Genetic engineering out of control
Genetically engineered crops do not pose health risks that cannot also arise from crops created by other techniques, including conventional breeding, the National Academy of Sciences said in a report issued yesterday.
The conclusion backs the basic approach now underlying government oversight of biotech foods, that special food safety regulations are not needed just because foods are genetically engineered.
Nevertheless, the report said that genetic engineering and other techniques used to create novel crops could result in unintended, harmful changes to the composition of food, and that scrutiny of such crops should be tightened before they go to market.
Is "synthetic biology" on the point of making life? Unlike genetic engineering or biotechnology, the new discipline is not about tinkering with biology but about remaking it. Risks and rewards will be greater than anything yet encountered
Two years ago American scientists created life. Or did they? It all depends on what you mean by life. More specifically, it depends on whether you are prepared to regard viruses as living entities. Viruses have genes, and they replicate, mutate and evolve, all of which sounds lifelike enough. And in August 2002, a team at the State University of New York (SUNY) announced that it had made a virus from scratch, by chemistry alone.
What this meant was that, for the first time since life began over 3.5bn years ago, a living organism had been created with genetic material that was not inherited from a progenitor.
To what did the SUNY researchers choose to award the honour of being the first synthetic organism? They selected a virus that scientists have spent decades trying to eradicate, a cause of human disability and death: polio. If you think that sounds unwise, so did some biologists. Craig Venter, former head of the privately-funded US human genome project conducted by Celera Genomics, called the work "irresponsible" and claimed that it could hurt the scientific community.
Repeatedly invoking the threat of terrorism, the Senate on Wednesday unanimously approved a $5.6-billion, 10-year initiative to encourage private industry to develop vaccines and drugs that would protect Americans from biological, chemical or nuclear attacks.
If terrorists have access to anthrax, smallpox, botulism toxin, plague or Ebola virus, said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), "there is no question they will use it. And they will use it in a place where people gather to go about their daily lives."
The Senate vote came more than two years after anthrax-filled letters caused five fatalities, changed the way mail was inspected and delivered, and highlighted the nation's vulnerability to bioterrorist attacks.
President Bush, who on Wednesday praised passage of the bill as "another important step in winning the war on terror," proposed Project Bioshield in his 2003 State of the Union address. The House passed a bill, 421-2, last summer, but the legislation stalled in the Senate over the technical concerns of a handful of lawmakers.
Scientists are often accused of trying to play God. Cloning experts, genetic engineers and atomic physicists have all fiddled with aspects of the world that many believe should remain the preserve of some higher power. But for one group of scientists in particular, playing is a serious business. They are seeking to create life itself, and in doing so could push God aside.
They are making astonishing progress. According to the Bible it took six days to create heaven, Earth and everything in them; the scientists already need only a fortnight to produce a totally synthetic organism. They are also figuring out how to expand life's genetic code, which has acted as a barrier to new forms of creation since time immemorial. "I don't think there's anything wrong with playing God," says Clyde Hutchison, one of the new breed of scientists learning to master creation. "As long as it's just playing."
Before tackling the creation of new life, the scientists have been forced to ask a more fundamental question: what, precisely, is it? What are the bare essentials life requires, the building blocks needed to make the most basic living organism? The answer has an almost profound significance, for it is these components that form the common denominator that links every living thing on Earth, from aardvarks to amoebae, zooplankton to zebras.
The common denominator for life is a package of genes that together do the bare minimum necessary to produce a living organism; enough to produce life, but no more. All other genes are add-ons, tweaks that nudge an organism into one species or other, that help grow fins or feet, trunks or tails.
At his lab at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Hutchison is trying to find the essentials for life by playing what seems a macabre game. He begins by taking a clutch of the most basic forms of life known to man, a bacterium called Mycoplasma genitalium. The bacterium has only 500 or so genes, compared with an estimated 42,000 genes found in humans.
Because M. genitalium has fewer genes than any other living organism, Hutchison says it is the closest nature has to the simplest possible life form. Most of the genes inside the bacterium are vital for its survival, helping the bacterium to grow its body, divide and convert nutrients around it into energy. But to find out the bare minimum required for life, Hutchison is systematically whittling down the bacterium by knocking out genes to find the point at which life becomes impossible. So far, he believes he's found up to 215 genes that are strictly superfluous for the microbe's survival, meaning that a cassette of fewer than 300 genes is required for life.
Is society ready for NBIC? As nano, bio, info and cognitive technology increasingly converge, proponents of NBIC (the somewhat clunky acronym for this multitech intersection), are calling for the legal, ethical and regulatory implications to be considered from the very beginning.
The architect of the National Nanotechnology Initiative, Mike Roco, co-editor of a soon-to-be updated report on NBIC convergence and human performance, said at a recent conference that "society needs to be prepared for the major changes to come." Convergent technologies such as augmented vision or hearing, pervasive sensor networks and genetic manipulation will challenge the meaning of human nature and privacy, as well as many aspects of trade and international law.
Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration
ETC group is dedicated to the conservation and sustainable advancement of cultural and ecological diversity and human rights. To this end, ETC group supports socially responsible developments of technologies useful to the poor and marginalized and it addresses international governance issues and corporate power.
ETC group works in partnership with civil society organizations (CSOs) for cooperative and sustainable self-reliance within disadvantaged societies, by providing information and analysis of socioeconomic and technological trends and alternatives. This work requires joint actions in community, regional, and global fora.
ETC group's strength is in the research and analysis of technological information (particularly but not exclusively plant genetic resources, biotechnologies, and (in general) biological diversity), and in the development of strategic options related to the socioeconomic ramifications of new technologies.
Biotechnology risk | Environment | Nanotech risk | Technological conservatism
The Science and Environmental Health Network is working to implement the precautionary principle as a basis for environmental and public health policy. The principle and the main components of its implementation are stated this way in the 1998 Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle:
"When an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proof. The process of applying the precautionary principle must be open, informed and democratic and must include potentially affected parties. It must also involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including no action." - Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle, Jan. 1998
Biotechnology risk | Environment
A new report commissioned by the government suggests that it will be difficult to completely prevent genetically engineered plants and animals from having unintended environmental and public health effects.
The report, released yesterday by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, says that while there are many techniques being developed to prevent genetically engineered organisms or their genes from escaping into the wild, most techniques are still in early development and none appear to be completely effective.
Invasivespecies.gov is the gateway to Federal efforts concerning invasive species. On this site you can learn about the impacts of invasive species and the Federal government's response, as well as read select species profiles and find links to agencies and organizations dealing with invasive species issues. Invasivespecies.gov is also the Web site for the National Invasive Species Council, which coordinates Federal responses to the problem.
Biotechnology risk | Conservation | Environment
Ultimately, fighting the war on terrorism may have less to do with giant aircraft carriers and more to do with atomic-scale detection and prevention systems. Nanotechnology, which is expected to transform everything from computer processors to drug delivery systems, may also be the key to homeland security, argues a new book.
In Nanotechnology and Homeland Security: New Weapons for New Wars (Prentice Hall, 2003), Mark A. Ratner, a professor of chemistry at Northwestern University and a noted expert in molecular electronics, and his son Daniel Ratner, a high-tech entrepreneur, claim that current research in nanotechnology will lead to intelligent sensors, smart materials, and other methods for thwarting biological and chemical attacks.
|
