loads of stuff. Genetics is a really exciting area to work now. I’m particularly impressed with using GM to help control diseases of people; scientists are trying to make mosquitoess less likely to carry malaria in Africa, others are using GM bacteria and plants to make vaccines and drugs that are currently very expensive. I think this is so impressive….
I could answer it as “what commercial ideas are being pursued in plant genetic engineering by genetic scientists”. In so doing I would have to emphasise that many of these ideas are not new, but have been promised for 20 years or more.
Then the answer would include: nutrient alterations & GM biofortification (eg beta-carotene rice and maize, high lysine maize); abiotic stress tolerance (ie tolerance to external stresses that are not due to living organisms such as pests, pathogens, herbivores – so this would be tolerance to stresses such as drought, salt, cold, flood); fast growth and altered lignin content in trees; but mostly commercial ideas continue with and expand on what there is already: plants that produce a wider range of insecticides (eg different Bt toxins) and plants that are tolerant to more or different herbicides (including glyphosate, glufosinate, 2,4-D, dicamba).
“Commercial ideas proposed by animal GE genetic scientists” would include:
Attacking/reducing disease vectors such as mosquitoes (eg dengue fever, malaria) as well as insect crop pests; biopharming, ie using mammals to secrete proteins into their milk; fish modification (for fast growth and cold tolerance as well as tolerance to warmer water, inducible sterility; eg for salmon and tilapia). And in relation to this it is important to mention that species that might be adapted to live in conditions previously hostile to them (ie: colder or warmer conditions) may now have the additional risk of becoming invasive species in new regions, posing a whole new set of problems and scenarios to us.
But the range of issues and ideas being researched within basic genetic science is enormous. For whatever we don’t know (or perceive that we don’t know or understand) there will be a group trying to find out; wherever there is a hypothesis, there will be a team or a single researcher trying to prove or disprove it.
Research questions for example include:
– how to predict the effects of therapeutics and to derive medicines for infectious diseases that don’t go obsolete because of resistance
– how to predict the effectiveness of long term drugs on inborne (eg inherited or new) diseases based on genotypes
– epigenetics (absolutely fascinating field!!)
– how did life evolve? what level of biodiversity is necessary for a sustainable ecosystem?
– etc etc.
Pharmaceutical drugs in your cornflakes, anyone? http://www.organicconsumers.org/patent/pharming061702.cfm
Unless genetic engineering of crops to make pharmaceuticals is done in completely enclosed environments, it’s incredibly irresponsible. The point about drugs is that they have to be targeted; they should be taken only by the person prescribed them, with their knowledge, and there must be a controlled dosage. All these safeguards go out of the window with GM pharma crops.
When fungi are used to make pharmaceuticals (eg penicillin), the pharmaceuticals are extracted and purified, then prescribed to people.
Plants that you are describing are bioreactors, not drug delivery mechanisms – they are to be harvested and processed, not eaten.
tl;dr if there are drugs in your cornflakes, they’re not from the corn.
@pheed re pharma crops, you are missing the point. The intended way of delivering the drug produced in the pharma crop is not the point. Experience has shown that the GM industry is incapable of keeping its pharma crops from contaminating the food and feed supply, as the links cited above show, and as worried food industry sources keep warning us. Also, I had a look at the report cited above– http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58-gmo-myths-and-truths
–and there are plenty of peer-reviewed sources quoted in that report–which is just a summary of published studies–to back up the points made–take your pick!
@mrskwallace – another area where genetics is important is in finding out what naturally occurring plant and animal genes actually do. By sequencing rice, wheat and barley genomes, we can look at gene varients that may, for example, make one strain of rice more resistant to drought than another. GM doesn’t have to be about adding completely new genes – it might involve as minor a change as moving a naturally occurring drought-resistance gene from one strain of rice to another (which has eg better crop yield) to make a better hybrid.
It should be noted that the technique that pheed talks about (called cisgenics or intragenics) is just as risky as transgenic GM processes: see section 1.4 of the report here: http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58-gmo-myths-and-truths
On the other hand, other biotechnology approaches, such as marker assisted selection and gene mapping, do not involve genetic engineering of the final product and carry none of the risks associated with GM.
Your source is not peer-reviewed. Citation needed! 😛
That’s the nice thing about genetic research, though – once we have the information on plant genomes (some of which is found by using plant mutants and GM in a scientific context), we have tons of different ways to use it, including those you mention. Different tools for different purposes, ennabled by knowledge.
IDIC!
@pheed As you can see from the report cited here http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58-gmo-myths-and-truths
it’s a summary of peer reviewed literature–so plenty of peer-reviewed sources in it.
The report also notes that the GM crops in the pipeline are crops engineered to tolerate even more toxic herbicides than glyphosate, in order to try to solve the problem of glyphosate-resistant weeds. So we have crops in the pipeline that will resist 2,4-D and dicamba. Even farmer groups are opposing the release of these crops, as few argue that these herbicides are safe.
For an interesting look at the new ideas and the “best science” now coming out of the GM industry, see http://capegazette.villagesoup.com/capelife/story/herbicide-resistant-weeds-mean-harsher-chemicals/854197
Excerpt: In order to protect their livelihoods, farmers had to go with the best science available, which meant using harsher herbicides on their fields. To combat pigweed and marestail, some farmers have now turned to 2,4-D, a component of Agent Orage developed during the Vietnam War to decimate the jungles of Southeast Asia. Now some consumers and environmentalists say using such a harsh chemical on fields where it could leech into drinking water or could pose health risks.
Forney said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regularly studies 2,4-D and other chemicals used in agriculture.
“The EPA continues to find that 2,4-D has a reasonable safety profile to humans and the environment,” Forney said. “That’s the best science that this country has to offer.”
Comments
dingo commented on :
Pharmaceutical drugs in your cornflakes, anyone?
http://www.organicconsumers.org/patent/pharming061702.cfm
Unless genetic engineering of crops to make pharmaceuticals is done in completely enclosed environments, it’s incredibly irresponsible. The point about drugs is that they have to be targeted; they should be taken only by the person prescribed them, with their knowledge, and there must be a controlled dosage. All these safeguards go out of the window with GM pharma crops.
Les commented on :
The cases of GM crops and animals for pharmaceuticals that I know about (in North America) are indeed in an enclosed environment
joseph110 commented on :
If it’s the case now that pharma crops are only grown in an enclosed environment, it was not always so:
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/3278
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/6188
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/1585
pheed commented on :
When fungi are used to make pharmaceuticals (eg penicillin), the pharmaceuticals are extracted and purified, then prescribed to people.
Plants that you are describing are bioreactors, not drug delivery mechanisms – they are to be harvested and processed, not eaten.
tl;dr if there are drugs in your cornflakes, they’re not from the corn.
joseph110 commented on :
@pheed re pharma crops, you are missing the point. The intended way of delivering the drug produced in the pharma crop is not the point. Experience has shown that the GM industry is incapable of keeping its pharma crops from contaminating the food and feed supply, as the links cited above show, and as worried food industry sources keep warning us. Also, I had a look at the report cited above–
http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58-gmo-myths-and-truths
–and there are plenty of peer-reviewed sources quoted in that report–which is just a summary of published studies–to back up the points made–take your pick!
pheed commented on :
@mrskwallace – another area where genetics is important is in finding out what naturally occurring plant and animal genes actually do. By sequencing rice, wheat and barley genomes, we can look at gene varients that may, for example, make one strain of rice more resistant to drought than another. GM doesn’t have to be about adding completely new genes – it might involve as minor a change as moving a naturally occurring drought-resistance gene from one strain of rice to another (which has eg better crop yield) to make a better hybrid.
dingo commented on :
It should be noted that the technique that pheed talks about (called cisgenics or intragenics) is just as risky as transgenic GM processes: see section 1.4 of the report here:
http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58-gmo-myths-and-truths
On the other hand, other biotechnology approaches, such as marker assisted selection and gene mapping, do not involve genetic engineering of the final product and carry none of the risks associated with GM.
pheed commented on :
Your source is not peer-reviewed. Citation needed! 😛
That’s the nice thing about genetic research, though – once we have the information on plant genomes (some of which is found by using plant mutants and GM in a scientific context), we have tons of different ways to use it, including those you mention. Different tools for different purposes, ennabled by knowledge.
IDIC!
dingo commented on :
@pheed As you can see from the report cited here
http://earthopensource.org/index.php/reports/58-gmo-myths-and-truths
it’s a summary of peer reviewed literature–so plenty of peer-reviewed sources in it.
The report also notes that the GM crops in the pipeline are crops engineered to tolerate even more toxic herbicides than glyphosate, in order to try to solve the problem of glyphosate-resistant weeds. So we have crops in the pipeline that will resist 2,4-D and dicamba. Even farmer groups are opposing the release of these crops, as few argue that these herbicides are safe.
dina commented on :
For an interesting look at the new ideas and the “best science” now coming out of the GM industry, see
http://capegazette.villagesoup.com/capelife/story/herbicide-resistant-weeds-mean-harsher-chemicals/854197
Excerpt: In order to protect their livelihoods, farmers had to go with the best science available, which meant using harsher herbicides on their fields. To combat pigweed and marestail, some farmers have now turned to 2,4-D, a component of Agent Orage developed during the Vietnam War to decimate the jungles of Southeast Asia. Now some consumers and environmentalists say using such a harsh chemical on fields where it could leech into drinking water or could pose health risks.
Forney said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regularly studies 2,4-D and other chemicals used in agriculture.
“The EPA continues to find that 2,4-D has a reasonable safety profile to humans and the environment,” Forney said. “That’s the best science that this country has to offer.”