d7414c48a7e1d257b00561&mc=true&node=pt7.3.205&rgn=div5#se7.3.205_1200">excluded method</a>” for organic farming in the United States.</p>
<p>CRISPR for mutation is more similar to mutation breeding than it is to genetic engineering. It creates similar end products as mutation breeding, but removes the randomness. It does not introduce new DNA. It is a controlled and predictable technique for generating helpful new plant varieties capable of resisting disease or weathering adverse environmental conditions.</p>
<h2>Opportunity lost – learning from genetic engineering</h2>
<p>Most commercialized genetically engineered traits confer herbicide tolerance or insect resistance in corn, soybean or cotton. Yet many other engineered crops exist. While a few are grown in the field, most sit all but forgotten in dark corners of research labs because of the prohibitive expense of passing regulatory hurdles. If the regulatory climate and public perception allow it, crops with valuable traits like these could be produced by CRISPR and become common in our soils and on our tables.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234342/original/file-20180830-195322-1t1cqjo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234342/original/file-20180830-195322-1t1cqjo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234342/original/file-20180830-195322-1t1cqjo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=777&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234342/original/file-20180830-195322-1t1cqjo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=777&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234342/original/file-20180830-195322-1t1cqjo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=777&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234342/original/file-20180830-195322-1t1cqjo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=976&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234342/original/file-20180830-195322-1t1cqjo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=976&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234342/original/file-20180830-195322-1t1cqjo.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=976&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dr. Peggy Lemaux, holding seeds from the hypoallergenic wheat she helped develop with genetic engineering.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">James Block</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For example, my adviser at UC Berkeley developed, with colleagues, a <a href="https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/10892-bioengineering-of-wheat-still-faces-significant-challenges">hypoallergenic variety of wheat</a>. Seeds for this wheat are held captive in envelopes in the basement of our building, untouched for years. A <a href="https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/10/11/green-technology-disease-resistant-gmo-tomato-eliminate-need-copper-pesticides-double-yields-blocked-public-fears/">tomato</a> that uses a sweet pepper gene to defend against a bacterial disease, eliminating the need for copper-based pesticide application, has struggled to secure funding to move forward. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0709005105">Carrot</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-004-3415-9">cassava</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-009-9256-1">lettuce</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erm299">potato</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1010-1012">more</a> have been engineered for increased nutritional value. These varieties demonstrate the creativity and expertise of researchers in bringing beneficial new traits to life. Why, then, can’t I buy bread made with hypoallergenic wheat at the grocery store?</p>
<h2>Loosening the grip of Big Agriculture</h2>
<p>Research and development of a new genetically engineered crop <a href="https://croplife-r9qnrxt3qxgjra4.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Getting-a-Biotech-Crop-to-Market-Phillips-McDougall-Study.pdf">costs</a> around US$100 million at large seed companies. Clearing the regulatory hurdles laid out by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, EPA and/or FDA (depending on the engineered trait) takes between five and seven years and an additional $35 million. Regulation is important and genetically engineered products should be carefully evaluated. But, the expense allows only large corporations with extensive capital to compete in this arena. The price shuts small companies, academic researchers and NGOs out of the equation. To recoup their $135 million investment in crop commercialization, companies develop products to satisfy the biggest markets of seed buyers – growers of corn, soybean, sugar beet and cotton.</p>
<p>The costs of research and development are far lower with CRISPR due to its precision and predictability. And early indications suggest that using CRISPR for mutation will not be subject to the same regulatory hurdles and costs in the U.S. A <a href="https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/03/28/secretary-perdue-issues-usda-statement-plant-breeding-innovation">press release</a> on March 28, 2018 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture says that “under its biotechnology regulations, USDA does not regulate or have any plans to regulate plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding techniques” if they are developed with approved laboratory procedures. </p>
<p>If the EPA and FDA follow suit with reasonable, less costly regulations, CRISPR may escape the dominant financial grasp of large seed companies. Academics, small companies and NGO researchers may see hard work and intellectual capital yield beneficial genome-edited products that are not forever relegated to the basements of research buildings.</p>
<h2>Common ground: CRISPR for sustainability</h2>
<p>In the six years since the genome editing capabilities of CRISPR were unlocked, academics, startups and established corporations have announced new agricultural products in the pipeline that use this technology. Some of these focus on traits for consumer health, such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12837">low-gluten</a> or gluten-free wheat for people with celiac disease. Others, such as non-browning <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.19754">mushrooms</a>, can decrease food waste. </p>
<p>The lingering California drought demonstrated the importance of crop varieties that use water efficiently. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12603">Corn</a> with greater yield under drought stress has already been made using CRISPR, and it is only a matter of time before CRISPR is used to increase drought tolerance in other crops. Powdery mildew-resistant <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-00578-x">tomatoes</a> could save billions of dollars and eliminate spraying of fungicides. A <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3733">tomato</a> plant that flowers and makes fruit early could be used in northern latitudes with long days and shorter growing seasons, which will become more important as climate changes. </p>
<h2>The rules are made, but is the decision final?</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233144/original/file-20180822-149496-1g0k9zx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233144/original/file-20180822-149496-1g0k9zx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233144/original/file-20180822-149496-1g0k9zx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233144/original/file-20180822-149496-1g0k9zx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=437&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233144/original/file-20180822-149496-1g0k9zx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233144/original/file-20180822-149496-1g0k9zx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/233144/original/file-20180822-149496-1g0k9zx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=549&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Dave Chapman, owner of Long Wind Farm, checks for insects on organic tomato plant leaves in his greenhouse in Thetford, Vt. Chapman is a leader of a farmer-driven effort to create an additional organic label that would exclude hydroponic farming and concentrated animal feeding operations.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Food-and-Farm-Organic-Label/58acc6a056af49e08756acdc004aaa24/7/0">Lisa Rathke/AP Photo</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations/fall2016">2016</a> and <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb/recommendations/fall2017">2017</a>, the U.S. <a href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic/nosb">National Organic Standards Board</a> (NOSB) voted to exclude all genome-edited crops from organic certification. </p>
<p>But in my view, they should reconsider. </p>
<p>Some organic growers I interviewed agree. “I see circumstances under which it could be useful for short-cutting a process that for traditional breeding might take many plant generations,” says Tom Willey, an organic farmer emeritus from California. The disruption of natural ecosystems is a major challenge to agriculture, Willey told me, and while the problem cannot be wholly addressed by genome editing, it could lend an opportunity to “reach back into genomes of the wild ancestors of crop species to recapture genetic material” that has been lost through millennia of breeding for high yields.</p>
<p>Breeders have successfully used traditional breeding to reintroduce such diversity, but “in the light of the urgency posed by climate change, we might wisely employ CRISPR to accelerate such work,” Willey concludes. </p>
<p>Bill Tracy, an organic corn breeder and professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, says, “Many CRISPR-induced changes that could happen in nature could have benefits to all kinds of farmers.” But, the NOSB has already voted on the issue and the rules are unlikely to change without significant pressure. “It’s a question of what social activity could move the needle on that,” Tracy concludes. </p>
<p>People on all sides of biotechnology debates want to maximize human and environmental outcomes. Collaborative problem-solving by organic (and conventional) growers, specialists in sustainable agriculture, biotechnologists and policymakers will yield greater progress than individual groups acting alone and dismissing each other. The barriers to this may seem large, but they are of our own making. Hopefully, more people will gain the courage to plug the projector back in and let the conversation continue.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101585/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The funding for Rebecca Mackelprang's postdoctoral position comes from the Winkler Family Foundation.</span></em></p>Is gene editing compatible with organic farming? A scholar explains the differences between old genetic engineering and CRISPR methods, and why the latter is similar to tradition plant breeding.Rebecca Mackelprang, Postdoctoral Scholar, University of California, BerkeleyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1023992018-09-05T01:38:02Z2018-09-05T01:38:02ZThe synthetic biology revolution is now – here’s what that means<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234955/original/file-20180905-45178-1fhvz9p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Clinical trials using immune cells engineered through synthetic biology have been shown to push some patients into remission from blood cancer. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/close-iv-set-blurry-illness-asian-524079622?src=pZ7GG2cCzdmONExEPqTgPw-1-13">from www.shutterstock.com </a></span></figcaption></figure><p>We live in an era where biotechnology, information technology, manufacturing and automation all come together to form a capability called <a href="https://acola.org.au/wp/sbio/">synthetic biology</a>. </p>
<p>Technological revolutions are significant because they shape the future of social and cultural development – as is evident for the <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/Industrial-Revolution">industrial revolution</a>, the “<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411969/">green revolution</a>”, and the <a href="https://ubiquity.acm.org/article.cfm?id=1399619">information technology revolution</a>. </p>
<p>Now synthetic biology is shaping up to be the dominant technology of this century, and Australia has made clear moves to be on board. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-to-grow-crops-on-mars-if-we-are-to-live-on-the-red-planet-99943">How to grow crops on Mars if we are to live on the red planet</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What is synthetic biology?</h2>
<p>Synthetic biology is the design and construction of new, standardised biological parts and devices, and getting them to do useful things. </p>
<p>Parts are encoded using DNA and assembled either in a test tube or in living cells – and then applied to deliver many different kinds of outcomes.</p>
<p>“Cell factories” for production of industrial chemicals is one way synthetic biology is applied. </p>
<p>The chemical butanediol is used to make 2.5 million tonnes of plastics and other polymers each year, including half a million tonnes of Spandex (Lycra). In 2011 all of this molecule came from petrochemicals. Biotech and chemical companies <a href="https://www.genomatica.com/">Genomatica</a> and <a href="https://www.basf.com/en.html">BASF</a> collaborated to engineer a commercially viable synthetic biology production route for butanediol – it went from lab to commercial scale in just <a href="https://www.genomatica.com/_uploads/pdfs/Genomatica,BASFScienceSymposium,June2015.pdf">five years</a>. </p>
<p>Many other global businesses are also investing heavily in the use of whole cells – so-called <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nchembio.484">chassis cells</a> – to produce useful chemicals. </p>
<h2>Medicine, the environment and agriculture</h2>
<p>Significant medical breakthroughs are happening via synthetic biology. </p>
<p>The antimalarial treatment <a href="https://amyris.com/products/malaria-treatment/">artimisinin</a> can now be <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12051">produced by yeast</a>, avoiding the need to isolate it from <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/artemisia-annua">Chinese sweet wormwood plant</a>. This helps to stabilise global prices.</p>
<p>In 2016 a new immune cell engineering treatment resulted in a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/feb/15/cancer-extraordinary-results-t-cell-therapy-research-clinical-trials">50% complete remission rate in terminally ill blood cancer patients</a>, with a 36% remission rate achieved in <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/02/28/terminal-cancer-patients-complete-remission-one-gene-therapy/">a 2017 trial</a>. A similar approach has been used just recently to <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/breast-cancer-cure-tcell-immunotherapy-tumour-treatment-disease-world-first-a8382806.html">cure an advanced breast cancer</a>. </p>
<p>Biomonitoring is another exciting area for synthetic biology developments. Highly specific, tiny biosensors can be engineered to detect an <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/112/47/14429">enormous range of molecules</a> – such as hydrocarbon pollutants, sugars, heavy metals, and antibiotics. </p>
<p>These can be applied to measure aspects of health, and in environmental sensing systems to identify contaminants.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234808/original/file-20180904-45139-tnzxbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234808/original/file-20180904-45139-tnzxbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234808/original/file-20180904-45139-tnzxbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234808/original/file-20180904-45139-tnzxbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234808/original/file-20180904-45139-tnzxbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234808/original/file-20180904-45139-tnzxbv.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/234808/original/file-20180904-45139-tnzxbv.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">Synthetic biology could lead to highly sensitive tests for contaminants in water.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/australian-pelican-pelecanus-conspicillatus-along-river-43653931?src=aR1gW57XmjOzrn7nwGNh2A-1-9">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Synthetic biology also has agricultural applications. It can provide more <a href="https://www.agrifutures.com.au/wp-content/uploads/publications/16-035.pdf">precision and sophistication</a> than earlier gene technologies to help increase crop and livestock yields, while reducing environmental impact by limiting the use of chemicals and fertilisers. More efficient plant use of water and nutrients, photosynthetic performance, nitrogen fixation and better resistance to pests and diseases <a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/9/7/341/pdf">are all being developed using synthetic biology</a>.</p>
<p>Consumer benefits may include nutritional improvements, enhanced flavour and the <a href="https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/healthandlife/yourhealth/ucc-are-developing-foods-of-the-future-using-synthetic-biology-359367.html">removal of allergenic proteins</a> from milk, eggs and nuts. </p>
<p>Most of these synthetic biology applications rely on altering, adding or deleting gene functions by targeted genetic modifications. Based on <a href="https://theconversation.com/perceptions-of-genetically-modified-food-are-informed-by-more-than-just-science-72865">past consumer resistance </a>to genetically modified food products, progress in this area is more likely to be limited by the degree of public acceptance than it is by the technological possibilities. </p>
<p>Synthetic biology also provides the opportunity to use agricultural production systems for cheap, large-scale production of products such as drugs and antibodies for medical treatments. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/custom-built-dna-could-be-used-as-a-sensor-probe-95226">Custom-built DNA could be used as a sensor probe</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>On the up and up</h2>
<p>International growth in synthetic biology is remarkable. In 2015 the synthetic biology component market (DNA parts) was <a href="http://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/synthetic-biology-market.html">worth $US5.5 billion</a> – by 2020, it will <a href="https://www.alliedmarketresearch.com/synthetic-biology-1520-market">approach $US40 billion</a>. Those figures don’t count sales revenue from synthetic biology products. </p>
<p>Product markets are also growing dramatically. In 2008, bio-based chemicals were only 2% of the US$1.2 trillion dollar global chemical market. In 2025, that will <a href="https://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/BiobasedReport2008.pdf">rise to 22%</a>, driven by development of synthetic microbial factories. </p>
<p>Government investment into synthetic biology has been very strong over recent years. Road-maps and associated development structures have been developed through public agencies in many advanced economies, including the <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/19001/industrialization-of-biology-a-roadmap-to-accelerate-the-advanced-manufacturing">US</a>, <a href="https://connect.innovateuk.org/documents/2826135/3815409/Synthetic+Biology+Roadmap+-+Report.pdf/fa8a1e8e-cbf4-4464-87ce-b3b033f04eaa">UK</a>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2726001/">EU</a>, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5625731/">China</a>, <a href="http://www.nrf.gov.sg/programmes/synthetic-biology-r-d-programme">Singapore</a> and <a href="https://www.vtt.fi/inf/julkaisut/muut/2017/syntheticbiologyroadmap_eng.pdf">Finland</a>. </p>
<p>Private investment in synthetic biology is also growing at a remarkable rate. According to the US-based synthetic biology advocacy organisation <a href="https://synbiobeta.com/these-33-synthetic-biology-companies-just-raised-925-million/">Synbiobeta</a>, American synbio companies raised around US$200 million in investment in 2009. In 2017 it rose to US$1.8 billion and as of July 2018 it was already US$1.5 billion, with a projected 2018 investment of just over US$3 billion.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/budget-2018-when-scientists-make-their-case-effectively-politicians-listen-96124">Budget 2018: when scientists make their case effectively, politicians listen</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Australia is catching up</h2>
<p>In Australia, synthetic biology is less developed – but things are moving fast. </p>
<p>In 2014, the professional society <a href="https://synbioaustralasia.org/">Synthetic Biology Australasia</a> formed, and several specialist synthetic biology conferences and workshops have been held. </p>
<p>In 2016, CSIRO invested A$13 million into the <a href="https://research.csiro.au/synthetic-biology-fsp/">CSIRO Synthetic Biology Future Science Platform</a> (SynBioFSP). Internal reporting shows SynBioFSP is now a A$40 million research and development portfolio driven by a collaborative community of over 200 scientists from CSIRO and over 40 national and international partner organisations, contributing to 60 research projects.</p>
<p>Synthetic biology was recognised as a priority area in the <a href="https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2017/05/2016-national-research-infrastructure-roadmap-released/">2016 National Research Infrastructure Roadmap</a>. A special call for synthetic biology was made in 2017 and a steering committee to examine Australia’s synthetic biology infrastructure needs has recently been created. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-national-collaborative-research-infrastructure-strategy-ncris-38837">Explainer: the National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy (NCRIS)</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This week the <a href="https://acola.org.au/wp/">Australian Council of Learned Academies</a> released <a href="https://acola.org.au/wp/sbio/">Synthetic Biology in Australia: An Outlook to 2030</a> as part of its <a href="https://acola.org.au/wp/hs-overview/">horizon scanning series</a>. We are two of the authors on this report, which examines the opportunities and challenges for getting the most out of synthetic biology in the Australian context.</p>
<p>Synthetic biology is an extremely fast-moving technology with extraordinarily diverse applications. It offers massive potential for Australia in terms of developing new markets, and in future proofing in the long term.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/102399/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Claudia Vickers receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Queensland Government, the Human Frontier Science Program, the European Union 7th Framework Programme, The University of Queensland, and CSIRO. She is Director of the CSIRO Synthetic Biology Future Science Platform and a Group Leader at the The University of Queensland's Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology. She was the founding President of Synthetic Biology Australasia and currently serves on the Executive as Immediate Past President. She is a co-author of the ACOLA report 'Synthetic Biology in Australia: An outlook to 2030'. She collaborates with, and provides consulting advice and fee-for-service research for, various industrial biotechnology companies.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ian Small receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the international agricultural co-operative group Limagrain. Ian is a Fellow of the Academy of Science and a co-author of the ACOLA report 'Synthetic Biology in Australia: An outlook to 2030'.</span></em></p>Right now, you’re living in a kind of industrial revolution – where biotechnology, information technology, manufacturing and automation all come together to form synthetic biology.Claudia Vickers, Director, Synthetic Biology Future Science Platform, CSIROIan Small, Professor in Molecular Sciences, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/844932017-11-21T02:28:41Z2017-11-21T02:28:41ZJet fuel from sugarcane? It’s not a flight of fancy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/195271/original/file-20171117-11467-gqvp9d.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">A medium-size passenger jet burns roughly 750 gallons of fuel per hour.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/amazing-sunset-airport-refueling-airplane-before-745545028?src=dqDDnlUc7q9u2xl2el72dQ-1-3">www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The aviation industry produces <a href="http://www.atag.org/facts-and-figures.html">2 percent</a> of global human-induced carbon dioxide emissions. This share may seem relatively small – for perspective, electricity generation and home heating account for <a href="https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/CO2EmissionsfromFuelCombustion_Highlights_2016.pdf">more than 40 percent</a> – but aviation is one of the world’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/09/business/energy-environment/un-agency-proposes-limits-on-airlines-carbon-emissions.html">fastest-growing greenhouse gas sources</a>. Demand for air travel is projected to <a href="http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2016-10-18-02.aspx">double in the next 20 years</a>. </p>
<p>Airlines are <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37573434">under pressure</a> to reduce their carbon emissions, and are highly vulnerable to global oil price fluctuations. These challenges have spurred strong interest in biomass-derived jet fuels. Bio-jet fuel can be produced from various plant materials, including oil crops, sugar crops, starchy plants and lignocellulosic biomass, through various chemical and biological routes. However, the technologies to convert oil to jet fuel are at a more advanced stage of development and yield higher energy efficiency than other sources.</p>
<p>We are engineering sugarcane, the most productive plant in the world, to produce oil that can be turned into bio-jet fuel. In a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12478">recent study</a>, we found that use of this engineered sugarcane could yield more than 2,500 liters of bio-jet fuel per acre of land. In simple terms, this means that a Boeing 747 could fly for 10 hours on bio-jet fuel produced on just 54 acres of land. Compared to two competing plant sources, soybeans and jatropha, lipidcane would produce about 15 and 13 times as much jet fuel per unit of land, respectively. </p>
<h2>Creating dual-purpose sugarcane</h2>
<p>Bio-jet fuels derived from oil-rich feedstocks, such as <a href="https://cleantechnica.com/2015/06/02/camelina-biofuel-solution-food-vs-fuel-biofuel-conundrum/">camelina</a> and <a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/algal-biofuels">algae</a>, have been successfully tested in <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ep.10461">proof of concept flights</a>. ASTM International, a global standards development organization, has <a href="https://www.astm.org/cms/drupal-7.51/newsroom/astm-aviation-fuel-standard-now-specifies-bioderived-components">approved</a> a 50:50 blend of petroleum-based jet fuel and hydroprocessed renewable jet fuel for commercial and military flights. </p>
<p>However, even after significant research and commercialization efforts, current production volumes of bio-jet fuel are very small. Making these products on a larger scale will require further technology improvements and abundant low-cost feedstocks (crops used to make the fuel).</p>
<p>Sugarcane is a well-known biofuel source: Brazil has been fermenting sugarcane juice to make alcohol-based fuel for decades. Ethanol from sugarcane yields 25 percent more energy than the amount used during the production process, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 12 percent <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0604600103">compared to fossil fuels</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/195274/original/file-20171117-11457-17g9q28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/195274/original/file-20171117-11457-17g9q28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/195274/original/file-20171117-11457-17g9q28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/195274/original/file-20171117-11457-17g9q28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/195274/original/file-20171117-11457-17g9q28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/195274/original/file-20171117-11457-17g9q28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/195274/original/file-20171117-11457-17g9q28.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/195274/original/file-20171117-11457-17g9q28.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"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Harvesting sugarcane in Brazil.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/Harvestor_cutting_sugarcane.jpg">Jonathan Wilkins</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We wondered whether we could increase the plant’s natural oil production and use the oil to produce biodiesel, which provides even greater environmental benefits. Biodiesel yields <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0604600103">93 percent more energy</a> than is required to make it and reduces emissions by 41 percent compared to fossil fuels. Ethanol and biodiesel can both be used in bio-jet fuel, but the technologies to convert plant-derived oil to jet fuel are at an advanced stage of development, yield high energy efficiency and are ready for large-scale deployment.</p>
<p>When we first proposed engineering sugarcane to produce more oil, some of our colleagues thought we were crazy. Sugarcane plants contain just 0.05 percent oil, which is far too little to convert to biodiesel. Many plant scientists theorized that increasing the amount of oil to 1 percent would be toxic to the plant, but our computer models predicted that we could increase oil production to 20 percent.</p>
<p>With support from the Department of Energy’s <a href="https://arpa-e.energy.gov/">Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy</a>, we launched a research project called <a href="http://petross.illinois.edu/">Plants Engineered to Replace Oil in Sugarcane and Sorghum</a>, or PETROSS, in 2012. Since then, through genetic engineering we’ve <a href="http://petross.illinois.edu/news/scientists-engineer-sugarcane-to-produce-biodiesel-more-sugar-for-ethanol">increased production of oil and fatty acids</a> to achieve 12 percent oil in the leaves of sugarcane. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189221/original/file-20171006-25784-12ge1ud.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189221/original/file-20171006-25784-12ge1ud.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189221/original/file-20171006-25784-12ge1ud.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189221/original/file-20171006-25784-12ge1ud.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189221/original/file-20171006-25784-12ge1ud.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189221/original/file-20171006-25784-12ge1ud.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189221/original/file-20171006-25784-12ge1ud.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189221/original/file-20171006-25784-12ge1ud.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"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A bottle of oil produced from PETROSS lipidcane.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Claire Benjamin/University of Illinois</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Now we are working to achieve 20 percent oil – the theoretical limit, according to our computer models – and targeting this oil accumulation to the stem of the plant, where it is more accessible than in the leaves. Our preliminary research has shown that even as the engineered plants produce more oil, they <a href="http://petross.illinois.edu/news/scientists-engineer-sugarcane-to-produce-biodiesel-more-sugar-for-ethanol">continue to produce sugar</a>. We call these engineered plants lipidcane.</p>
<h2>Multiple products from lipidcane</h2>
<p>Lipidcane offers many advantages for farmers and the environment. We calculate that growing lipidcane containing 20 percent oil would be <a href="http://petross.illinois.edu/news/scientists-engineer-sugarcane-to-produce-biodiesel-more-sugar-for-ethanol">five times more profitable per acre than soybeans</a>, the main feedstock currently used to make biodiesel in the United States, and twice as profitable per acre as corn.</p>
<p>To be sustainable, bio-jet fuel must also be economical to process and have high production yields that minimize use of arable land. We estimate that compared to soybeans, lipidcane containing 5 percent oil could produce four times more jet fuel per acre of land. Lipidcane with 20 percent oil could produce more than 15 times more jet fuel per acre. </p>
<p>And lipidcane offers other energy benefits. The plant parts left over after juice extraction, known as bagasse, can be burned to produce steam and electricity. According to our analysis, this would generate more than enough electricity to power the biorefinery, so surplus power could be sold back to the grid, displacing electricity produced from fossil fuels – a practice already used in some plants in Brazil to produce ethanol from sugarcane.</p>
<h2>A potential US bioenergy crop</h2>
<p>Sugarcane thrives on marginal land that is not suited to many food crops. Currently it is grown mainly in Brazil, India and China. We are also <a href="http://petross.illinois.edu/news/chill-tolerant-hybrid-sugarcane-also-grows-at-lower-temperatures-team-finds">engineering lipidcane to be more cold-tolerant</a> so that it can be raised more widely, particularly in the southeastern United States on underutilized land. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189228/original/file-20171006-25784-h5m60n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189228/original/file-20171006-25784-h5m60n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189228/original/file-20171006-25784-h5m60n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189228/original/file-20171006-25784-h5m60n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=498&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189228/original/file-20171006-25784-h5m60n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=625&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189228/original/file-20171006-25784-h5m60n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=625&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189228/original/file-20171006-25784-h5m60n.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=625&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A map of the growing region of cold-tolerant lipidcane.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">PETROSS</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>If we devoted 23 million acres in the southeastern United States to lipidcane with 20 percent oil, we estimate that this crop could produce <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12478">65 percent of the U.S. jet fuel supply</a>. Presently, in current dollars, that fuel would cost airlines US$5.31 per gallon, which is less than bio-jet fuel produced from algae or other oil crops such as soybeans, canola or palm oil. </p>
<p>Lipidcane could also be grown in Brazil and other tropical areas. As we recently reported in <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3410">Nature Climate Change</a>, significantly expanding sugarcane or lipidcane production in Brazil could reduce current global carbon dioxide emissions by <a href="http://ethanolproducer.com/articles/14792/expansion-of-sugarcane-ethanol-in-brazil-could-cut-ghg-emissions">up to 5.6 percent</a>. This could be accomplished without impinging on areas that the Brazilian government has designated as environmentally sensitive, such as rainforest. </p>
<h2>In pursuit of ‘energycane’</h2>
<p>Our lipidcane research also includes genetically engineering the plant to make it photosynthesize more efficiently, which translates into more growth. In a 2016 article in Science, one of us (Stephen Long) and colleagues at other institutions demonstrated that improving the efficiency of photosynthesis in tobacco increased its growth by <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aai8878">20 percent</a>. Currently, preliminary research and side-by-side field trials suggest that we have improved the photosynthetic efficiency of sugarcane by 20 percent, and by nearly 70 percent in cool conditions. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189232/original/file-20171006-973-s6selz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189232/original/file-20171006-973-s6selz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/189232/original/file-20171006-973-s6selz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=669&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189232/original/file-20171006-973-s6selz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=669&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189232/original/file-20171006-973-s6selz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=669&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189232/original/file-20171006-973-s6selz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=840&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189232/original/file-20171006-973-s6selz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=840&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/189232/original/file-20171006-973-s6selz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=840&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Normal sugarcane (left) growing beside engineered PETROSS sugarcane, which is visibly taller and bushier, in field trials at the University of Florida.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Fredy Altpeter/University of Florida</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Now our team is beginning work to engineer a higher-yielding variety of sugarcane that we call “energycane” to achieve more oil production per acre. We have more ground to cover before it can be commercialized, but developing a viable plant with enough oil to economically produce biodiesel and bio-jet fuel is a major first step. </p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: This article has been updated to clarify that the study by Stephen Long and others published in Science in 2016 involved improving the efficiency of photosynthesis in tobacco plants.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84493/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Deepak Kumar's position is partly supported by ARPA-E funding for the work described in this article.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephen P. Long receives funding from the Department of Energy, Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research, and the UK Department for International Development.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vijay Singh receives funding from USDA, DOE, Industrial Biotech Companies</span></em></p>Scientists have engineered sugarcane to increase its oil content and are developing renewable jet aircraft fuel from the oil. The engineered sugarcane could become a valuable energy crop.Deepak Kumar, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignStephen P. Long, Professor of Crop Sciences and Plant Biology, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignVijay Singh, Professor of Agricultural and Biological Engineering and Director of Integrated Bioprocessing Research Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/835502017-09-11T00:40:35Z2017-09-11T00:40:35ZCan random bits of DNA lead to safe, new antibiotics and herbicides?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/185339/original/file-20170909-32271-qkj3sf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Plants make proteins based on whatever genetic material you give them.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CSIRO_ScienceImage_3176_Arabidopsis_in_growth_cabinet_at_the_CSIRO_Discovery_Centre_labs_Black_Mountain_ACT.jpg">Carl Davies, CSIRO</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>I was cutting my grass when the battery in my iPod died. Instead of enjoying the distraction of music, my brain switched to its usual nerd mode of thinking about molecules. Within a few passes of cut grass, I was pondering the biggest “Why not?” of my scientific career: Could we discover new drugs and useful agricultural compounds by challenging organisms with clusters of random chemistry?</p>
<p>My background is in molecular biology – the study of DNA, genes and how an organism’s blueprints are decoded and assembled into life. The discipline requires an understanding of how molecular codes are deciphered and turned into functional biology. Anyone in this field is plagued with dreams of dancing molecules, interacting and performing the roles that turn DNA information into our food, the plants in our environment and our families.</p>
<p>Every day in the lab we move genes around. It’s easy. Not meant to generate new products for consumers, moving DNA is used as a research tool that lets us understand how specific genes work. A classic example is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2013.04.004">the NPR1 gene</a> from the model plant <em>Arabidopsis</em>; it’s a defense gene that confers enhanced tolerance to disease when you drop it into almost any plant’s genome. Manipulating genetic information – in plants, microbes and some animals – is commonplace.</p>
<p>On that half-cut lawn it occurred to me – instead of inserting DNA information we understand, what if we introduced a scrambled mess of random DNA code into a plant or bacterium? Could we identify random bits of genetic information that could give rise to small proteins (called peptides) that change an organism’s physiology or development?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/185340/original/file-20170909-32321-1ht2o80.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/185340/original/file-20170909-32321-1ht2o80.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/185340/original/file-20170909-32321-1ht2o80.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185340/original/file-20170909-32321-1ht2o80.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185340/original/file-20170909-32321-1ht2o80.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185340/original/file-20170909-32321-1ht2o80.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185340/original/file-20170909-32321-1ht2o80.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185340/original/file-20170909-32321-1ht2o80.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In all living things, the ‘words’ in the genetic material code for particular amino acids, so the organism can build the proteins it needs.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Peptide_syn.png">Boumphreyfr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Normally DNA encodes instructions that coordinate the order of the amino acid building blocks in a protein. Each amino acid has specific chemical characteristics. Strung together in a peptide chain, they fold into a protein that provides cellular structure or function, based on the complementary chemistries of its amino acid components.</p>
<p>My hypothesis was that a short, scrambled DNA message could give rise to a novel string of amino acids. This would be a small cluster of discrete chemistry that likely never existed before on the planet. The vast majority of the time it would be meaningless and just become cellular rubbish. But maybe on rare occasion it could do something new and desirable.</p>
<p>To test the hypothesis, our research team used randomized templates to synthesize trillions of random DNA fragments using simple DNA amplification techniques. Each was flanked by the genetic instructions to start and stop production of a peptide inside the plant.</p>
<p>Then we used standard genetic engineering techniques to insert a novel DNA sequence into thousands of individual <em>Arabidopsis thaliana</em> plants – and sat back to watch what would happen when the plants turned the random genetic information into little random peptides. We were hoping for cases where specific protein structures might find a connection with biological chemistry and we’d see the result in the plants themselves. </p>
<p>As the plants grew, we were blown away by what we observed.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/185322/original/file-20170908-3138-symph.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/185322/original/file-20170908-3138-symph.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/185322/original/file-20170908-3138-symph.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185322/original/file-20170908-3138-symph.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185322/original/file-20170908-3138-symph.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185322/original/file-20170908-3138-symph.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=770&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185322/original/file-20170908-3138-symph.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=770&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185322/original/file-20170908-3138-symph.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=770&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In some cases, adding a random ‘gene’ had a big effect on how plants grew… or not.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Kevin Folta</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some plants were flowering early. Others were small and stunted. Others grew larger leaves. Some were loaded with healthy purple pigments. Still others grew up to a point…then died.</p>
<p>We then retrieved the particular random DNA sequence we’d added to each, a simple feat for a molecular biologist, and inserted the same sequence into new plants. Most of the time the random information affected the new generation of plants in exactly the same way, demonstrating that something was indeed happening related to the added, garbled information. We <a href="https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.17.00577">recently published our results</a> in the journal Plant Physiology.</p>
<p>What is this random information doing inside the cell? The small random molecules generated from the inserted DNA instructions could affect a specific process, just by chance. They could bind a needed nutrient. They might inhibit a key enzyme. They could turn on flowering or protect a plant from freezing. Nobody really knows exactly how until the plants are examined in detail one by one. These new proteins may also be good models to design new useful molecules with similar chemical properties, but that are more durable in the cell. Our goal is to produce a compound that may be applied to crops to change the way plants grow and behave, or perhaps stop the growth of invasive or weedy plants.</p>
<p>The process is like throwing monkey wrenches into a complicated machine. Most of the time they clank around and affect nothing; but once in a long while a wrench catches in some critical gears and brings the machine to a halt. Other times the wrench might short-circuit a wasteful process, allowing the machine to run more efficiently. These peptides are molecular monkey wrenches.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/185320/original/file-20170908-32313-35x4f1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/185320/original/file-20170908-32313-35x4f1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/185320/original/file-20170908-32313-35x4f1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185320/original/file-20170908-32313-35x4f1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185320/original/file-20170908-32313-35x4f1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185320/original/file-20170908-32313-35x4f1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185320/original/file-20170908-32313-35x4f1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/185320/original/file-20170908-32313-35x4f1.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"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Small proteins created through this process might be the future of safe, sustainable and specific weed control.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/kegriver/6145920474">KegRiver</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some of these peptides must interfere with an important biological process because they kill the plant. These findings bring to light new vulnerabilities in plants that researchers could exploit to develop environmentally friendly and nontoxic herbicides. Agriculture currently relies on a few relatively old chemistries, cultivation (using fossil fuels) or human labor to control the weeds that compete with food plants for resources. Good weed control means that valuable fertilizers, water and sunlight go only to the desired plants, rather than weeds. So new herbicide chemistries would be extremely valuable as farmers work to produce food for growing populations.</p>
<p>But why stop at plants? We are using the same approach to discover the next generation of antibiotics. The goal is to identify random information that affects a single species of problematic bacterium. For instance, we could potentially target <em>S. aureus</em>, the antibiotic-resistant bacteria that causes MRSA. We are hunting for new molecules that could destroy MRSA-related bacteria while leaving the rest of the microbiome unaffected. These experiments are underway in our lab.</p>
<p>Randomness may pinpoint undiscovered vulnerabilities or opportunities in plants, bacteria and other organisms. There even may be applications in solving human disease. The future is exciting as we mine the vast collections of new molecules and study how they integrate with biology to produce important desired outcomes. </p>
<p>Several of the molecules we’ve already identified slow plant growth. Future products from this technology might even be applied to make lawns grow more slowly. While others may find this advance helpful, I’ll have to skip using it. Cutting the grass gets my good ideas flowing.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/83550/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kevin M. Folta's salary is paid by the University of Florida. His laboratory's research is currently funded by the United States Department of Agriculture/NIFA and the Florida Strawberry Research and Education Foundation. All historical funding, including all support for his outreach programs and reimbursements can be seen at <a href="http://www.kevinfolta.com/transparency">www.kevinfolta.com/transparency</a>.</span></em></p>Inserting a random DNA mishmash into a plant or bacterium directs it to make a novel protein. Sifting through the resulting molecules, researchers may find ones have medical or agricultural uses.Kevin M. Folta, Professor and Chair, Horticultural Sciences Department, Graduate Program in Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/824192017-08-22T01:59:38Z2017-08-22T01:59:38ZScared of CRISPR? 40 years on, IVF shows how fears of new medical technology can fade<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182872/original/file-20170822-8916-y977a5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">With all these 'test-tube babies' grown up, how have our reactions to the technology evolved?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Associated-Press-International-News-United-King-/5d990e8aa9e4da11af9f0014c2589dfb/2/0">AP Photo/Alastair Grant</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The first “test-tube baby” made headlines around the world in 1978, setting off intense debate on the ethics of researching human embryos and reproductive technologies. Every breakthrough since then has raised the same questions about “<a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/regulate-designer-babies/">designer babies</a>” and “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-were-going-to-play-god-with-gene-editing-weve-got-to-ask-some-moral-questions/2017/02/20/e4e0c396-f787-11e6-be05-1a3817ac21a5_story.html">playing God</a>” – but public response has grown more subdued rather than more engaged as assisted reproductive technologies have become <a href="https://doi.org/10.7916/D8FB5CQC">increasingly sophisticated and powerful</a>.</p>
<p>As the science has advanced, doctors are able to perform more complex procedures with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.12356">better-than-ever success rates</a>. This progress has made in vitro fertilization and associated assisted reproductive technologies relatively commonplace. <a href="http://www.sart.org/news-and-publications/news-and-research/press-releases-and-bulletins/SART_Data_Release_2015_Preliminary_and_2014_Final/">Over one million babies</a> have been born in the U.S. using IVF since 1985.</p>
<p>And Americans’ acceptance of these technologies has evolved alongside their increased usage, as we’ve gotten used to the idea of physicians manipulating embryos. </p>
<p>But the ethical challenges posed by these procedures remain – and in fact are increasing along with our capabilities. While still a long way from clinical use, the recent news that scientists in Oregon had <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23305">successfully edited genes in a human embryo</a> brings us one step closer to changing the DNA that we pass along to our descendants. As the state of the science continues to advance, ethical issues need to be addressed before the next big breakthrough.</p>
<h2>Birth of the test-tube baby era</h2>
<p>Louise Brown was born in the U.K. on July 25, 1978. Known as the first “test-tube baby,” <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/health-33599353">she was a product of IVF</a>, a process where an egg is fertilized by sperm outside of the body before being implanted into the womb. IVF opened up the possibility for infertile parents to have their own biologically related children. But Brown’s family was also subjected to <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/11760004/Louise-Brown-the-first-IVF-baby-reveals-family-was-bombarded-with-hate-mail.html">vicious hate mail</a>, and groups opposed to IVF warned it would be used for <a href="http://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300137156/new-eugenics">eugenic experiments</a> leading to a dystopian future where all babies would be genetically engineered. </p>
<p>The reaction in the U.S. had another layer to it when compared to other developed countries. Here, research on embryos has <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.gt.3301744">historically been linked to the debate on abortion</a>. The 1973 Supreme Court decision to make abortion legal in Roe v. Wade fueled anti-abortion groups, <a href="http://www.lifenews.com/2011/09/06/pro-life-concerns-about-ivf-include-abortion-exploitation/">who also oppose research on human embryos</a>.</p>
<p>Embryonic research and procedures offer the hope of eliminating devastating diseases, but scientists also destroy embryos in the process. Under pressure from these groups over the ethical implications of embryo creation and destruction, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.gt.3301744">Congress issued a moratorium in 1974</a> on federally funded clinical research on embryos and embryonic tissue, including on IVF, infertility and prenatal diagnosis. To this day, federal funds are still not available for this type of work.</p>
<p>In hindsight, the sharp media attention and negative response from anti-abortion groups to IVF didn’t accurately represent overall public opinion. The majority of Americans (60 percent) were in favor of IVF <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/8983/gallup-brain-birth-vitro-fertilization.aspx">when polled in August 1978</a>, and 53 percent of those polled said they would be willing to try IVF if they were unable to have a child.</p>
<p>So while the intense media coverage at the time helped inform the public of this new development, the insensitive labeling of Louise Brown as a “test-tube baby” and warnings about dystopian results didn’t stop Americans from forming positive opinions of IVF.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182873/original/file-20170822-5029-tvzs8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182873/original/file-20170822-5029-tvzs8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182873/original/file-20170822-5029-tvzs8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182873/original/file-20170822-5029-tvzs8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182873/original/file-20170822-5029-tvzs8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=409&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182873/original/file-20170822-5029-tvzs8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=514&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182873/original/file-20170822-5029-tvzs8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=514&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182873/original/file-20170822-5029-tvzs8c.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=514&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Opinions evolved over the years as we got to know more ‘test-tube babies’ like Louise Brown.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Watchf-Associated-Press-Domestic-News-Illinois-/c13743ff67f24383a37c047f7684e157/1/0">AP Photo/FHJ</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Is embryonic research a moral issue?</h2>
<p>In the 40 years since IVF was introduced for use in humans, scientists have <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3799275/">developed several new technologies</a> – from freezing eggs to genetically testing embryos before implantation – that have improved patient experience as well as the chances that IVF will result in the birth of a baby. The announcement of each of these breakthroughs has resulted in flurries of media attention to the ethical challenges raised by this type of research, but there has been no consensus – social, political or scientific – on how to proceed.</p>
<p>Americans’ general opinion of assisted reproductive technologies has remained positive. Despite opposition groups’ efforts, surveys show that Americans have separated out the issue of abortion from embryonic research. <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2013/08/15/abortion-viewed-in-moral-terms/">A Pew Research Center poll from 2013</a> revealed that only 12 percent of Americans say they personally consider using IVF to be morally wrong. That’s a significant decrease from the <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/8983/Gallup-Brain-Birth-Vitro-Fertilization.aspx">28 percent of respondents in 1978</a> who replied that they opposed the procedure for being “not natural.” In addition, the 2013 poll showed that twice as many Americans (46 percent) said they <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2013/08/15/abortion-viewed-in-moral-terms/">do not personally consider using IVF to be a moral issue</a> compared to the number of Americans (23 percent) who said they personally do not consider having an abortion to be a moral issue.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182874/original/file-20170822-28104-152rqaw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182874/original/file-20170822-28104-152rqaw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/182874/original/file-20170822-28104-152rqaw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182874/original/file-20170822-28104-152rqaw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182874/original/file-20170822-28104-152rqaw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182874/original/file-20170822-28104-152rqaw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182874/original/file-20170822-28104-152rqaw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/182874/original/file-20170822-28104-152rqaw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">We’re still a little hazy on the specifics of technologies that use human embryos.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Ballot-Stem-Cell-Research/9267ae5cd8e344b9ba3fd318bcd614ad/41/0">AP Photo/Paul Sancya</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Why we need to pay attention</h2>
<p>Although most Americans don’t think of embryonic research and procedures like IVF as a moral issue or morally wrong, the introduction of new technologies is outpacing Americans’ understanding of what they actually do.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/public-opinion-and-the-embryo-debates">Polls from 2007-2008</a> showed that only 17 percent of respondents reported that they were “very familiar” with stem cell research, and that there was a “relative absence of knowledge about even the most prominent of the embryo-research issues.” When Americans are asked more specific questions that explain IVF, they show less support for certain procedures, like freezing and storing eggs or using embryos for scientific research.</p>
<p>In light of recent developments, surveys show that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1602010">nearly 69 percent of Americans</a> have not heard or read much or know nothing at all about gene editing. Additionally, support for gene editing depends on how the technology will be used. A majority of Americans generally accept gene editing if the purpose is to improve the health of a person, or if it will prevent a child from inheriting certain diseases. The scientists in Oregon <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature23305">used a gene-editing technique</a> that allowed them to <a href="https://www.statnews.com/2017/07/26/human-embryos-edited/">correct a genetic defect in human embryos</a> that causes heart disease. This type of progress falls into the category that most Americans would support.</p>
<p>But the technique that’s used to make this correction, known as CRISPR-Cas9, can potentially be used for editing genes in other ways, not just to eliminate diseases. The success of the Oregon team opens the door to many possibilities in gene editing, including ones unrelated to health, such as changes to appearance or other physical characteristics.</p>
<p>Advancements in assisted reproductive technologies have happened rapidly over the last few decades, leading to <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-5-million-babies-born-thanks-to-assisted-reproductive-technologies/">over five million births worldwide</a>. But as common as these procedures have become, scientists are not yet in agreement over how to integrate CRISPR and gene editing to the IVF toolkit. There are concerns about changing the genomes of human embryos destined to be babies, particularly since any modifications would be passed on to future generations. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/dec/03/gene-editing-summit-rules-out-ban-on-embryos-destined-to-become-people-dna-human">Scientific committees have noted</a> that decisions on whether and how to use gene editing should be revisited on a regular basis. The newest breakthrough with CRISPR is providing us with one of those opportunities.</p>
<p>We should focus our attention on answering the ethical questions that have long gone unanswered: What are the boundaries to this type of research? Who decides what is an ethical use of CRISPR? What responsibility do we have to people affected by genetic conditions? Who pays for these medical procedures? How will this research and potential clinical use be regulated? </p>
<p>The successful use of assisted reproductive technologies has skyrocketed in the last decade, making Americans complacent about some of the ethical concerns that these procedures raise. It’s important that we engage with these issues now, before gene editing becomes as familiar to us as IVF.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82419/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patricia Stapleton 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>Americans have moved on from worrying about ‘test-tube babies’ – but there are still ethical challenges to resolve as reproductive technologies continue to advance.Patricia Stapleton, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Worcester Polytechnic InstituteLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/817972017-08-01T22:36:56Z2017-08-01T22:36:56ZHuman genome editing: We should all have a say<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/180420/original/file-20170731-22134-1s9uda.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Controversial gene editing should not proceed without citizen input and societal consensus.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Shoukhrat Mitalipov, a reproductive biologist at Oregon Health and Science University, is nothing if not a pioneer. In 2007, his team published proof-of-principle research in primates showing it was possible to <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature06357">derive stem cells from cloned primate embryos</a>. In 2013, his team was the first to <a href="https://theconversation.com/human-embryonic-stem-cells-grown-from-skin-tissue-14339">create human embryonic stem cells by cloning</a>. Now, in 2017, <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature23305">his team has reported safely and effectively modifying human embryos with the MYBPC3 mutation (which causes myocardial disease)</a> using the gene editing technique <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-crispr-technology-brings-precise-genetic-editing-and-raises-ethical-questions-39219">CRISPR</a>. </p>
<p>Mitalipov’s team is not the first to genetically modify human embryos. This was first accomplished in 2015 by <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-1.17378">a group of Chinese scientists led by Junjiu Huang</a>. Mitalipov’s team, however, may be the first to demonstrate basic safety and efficacy using the CRISPR technique. </p>
<p>This has serious implications for the ethics debate on human germline modification which involves inserting, deleting or replacing the DNA of human sperm, eggs or embryos to change the genes of future children. </p>
<h2>Ethically controversial</h2>
<p>Those who support human embryo research will argue that Mitalipov’s research to alter human embryos is ethically acceptable because the embryos were not allowed to develop beyond 14 days (the widely accepted international limit on human embryo research) and because the modified embryos were not used to initiate a pregnancy. They will also point to the future potential benefit of correcting defective genes that cause inherited disease. </p>
<p>This research is ethically controversial, however, because it is a clear step on the path to making heritable modifications - genetic changes that can be passed down through subsequent generations.</p>
<h2>Beyond safety and efficacy</h2>
<p>Internationally, <a href="http://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-panel-experts-calls-ban-editing-human-dna-avoid-unethical-tampering-hereditary-traits">UNESCO has called for a ban</a> on human germline gene editing. And the “Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine” – the <a href="http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/090000168007cf98">Oviedo Convention</a> – specifies that “an intervention seeking to modify the human genome may only be undertaken for preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic purposes and only if its aim is not to introduce any modification in the genome of any descendants.”</p>
<p>In a move away from the positions taken by UNESCO and included in the Oviedo Convention, in 2015 the 12-person Organizing Committee of the first <a href="http://nationalacademies.org/gene-editing/Gene-Edit-Summit/">International Summit on Human Gene Editing</a> (of which I was a member) <a href="http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12032015a">issued a statement</a> endorsing basic and preclinical gene editing research involving human embryos. </p>
<p>The statement further stipulated, however, that: “It would be irresponsible to proceed with any clinical use of germline editing unless and until (i) the relevant safety and efficacy issues have been resolved, based on appropriate understanding and balancing of risks, potential benefits, and alternatives, and (ii) there is broad societal consensus about the appropriateness of the proposed application.”</p>
<p>Mitalipov’s research aims to address the first condition about safety and efficacy. But what of the second condition which effectively recognizes that the human genome belongs to all of us and that it is not for scientists or other elites to decree what should or should not happen to it?</p>
<h2>Modification endorsed</h2>
<p>Since the 2015 statement was issued, many individuals and groups have tried to set aside the recommendation calling for a broad societal consensus. </p>
<p>For example, in February 2017, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine <a href="https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24623/human-genome-editing-science-ethics-and-governance">published a report</a> endorsing germline modification. It states unequivocally that “clinical trials using heritable germline genome editing should be permitted” provided the research is only for compelling reasons and under strict oversight limiting uses of the technology to specified criteria.</p>
<h2>Seeds of change in Canada</h2>
<p>In Canada, it is illegal to modify human germ cells. Altering “the genome of a cell of a human being or in vitro embryo such that the alteration is capable of being transmitted to descendants” is among the activities prohibited in the 2004 <a href="http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/a-13.4/FullText.html">Assisted Human Reproduction Act</a>. </p>
<p>Worried that “Canadian researchers may fall behind on the international scene” and that “restrictive research policies may lead to medical tourism,” the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (with input from the <a href="http://stemcellnetwork.ca/about-scn/">Canadian Stem Cell Network</a>) has begun to plant the seeds of change. </p>
<p>In its <a href="http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/50158.html">Human Germline Gene Editing</a> report, CIHR hints at the benefits of changing the legislation. It also suggests professional self-regulation and research funding guidelines could replace the current federal statutory prohibition.</p>
<h2>Future of the species</h2>
<p>With Mitalipov’s technological advances and increasing suggestions from researchers that heritable modifications to human embryos be permitted, it is essential that citizens be given opportunities to think through the ethical issues and to work towards broad societal consensus. </p>
<p>We are talking about nothing less than the future of the human species. No decisions about the modification of the germline should be made without broad societal consultation. </p>
<p>Nothing about us without us!</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/81797/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Françoise Baylis has received past funding from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research and the Stem Cell Network.</span></em></p>A team in the U.S. is said to have safely and effectively altered human embryos. The news is a reminder that citizens must be consulted on developments potentially affecting the future of the species.Françoise Baylis, Research Professor, Philosophy, Dalhousie UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.