Earth and Life Science

Topic: Genetic Engineering

Part 1: Personal Reflection

A. Self-Reflection on Genetic Engineering

1.Genetic engineering (also called genetic modification) is a process that uses laboratory-based
technologies to alter the DNA makeup of an organism. This may involve changing a single base pair (A-T
or C-G), deleting a region of DNA or adding a new segment of DNA. For example, genetic engineering
may involve adding a gene from one species to an organism from a different species to produce a desired
trait. Used in research and industry, genetic engineering has been applied to the production of cancer
therapies, brewing yeasts, genetically modified plants and livestock, and more.

2. Manipulating the genetic makeup of living things is called genetic engineering, and scientists are
learning more and more about this process each day. While there are some people who feel that
tampering with the DNA of human beings or other organisms is meddling with Mother Nature, others
see it as a sign of progress and an opportunity to make the world and the lives of humans and animals
better.

Disease Prevention

One of the top goals of genetic engineering is the improvement of health. Imagine a world without the
threat of AIDS or cancer. Those working in the genetics field hope that manipulating the genes of
humans will one day enable science to prevent people from contracting these potentially deadly
diseases. Some diseases are more likely in certain people because they have a history of the disease in
the family, meaning it could be passed down and make someone predisposed to a particular illness.
Genetic engineering could theoretically eliminate the passing of “disease” genes.

Pharmaceutical Development

Genetic engineering can be used to improve the drugs available on the marketplace by making them
more effective and safer. By using genetic modification scientists can make pharmaceuticals more
effective than the existing versions of the medicine. There are already improved versions of insulin for
diabetics and human growth hormones on the market thanks to genetic engineering. Manipulation of
genes may also make it possible to create plants that contain natural medicines in labs.

Agriculture

Saving the seeds from the best looking plants to replant the following year has been a method of manual
genetic selection for many years. But science has made it possible to engineer plants to produce the
biggest and best fruits and vegetables possible by replacing the genes and designing plants with the
most desirable traits. This leads to the availability of more and higher quality food that may also be
resistant to the most common plant diseases.
Transplants

One of the most serious problems in medicine is the lack of available organs on the transplant list. While
donating organs is a good way to help your fellow man, there are simply not enough to go around.
Demand always exceeds the need, meaning many patients simply can’t survive until a match is found.
But when those patients with failing organs knew in advance that they would need a new organ, doctors
could simply order it and have a compatible heart, lung or other part “grown” in a lab. Genetic
engineering may be able to make that a common occurrence eventually.

Part 2: Diverse Perspectives on Genetic Engineering

A. Research and Present

3.GMO (short for “genetically modified organism”) is a plant, animal or microbe in which one or more
changes have been made to the genome, typically using high-tech genetic engineering, in an attempt to
alter the characteristics of an organism. Genes can be introduced, enhanced or deleted within a species,
across species or even across kingdoms. GMOs may be used for a variety of purposes, such as making
human insulin, producing fermented beverages and developing pesticide resistance in crop plants.
4. People have been altering the genomes of plants and animals for many years using traditional
breeding techniques. Artificial selection for specific, desired traits has resulted in a variety of different
organisms, ranging from sweet corn to hairless cats. But this artificial selection, in which organisms that
exhibit specific traits are chosen to breed subsequent generations, has been limited to naturally
occurring variations. In recent decades, however, advances in the field of genetic engineering have
allowed for precise control over the genetic changes introduced into an organism. Today, we can
incorporate new genes from one species into a completely unrelated species through genetic
engineering, optimizing agricultural performance or facilitating the production of valuable
pharmaceutical substances. Crop plants, farm animals, and soil bacteria are some of the more prominent
examples of organisms that have been subject to genetic engineering.

Current Use of Genetically Modified Organisms

A photograph shows five silver fish oriented horizontally in a vertical row against a black background.
Below, five smaller fish are also arranged similarly. The smaller fish at bottom are approximately one-
third the length of the fish at top.

Agricultural plants are one of the most frequently cited examples of genetically modified organisms
(GMOs). Some benefits of genetic engineering in agriculture are increased crop yields, reduced costs for
food or drug production, reduced need for pesticides, enhanced nutrient composition and food quality,
resistance to pests and disease, greater food security, and medical benefits to the world's growing
population. Advances have also been made in developing crops that mature faster and tolerate
aluminum, boron, salt, drought, frost, and other environmental stressors, allowing plants to grow in
conditions where they might not otherwise flourish (Table 1; Takeda & Matsuoka, 2008). Other
applications include the production of nonprotein (bioplastic) or nonindustrial (ornamental plant)
products. A number of animals have also been genetically engineered to increase yield and decrease
susceptibility to disease. For example, salmon have been engineered to grow larger (Figure 1) and
mature faster (Table 1), and cattle have been enhanced to exhibit resistance to mad cow disease (United
States Department of Energy, 2007).
Table 1: Examples of GMOs Resulting from Agricultural Biotechnology

The pharmaceutical industry is another frontier for the use of GMOs. In 1986, human growth hormone
was the first protein pharmaceutical made in plants (Barta et al., 1986), and in 1989, the first antibody
was produced (Hiatt et al., 1989). Both research groups used tobacco, which has since dominated the
industry as the most intensively studied and utilized plant species for the expression of foreign genes
(Ma et al., 2003). As of 2003, several types of antibodies produced in plants had made it to clinical trials.
The use of genetically modified animals has also been indispensible in medical research. Transgenic
animals are routinely bred to carry human genes, or mutations in specific genes, thus allowing the study
of the progression and genetic determinants of various diseases.

Potential GMO Applications

Many industries stand to benefit from additional GMO research. For instance, a number of
microorganisms are being considered as future clean fuel producers and biodegraders. In addition,
genetically modified plants may someday be used to produce recombinant vaccines. In fact, the concept
of an oral vaccine expressed in plants (fruits and vegetables) for direct consumption by individuals is
being examined as a possible solution to the spread of disease in underdeveloped countries, one that
would greatly reduce the costs associated with conducting large-scale vaccination campaigns. Work is
currently underway to develop plant-derived vaccine candidates in potatoes and lettuce for hepatitis B
virus (HBV), enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC), and Norwalk virus. Scientists are also looking into
the production of other commercially valuable proteins in plants, such as spider silk protein and
polymers that are used in surgery or tissue replacement (Ma et al., 2003). Genetically modified animals
have even been used to grow transplant tissues and human transplant organs, a concept called
xenotransplantation. The rich variety of uses for GMOs provides a number of valuable benefits to
humans, but many people also worry about potential risks.

Risks and Controversies Surrounding the Use of GMOs

Despite the fact that the genes being transferred occur naturally in other species, there are unknown
consequences to altering the natural state of an organism through foreign gene expression. After all,
such alterations can change the organism's metabolism, growth rate, and/or response to external
environmental factors. These consequences influence not only the GMO itself, but also the natural
environment in which that organism is allowed to proliferate. Potential health risks to humans include
the possibility of exposure to new allergens in genetically modified foods, as well as the transfer of
antibiotic-resistant genes to gut flora.

Horizontal gene transfer of pesticide, herbicide, or antibiotic resistance to other organisms would not
only put humans at risk, but it would also cause ecological imbalances, allowing previously innocuous
plants to grow uncontrolled, thus promoting the spread of disease among both plants and animals.
Although the possibility of horizontal gene transfer between GMOs and other organisms cannot be
denied, in reality, this risk is considered to be quite low. Horizontal gene transfer occurs naturally at a
very low rate and, in most cases, cannot be simulated in an optimized laboratory environment without
active modification of the target genome to increase susceptibility (Ma et al., 2003).

In contrast, the alarming consequences of vertical gene transfer between GMOs and their wild-type
counterparts have been highlighted by studying transgenic fish released into wild populations of the
same species (Muir & Howard, 1999). The enhanced mating advantages of the genetically modified fish
led to a reduction in the viability of their offspring. Thus, when a new transgene is introduced into a wild
fish population, it propagates and may eventually threaten the viability of both the wild-type and the
genetically modified organisms.

Unintended Impacts on Other Species: The Bt Corn Controversy

One example of public debate over the use of a genetically modified plant involves the case of Bt corn. Bt
corn expresses a protein from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Prior to construction of the
recombinant corn, the protein had long been known to be toxic to a number of pestiferous insects,
including the monarch caterpillar, and it had been successfully used as an environmentally friendly
insecticide for several years. The benefit of the expression of this protein by corn plants is a reduction in
the amount of insecticide that farmers must apply to their crops. Unfortunately, seeds containing genes
for recombinant proteins can cause unintentional spread of recombinant genes or exposure of non-
target organisms to new toxic compounds in the environment.

The now-famous Bt corn controversy started with a laboratory study by Losey et al. (1999) in which the
mortality of monarch larvae was reportedly higher when fed with milkweed (their natural food supply)
covered in pollen from transgenic corn than when fed milkweed covered with pollen from regular corn.
The report by Losey et al. was followed by another publication (Jesse & Obrycki, 2000) suggesting that
natural levels of Bt corn pollen in the field were harmful to monarchs.

Debate ensued when scientists from other laboratories disputed the study, citing the extremely high
concentration of pollen used in the laboratory study as unrealistic, and concluding that migratory
patterns of monarchs do not place them in the vicinity of corn during the time it sheds pollen. For the
next two years, six teams of researchers from government, academia, and industry investigated the issue
and concluded that the risk of Bt corn to monarchs was "very low" (Sears et al., 2001), providing the
basis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to approve Bt corn for an additional seven years.

Unintended Economic Consequences

Another concern associated with GMOs is that private companies will claim ownership of the organisms
they create and not share them at a reasonable cost with the public. If these claims are correct, it is
argued that use of genetically modified crops will hurt the economy and environment, because
monoculture practices by large-scale farm production centers (who can afford the costly seeds) will
dominate over the diversity contributed by small farmers who can't afford the technology. However, a
recent meta-analysis of 15 studies reveals that, on average, two-thirds of the benefits of first-generation
genetically modified crops are shared downstream, whereas only one-third accrues upstream (Demont
et al., 2007). These benefit shares are exhibited in both industrial and developing countries. Therefore,
the argument that private companies will not share ownership of GMOs is not supported by evidence
from first-generation genetically modified crops.
GMOs and the General Public: Philosophical and Religious Concerns

In a 2007 survey of 1,000 American adults conducted by the International Food Information Council
(IFIC), 33% of respondents believed that biotech food products would benefit them or their families, but
23% of respondents did not know biotech foods had already reached the market. In addition, only 5% of
those polled said they would take action by altering their purchasing habits as a result of concerns
associated with using biotech products.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, public acceptance trends in
Europe and Asia are mixed depending on the country and current mood at the time of the survey
(Hoban, 2004). Attitudes toward cloning, biotechnology, and genetically modified products differ
depending upon people's level of education and interpretations of what each of these terms mean.
Support varies for different types of biotechnology; however, it is consistently lower when animals are
mentioned.

Furthermore, even if the technologies are shared fairly, there are people who would still resist
consumable GMOs, even with thorough testing for safety, because of personal or religious beliefs. The
ethical issues surrounding GMOs include debate over our right to "play God," as well as the introduction
of foreign material into foods that are abstained from for religious reasons. Some people believe that
tampering with nature is intrinsically wrong, and others maintain that inserting plant genes in animals, or
vice versa, is immoral. When it comes to genetically modified foods, those who feel strongly that the
development of GMOs is against nature or religion have called for clear labeling rules so they can make
informed selections when choosing which items to purchase. Respect for consumer choice and assumed
risk is as important as having safeguards to prevent mixing of genetically modified products with non-
genetically modified foods. In order to determine the requirements for such safeguards, there must be a
definitive assessment of what constitutes a GMO and universal agreement on how products should be
labeled.

These issues are increasingly important to consider as the number of GMOs continues to increase due to
improved laboratory techniques and tools for sequencing whole genomes, better processes for cloning
and transferring genes, and improved understanding of gene expression systems. Thus, legislative
practices that regulate this research have to keep pace. Prior to permitting commercial use of GMOs,
governments perform risk assessments to determine the possible consequences of their use, but
difficulties in estimating the impact of commercial GMO use makes regulation of these organisms a
challenge.

History of International Regulations for GMO Research and Development

In 1971, the first debate over the risks to humans of exposure to GMOs began when a common intestinal
microorganism, E. coli, was infected with DNA from a tumor-inducing virus (Devos et al., 2007). Initially,
safety issues were a concern to individuals working in laboratories with GMOs, as well as nearby
residents. However, later debate arose over concerns that recombinant organisms might be used as
weapons. The growing debate, initially restricted to scientists, eventually spread to the public, and in
1974, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) established the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee to
begin to address some of these issues.

In the 1980s, when deliberate releases of GMOs to the environment were beginning to occur, the U.S.
had very few regulations in place. Adherence to the guidelines provided by the NIH was voluntary for
industry. Also during the 1980s, the use of transgenic plants was becoming a valuable endeavor for
production of new pharmaceuticals, and individual companies, institutions, and whole countries were
beginning to view biotechnology as a lucrative means of making money (Devos et al., 2007). Worldwide
commercialization of biotech products sparked new debate over the patentability of living organisms,
the adverse effects of exposure to recombinant proteins, confidentiality issues, the morality and
credibility of scientists, the role of government in regulating science, and other issues. In the U.S., the
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment initiatives were developed, and they were eventually
adopted worldwide as a top-down approach to advising policymakers by forecasting the societal impacts
of GMOs.

Then, in 1986, a publication by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD),
called "Recombinant DNA Safety Considerations," became the first intergovernmental document to
address issues surrounding the use of GMOs. This document recommended that risk assessments be
performed on a case-by-case basis. Since then, the case-by-case approach to risk assessment for
genetically modified products has been widely accepted; however, the U.S. has generally taken a
product-based approach to assessment, whereas the European approach is more process based (Devos
et al., 2007). Although in the past, thorough regulation was lacking in many countries, governments
worldwide are now meeting the demands of the public and implementing stricter testing and labeling
requirements for genetically modified crops.

Increased Research and Improved Safety Go Hand in Hand

Proponents of the use of GMOs believe that, with adequate research, these organisms can be safely
commercialized. There are many experimental variations for expression and control of engineered genes
that can be applied to minimize potential risks. Some of these practices are already necessary as a result
of new legislation, such as avoiding superfluous DNA transfer (vector sequences) and replacing
selectable marker genes commonly used in the lab (antibiotic resistance) with innocuous plant-derived
markers (Ma et al., 2003). Issues such as the risk of vaccine-expressing plants being mixed in with normal
foodstuffs might be overcome by having built-in identification factors, such as pigmentation, that
facilitate monitoring and separation of genetically modified products from non-GMOs. Other built-in
control techniques include having inducible promoters (e.g., induced by stress, chemicals, etc.),
geographic isolation, using male-sterile plants, and separate growing seasons.
GMOs benefit mankind when used for purposes such as increasing the availability and quality of food
and medical care, and contributing to a cleaner environment. If used wisely, they could result in an
improved economy without doing more harm than good, and they could also make the most of their
potential to alleviate hunger and disease worldwide. However, the full potential of GMOs cannot be
realized without due diligence and thorough attention to the risks associated with each new GMO on a
case-by-case basis.

References and Recommended Reading

Barta, A., et al. The expression of a nopaline synthase-human growth hormone chimaeric gene in
transformed tobacco and sunflower callus tissue. Plant Molecular Biology 6, 347–357 (1986)

Beyer, P., et al. Golden rice: Introducing the β-carotene biosynthesis pathway into rice endosperm by
genetic engineering to defeat vitamin A deficiency. Journal of Nutrition 132, 506S–510S (2002)

Demont, M., et al. GM crops in Europe: How much value and for whom? EuroChoices 6, 46–53 (2007)

Devlin, R., et al. Extraordinary salmon growth. Nature 371, 209–210 (1994) (link to article)

Devos, Y., et al. Ethics in the societal debate on genetically modified organisms: A (re)quest for sense and
sensibility. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21, 29–61 (2007) doi:10.1007/s10806-007-
9057-6

Guerrero-Andrade, O., et al. Expression of the Newcastle disease virus fusion protein in transgenic maize
and immunological studies. Transgenic Research 15, 455–463(2006) doi:10.1007/s11248-006-0017-0

Hiatt, A., et al. Production of antibodies in transgenic plants. Nature 342, 76–79 (1989) (link to article)

Hoban, T. Public attitudes towards agricultural biotechnology. ESA working papers nos. 4-9. Agricultural
and Development Economics Division, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (2004)

Jesse, H., & Obrycki, J. Field deposition of Bt transgenic corn pollen: Lethal effects on the monarch
butterfly. Oecologia 125, 241–248 (2000)

Losey, J., et al. Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399, 214 (1999) doi:10.1038/20338 (link
to article)

Ma, J., et al. The production of recombinant pharmaceutical proteins in plants. Nature Reviews Genetics
4, 794–805 (2003) doi:10.1038/nrg1177 (link to article)

Muir, W., & Howard, R. Possible ecological risks of transgenic organism release when transgenes affect
mating success: Sexual selection and the Trojan gene hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 96, 13853–13856 (1999)

Sears, M., et al. Impact of Bt corn on monarch butterfly populations: A risk assessment. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 98, 11937–11942 (2001)

Spurgeon, D. Call for tighter controls on transgenic foods. Nature 409, 749 (2001) (link to article)
Takeda, S., & Matsuoka, M. Genetic approaches to crop improvement: Responding to environmental and
population changes. Nature Reviews Genetics 9, 444–457 (2008) doi:10.1038/nrg2342 (link to article)

United States Department of Energy, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, Human Genome
Program. Human Genome Project information: Genetically modified foods and organisms, (2007)