# data[].attributes.body
Search for the episodes on our topic, you will find plenty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC Radio 4 - BBC Inside Science - Available now

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Available episodes of BBC Inside Science

# data[].attributes.headline
Editing the human genome brings us one step closer to consumer eugenics

# data[].attributes.subject
Editing the human genome brings us one step closer to consumer eugenics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Editing the human genome brings us one step closer to consumer eugenics | David King

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Human gene editing will lead to greater social inequality and more designer babies, writes Human Genetics Alert director Dr David King

# data[].attributes.headline
Major report prepares ground for genetic modification of human embryos

# data[].attributes.subject
Major report prepares ground for genetic modification of human embryos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Major report prepares ground for genetic modification of human embryos

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
US institutions cautiously endorse future use of gene editing procedures to prevent people passing serious medical conditions to their children

# data[].attributes.headline
Top 4 Applications of Genetic Engineering

# data[].attributes.subject
Top 4 Applications of Genetic Engineering

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The following points highlight the top four applications of genetic engineering. The applications are: 1. Application in Agriculture 2. Application to Medicine 3. Energy Production 4. Application to Industries.
Genetic Engineering: Application # 1. Application in Agriculture:

An important application of recombinant DNA technology is to alter the genotype of crop plants to make them more productive, nutritious, rich in proteins, disease resistant, and less fertilizer consuming. Recombinant DNA technology and tissue culture techniques can produce high yielding cereals, pulses and vegetable crops.

Some plants have been genetically programmed to yield high protein grains that could show resistance to heat, moisture and diseases.

Some plants may even develop their own fertilizers some have been genetically transformed to make their own insecticides. Through genetic engineering some varieties have been produced that could directly fix atmospheric nitrogen and thus there is no dependence on fertilizers.

Scientists have developed transgenic potato, tobacco, cotton, corn, strawberry, rape seeds that are resistant to insect pests and certain weedicides.

Bacterium, Bacillus thurenginesis produces a protein which is toxic to insects. Using the techniques of genetic engineering, the gene coding for this toxic protein called Bt gene has been isolated from bacterium and engineered into tomato and tobacco plants. Such transgenic plants showed nee to tobacco horn worms and tomato fruit worms. These genotypes are awaiting release in USA.

There are certain genetically evolved weed killers which are not specific to weeds alone but kill useful crops also. Glyphosate is a commonly used weed killer which simply inhibits a particular essential enzyme in weeds and other crop plants. A target gene of glyphosate is present in bacterium salmonella typhimurium. A mutant of S. typhimurium is resistant to glyphosate.

The mutant gene was t cloned to E. coli and then recloned to Agrobacterium tumifaciens through its Ti Plasmid. Infection of plants with Ti plasmid containing glyphosate resistant gene has yielded crops such as cotton, tabacco maize, all of which are resistant to glyphosate.

This makes possible to spray the crop fields with glyphosate which will kill the weeds only and the genetically modified crops with resistant genes remain unaffected.

Recently Calogene, a biotech company, has isolated a bacterial gene that detoxifies; side effects of herbicides. Transgenic tobacco plants resistant to T MV mosaic virus and tomato i resistant to Golden mosaic virus have been developed by transferring virus coat protein genes "susceptible plants. These are yet to be released.

The gene transfer technology can also play significant role in producing new and improved variety of timber trees.

Several species of microorganisms have been produced that can degrade toxic chemicals and could be used for killing harmful pathogens and insect pests.

For using genetic engineering techniques for transfer of foreign genes into host plant cells, a number of genes have already been cloned and complete libraries of DNA and mt DNA of pea are now known.

Some of the cloned genes include:

(i) Genes for phaseolin of french bean,

(ii) Few phaseolin leg haemoglobin for soybean,

(iii) Genes for small sub-unit RUBP carboxylase of pea, and i genes for storage protein in some cereals.

Efforts are being made to improve several agricultural crops using various techniques of genetic engineering which include:

(i) Transfer of nitrogen fixing genes (nif genes) from leguminous plants into cereals.

(ii) Transfer of resistance against pathogens and pests from wild plants to crop plants.

(iii) Improvement in quality and quantity of seed proteins.

(iv) Transfer of genes for animal proteins to crop plants.

(v) Elimination of unwanted genes for susceptibility to different diseases from cytoplasmic male sterile lines in crop like maize, where cytoplasmic male sterility and susceptibility are located in mitochondrial plasmid.

(vi) Improvement of photosynthetic efficiency by reassembling nuclear and chloroplast genes and by the possible conversion of C ₃ plants into C ₄ plants.

(vii) Development of cell lines which may produce nutritious food in bioreactors.

Genetic Engineering: Application # 2. Application to Medicine:

Genetic engineering has been gaining importance over the last few years and it will become more important in the current century as genetic diseases become more prevalent and agricultural area is reduced. Genetic engineering plays significant role in the production of medicines.

Microorganisms and plant based substances are now being manipulated to produce large amount of useful drugs, vaccines, enzymes and hormones at low costs. Genetic engineering is concerned with the study (inheritance pattern of diseases in man and collection of human genes that could provide a complete map for inheritance of healthy individuals.

Gene therapy by which healthy genes can be inserted directly into a person with malfunctioning genes is perhaps the most revolutionary and most promising aspect of genetic engineering. The use of gene therapy has been approved in more than 400 clinical trials for diseases such as cystic fibres emphysema, muscular dystrophy, adenosine deaminase deficiency.

Gene therapy may someday be exploited to cure hereditary human diseases like haemophilia and cystic fibrosis which are caused by missing or defective genes. In one type of gene therapy new functional genes are inserted by genetically engineered viruses into the cells of people who are unable to produce certain hormones or proteins for normal body functions.

Introduction of new genes into an organism through recombinant DNA technology essentially alters protein makeup and finally i body characteristics.

Vaccines:

Recombinant DNA Technology is also used in production of vaccines against diseases. A vaccine contains a form of an infectious organism that does not cause severe disease but does cause immune system of body to form protective antibodies against infective organism. Vaccines are prepared by isolating antigen or protein present on the surface of viral particles.

When a person is vaccinate against viral disease, antigens produce antibodies that acts against the viral proteins and inactivate them. With recombinant DNA technology, scientists have been able to transfer the genes for some viral sheath proteins to vaccinia virus which was used against small pox.

Vaccines produced by gene cloning are contamination free and safe because they contain only coat proteins against which antibodies are made. A few vaccines are being produced by gene cloning, e.g., vaccines against viral hepatitis influenza, herpes simplex virus, virus induced foot and mouth disease in animals.

Hormones:

Until recently the hormone insulin was extracted only in limited quantities from pancreas of cows and pigs. The process was not only costly but the hormone sometimes caused allergic reactions in some patients of diabetes.

The commercial production of insulin was started in 1982 through biogenetic or recombinant DNA technology and the medical use of hormone insulin was approved by food and drug administration (FDA) of USA in 1982.

The human insulin gene has been cloned in large quantities in bacterium E. coli which could be used for synthesis of insulin. Genetically engineered insulin is commercially available as humilin.

Lymphokines:

Lymphokines are proteins which regulate immune system in human body, α -Interferon is one of the examples. Interferon is used to fight viral diseases such as hepatitis, herpes, common colds as well as cancer. Such drugs can be manufactured in bacterial cell in large quantities.

Lymphokines can also be helpful for AIDS patients. Genetically engineered interleukin-II, a substance that stimulates multiplication of lymphocytes is also available and is being currently tested on AIDS patients.

A fourteen aminoacid polypeptide hormone synthesized by hypothalamus was obtained only in a small quantity from a human cadavers. Somatostatin used as a drug for certain growth related abnormalities appears to be species specific and the polypeptide obtained from other mammals has no effect on human, hence its extraction from hypothalamus of cadavers.

Genetic engineering technique has helped in chemical synthesis of gene which is joined to the pBR 322 plasmid DNA and cloned into a bacterium. The transformed bacterium is converted into somatostatin synthesising factory. ADA (adenosine deaminase) deficiency is a disease like combined immune deficiency which killed the bubble boy David in 1984.

The children with ADA deficiency die before they are two years old. Bone marrow cells of the child after removal from the body were invaded by a harmless virus into which ADA has been inserted.

Erythropoetin, a genetically engineered hormone is used to stimulate the production of red blood cells in people suffering from severe anaemia.

Production of Blood clotting factors:

Normally heart attack is caused when coronary arteries are blocked by cholesterol or blood clot. plasminogen is a substance found in blood clots. Genetically engineered tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) enzyme dissolves blood clots in people who have suffered heart attacks. The plasminogen activator protein is produced by genetech company which is so potent and specific that it may even arrest a heart attack underway.

Cancer:

Cancer is a dreaded disease. Antibodies cloned from a single source and targetted for a specific antigen (monoclonal antibodies) have proved very useful in cancer treatment. Monoclonal antibodies have been target with radioactive elements or cytotoxins like Ricin from castor seed to make them more deadly. Such antibodies seek cancer cells and specifically kill them with their radioactivity or toxin.

Genetic Engineering: Application # 3. Energy Production:

Recombinant DNA technology has tremendous scope in energy production. Through this technology Ii is now possible to bioengineer energy crops or biofuels that grow rapidly to yield huge biomass that used as fuel or can be processed into oils, alcohols, diesel, or other energy products.

The waste from these can be converted into methane. Genetic engineers are trying to transfer gene for cellulase to proper organisms which can be used to convert wastes like sawdust and cornstalks first to sugar and then to alcohol.

Genetic Engineering: Application # 4. Application to Industries:

Genetically designed bacteria are put into use for generating industrial chemicals. A variety of organic chemicals can be synthesised at large scale with the help of genetically engineered microorganisms. Glucose can be synthesised from sucrose with the help of enzymes obtained from genetically modified organisms.

Now-a-days with the help of genetic engineering strains of bacteria and cyanobacteria have been developed which can synthesize ammonia at large scale that can be used in manufacture of fertilisers at much cheaper costs. Microbes are being developed which will help in conversion of Cellulose to sugar and from sugar to ethanol.

Recombinant DNA technology can also be used to monitor the degradation of garbage, petroleum products, naphthalene and other industrial wastes.

For example bacterium pseudomonas fluorescens genetically altered by transfer of light producing enzyme called luciferase found in bacterium vibrio fischeri, produces light proportionate to the amount of its breaking down activity of naphthalene which provides way to monitor the efficiency of the process.

Maize and soybeans are extensively damaged by black cutworm. Pseudomonas fluorescens is found in association with maize and soybeans. Bacillus thuringiensis contain a gene pathogenic to the pest. The pest has, over the years, not only become dangerous to the crops but has developed resistance to a number of pesticides.

When the gene from B. thuringiensis (Bt) was cloned into pseudomonas fluorescence and inoculated into the soil, it was found that genetically engineered pseudomonas fluorescens could cause the death of cutworms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top 4 Applications of Genetic Engineering

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
ADVERTISEMENTS: The following points highlight the top four applications of genetic engineering. The applications are: 1. Application in Agriculture 2. Application to Medicine 3. Energy Production 4. Application to Industries. Genetic Engineering: Application # 1. Application in Agriculture: An important application of recombinant DNA technology is to alter the genotype of crop plants to make ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sustainable agriculture practices can protect the environment and produce high-quality, safe, and affordable food. Our goal is to promote such practices while eliminating harmful "factory farming" methods and strengthening government oversight of genetically engineered food.

# data[].attributes.headline
What is Genetic Engineering? - Definition and Examples

# data[].attributes.subject
What is Genetic Engineering? - Definition and Examples

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Brief History of and Insulin

Diabetes is a disease in which the patient has trouble regulating his or her blood glucose level. Until the early 1900s, this was a deadly disease. Imbalanced glucose levels would induce coma and eventually death. Arguably, one of the greatest medical discoveries of the twentieth century was the development of genetic engineering technology. Let's imagine ourselves in the shoes of scientists struggling to develop a cure for diabetic-induced death.

For some diabetic patients, uncontrolled glucose levels is simply the result of a lack of a hormone called insulin. Insulin facilitates glucose transport into cells, thus lowering blood glucose levels. If that's true, we should be able to treat this form of diabetes by providing the diabetic patient with insulin. Okay. Easier said than done. Where are we going to get all this insulin?

Scientists eventually determined that insulin purified from animals like cattle or pigs was sufficient to treat the insulin deficiency in these diabetic patients. While this was a major medical breakthrough, the animal substitute wasn't without its side effects. Some patients suffered an allergic reaction. As we will see, genetic engineering would eventually solve this problem and pave the way for an entire new field of scientific and medical possibilities.

Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering is the process by which scientists modify the genome of an organism. Creation of genetically modified organisms requires recombinant DNA. Recombinant DNA is a combination of DNA from different organisms or different locations in a given genome that would not normally be found in nature.

In most cases, use of recombinant DNA means that you have added an extra gene to an organism to alter a trait or add a new trait. Some uses of genetic engineering include improving the nutritional quality of food, creating pest-resistant crops, and creating infection-resistant livestock.

We're struggling with the fact that some diabetic patients are experiencing an allergic reaction in response to insulin isolated from cows and pigs. The obvious solution is to give patients human insulin instead of animal insulin. Injecting patients with purified human protein should minimize the allergic reaction patients are experiencing, but purifying insulin from human tissue is impractical. That's why cattle or pig insulin is being used at this time.

Let's see how genetic engineering opened the door to mass producing insulin rather than purifying it from animal tissue, human or otherwise.

Host Organism

The organism that is modified in a genetic engineering experiment is referred to as the host. Depending on the goal of the genetic engineering experiment, the host could range from a bacterial cell to a plant or animal cell or even a human cell. You might guess that scientists chose a human or animal cell to produce insulin. If so, you may be surprised to discover that scientists instead used bacterial cells to produce human insulin.

There are many reasons why bacteria play an important role in many genetic engineering experiments. Consider the space required to house larger animals. Bacteria are small and relatively inexpensive to maintain compared to most alternatives. Consider the time required to raise larger animals. Bacteria reproduce much more rapidly. Finally, consider the end-goal. It is easier to overexpress and isolate molecules from a bacterial cell than it is from specific cells in a multicellular host.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
what is genetic engineering? - definition and examples - video & lesson transcript | study.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What is Genetic Engineering? - Definition and Examples - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Diabetes is a disease in which the patient has trouble regulating his or her blood glucose level. Until the early 1900s, this was a deadly disease. Imbalanced glucose levels would induce coma and eventually death. Arguably, one of the greatest medical discoveries of the twentieth century was the development of genetic engineering technology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
People may want to clone an animal deliberately. Just like the cloning of plants, the cloning of animals has many important commercial implications. It allows an individual animal with desirable features, such as a cow that produces a lot of milk, to be duplicated several times. But the process takes much longer than it does with plants.

Embryo transplants

A developing embryo is removed from a pregnant animal at an early stage, before the embryo's cells have had time to become specialised. The cells are separated, grown for a while in a laboratory and then transplanted into host mothers.

When the offspring are born, they are identical to each other and genetically related to the original pregnant animal. They are not related to their host mothers because they contain different genetic information.

Fusion cell cloning

Fusion cell cloning involves replacing the nucleus of an unfertilised egg with the nucleus from a different cell. The replacement nucleus can come from an embryo, but if it comes from an adult cell, it is called adult cell cloning.

'Dolly the sheep' was the first mammal to be cloned using adult cell cloning. She was born in the UK in 1996 and died in 2003. Here's how she was produced:

1. An egg cell was removed from the ovary ovary: One of the pair of organs (ovaries) in the female reproductive system where eggs (ova) and sex hormones are produced. of an adult female sheep, and its nucleus removed.

2. The nucleus from an udder cell of a donor sheep was inserted into the empty egg cell.

3. The fused cell then began to develop normally, using genetic information from the donated DNA [ DNA: The material inside the nucleus of cells, carrying genetic information. DNA stands for Deoxyribonucleic Acid. ] .

4. Before the dividing cells became specialised, the embryo was implanted into the uterus uterus: Also known as a womb. This is where the fertilised egg (ovum) develops. of a foster mother sheep. The result was Dolly, genetically identical to the donor sheep.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
People may want to clone an animal deliberately. Just like the cloning of plants, the cloning of animals has many important commercial implications. It allows an individual animal with desirable features, such as a cow that produces a lot of milk, to be duplicated several times.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Genetically engineered (GE) or genetically modified (GM) foods are produced from plants and animals that have had changes made to their DNA, which introduce or modify genetic traits.

What Is Genetic Engineering?

Genetic engineering (GE) is the direct manipulation of genetic material (or the genome) by artificial means to alter the hereditary traits of a cell or organism. The process can involve the transfer of specific traits, or genes, from one organism to another, including across diverse species. Other types of genetic engineering include removing or "switching off" certain genes, adding new genes or introducing desired mutations. An organism that is created or modified by genetic engineering is called a genetically modified organism.

Genetic engineering is different from traditional cross-breeding methods, which have been used for millennia. Traditional breeding more closely resembles accelerated evolution: breeders select organisms with a desired trait and then further select and breed whichever of its offspring most exhibits that trait. A breeder seeking a disease-resistant tomato, for example, will grow many tomatoes, but save the seeds of only the most disease-resistant plants. After several generations, offspring will be much more disease resistant than the progenitor. Traditional breeding is done between the same or closely related species and keeps strands of DNA and gene sequences intact - which can also mean that negative traits are reproduced alongside positive traits. Through genetic engineering, on the other hand, it is possible to isolate a single gene out of the whole genome and insert it into another organism.

Prevalence of GE Foods

The vast majority of these crops have been engineered to tolerate herbicides, allowing the plants to be sprayed with a particular chemical while the surrounding weeds die. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is the most common. Other crops are engineered to produce their own natural pesticide (primarily to produce Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, a naturally-occurring bacterium that is lethal to a number of agricultural pests), to increase drought resistance or improve nutritional content. The AquAdvantage Salmon, the first GE animal approved for human consumption, was engineered for faster growth, so that it reaches market weight more quickly than a natural salmon.

The FLAVR SAVR tomato, engineered to retain real tomato taste after shipping, was the first GE food approved for human consumption by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), in 1992, but has since been taken off the market. Most recently, the Impossible Burger - a meatless "burger" that uses a genetically engineered yeast to make its signature ingredient known as heme (which accounts for its meat-like flavor) - has been popping up on menus and causing controversy because it does not have FDA approval.

In the US, regulatory approvals for GMOs are a complicated patchwork of the Food and Drug Administration for pharmaceutical developments, the Environmental Protection Agency for insecticide uses and the USDA for food crops.

Why Has this Technology Become so Widespread?

Creating Seed and Chemical Dependence

On a larger scale, corporate interest plays an enormous role in the rapid growth of the technology. In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that scientists could patent a GE bacterium developed to break down oil spills. This ruling - stating that life itself could be patented and owned - gave companies an incentive to develop GMOs that could be useful and profitable.

The biotech industry claims that this chemical-based agricultural technology and biotechnology is necessary to feed a growing world population, increase crop yields and adapt to a changing climate. Herbicide-resistant crops do not require tilling, which leaves carbon in the ground and is better for soil structure, and proponents claim that they require less pesticide application than non-GE crops. However, this does not tell the whole story. These crops have actually driven up the use of herbicides like glyphosate, thereby increasing weed resistance and leading to the reintroduction of more potent herbicides. These false narratives are perpetuated by biotech and other agribusiness corporations, but also by land grant universities (which receive more funding from agrochemical companies than public dollars ), many agricultural scientists and farm organizations.

Problems with GMO Crops

The Environmental Impact of GMO Crops

One of the major ways that GMOs have impacted the environment, therefore, has been in a mass of side effects stemming from increased pesticide use, including compromised water quality, loss of biodiversity and threats to human health.

Do GMO Crops Increase Yields?

While biotech seeds are touted as the only way to feed a growing world population, the data on yields are mixed. It should also be noted that GE crops rely on the promise of reduced pest and weed pressure to boost yields; no successful GE technique has yet increased intrinsic yields (such as more kernels per corncob).

A 2008 literature review by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that herbicide-tolerant GE crops produced no yield gain, while Bt crops produced marginal increases. A 2013 New Zealand study found that average US GE corn yields were slightly lower than non-GE corn yields in western Europe in the same period. 2016 studies by both the National Academies of Sciences and the New York Times found no evidence that yield increases could be tied to GM technology.

GMO Seeds and Herbicides Are Expensive for Farmers

Corporate Control of GMO Seeds

Congress passed the Plant Patenting Act in 1930, as the rise of hybrid seeds made the business of selling seeds (which since time immemorial have been freely reproducible) profitable for the first time. The law applied to certain plants only, but in 1985, it was expanded to include not only all crops but also their cells, genes and DNA. Seed patents, along with laws on intellectual property, seed marketing and more, have exploded in years since.

GMO Labeling

Surveys consistently show that upwards of 90 percent of Americans support labeling of GMO foods, but unlike most developed countries - including 28 nations in the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia and China - the US had for many years no federal requirement for labels. States responded by taking the matter into their own hands. More than 70 labeling bills or ballot initiatives were introduced across 30 states, and labeling laws were passed in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine. In high-profile cases in Washington State and California, bills were defeated due to aggressive lobbying efforts by big food and biotechnology companies to the tune of $63.6 million in 2014.

In 2016, a federal law was passed, mandating labeling of GE ingredients in foods, which strikes down or pre-empts state labeling laws. The federal law's many critics dubbed it the Denying Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act, because not only does it override state efforts (which in some cases, as in Vermont, are stringent), but because many GMOs would be exempted from being labeled. Further, the federal law states that labeling can be in the form of a digital QR code or toll-free phone number rather than a textual label that clearly marks the product as containing GMOs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GMO Foods and Genetic Engineering | FoodPrint

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genetically engineered (GE) or genetically modified (GM) foods are produced from plants and animals that have had changes made to their DNA, which introduce or modify genetic traits. Genetic engineering (GE) is the direct manipulation of genetic material (or the genome) by artificial means to alter the hereditary traits of a cell or organism.

# data[].attributes.headline
Genetic Engineering and the GMO Industry: Corporate Hijacking of Food and Agriculture

# data[].attributes.subject
Genetic Engineering and the GMO Industry: Corporate Hijacking of Food and Agriculture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Genetic Engineering and the GMO Industry: Corporate Hijacking of Food and Agriculture

"I recognized my two selves: a crusading idealist and a cold, granitic believer in the law of the jungle" - Edgar Monsanto Queeny, Monsanto chairman, 1943-63, "The Spirit of Enterprise", 1934.
When rich companies with politically-connected lobbyists and seats on government-appointed bodies bend policies for their own ends, we are in serious trouble. It is then that our democratic institutions become hijacked and our choices, freedoms and rights are destroyed. Corporate interests have too often used their dubious 'science', lobbyists, political connections and presence within the heart of governments, in conjunction with their public relations machines, to subvert democratic machinery for their own benefit. Once their power has been established, anyone who questions them or who stands in their way can expect a very bumpy ride. The power and influence of the GMO sector
The revolving door between the private sector and government bodies has been well established. Over the past few years in Britain, the media has occasionally shed light on the cosy and highly questionable links between the armaments industry and top people in the Ministry of Defence. In the US, many senior figures from the Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) industry, especially Monsanto, have moved with ease to take up positions with the Food and Drug Administration. Author and researcher William F Engdah l writes about a similar influence in Europe, noting the links between the GMO sector within the European Food Safety Authority. He states that over half of the scientists involved in the GMO panel which positively reviewed the Monsanto's study for GMO maize in 2009, leading to its EU-wide authorisation, had links with the biotech industry.

"Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job" - Phil Angell, Monsanto's director of corporate communications. "Playing God in the Garden" New York Times Magazine,October 25, 1998.

When corporate interests are able to gain access to such positions of power, little wonder they have some heavy-duty tools at their disposal to (attempt to) fend off criticism by all means necessary.

Take the GMO sector, for instance. A well-worn tactic, certainly not exclusive to that sector, has been to slur and attack figures that have challenged the 'science' and claims of the industry. With threats of lawsuits and UK government pressure, some years ago top research scientist Dr Arpad Pusztai was effectively silenced over his research concerning the dangers of GM food. A campaign was set in motion to destroy his reputation. Similarly, a WikiLeaks cable highlighted how GMOs were being forced into European nations by the US ambassador to France who plotted with other US officials to create a 'retaliatory target list' of anyone who tried to regulate GMOs. Now that clearly indicates the power of the industry!
Champions of the poor: GM frontier technology
What the GMO sector fails to grasp is that the onus is on them to prove that their products are safe. And they have patently failed to do this.

No independent testing was done before Bush senior allowed GMOs onto the US market. The onus should not be on what Professor Shantu Shantharam, a leading figure in the GMO sector, calls the "anti-GM brigade" to prove it is safe (or unsafe). (Deccan Herald website).

Now that scientists such as Professor Seralini at the University of Caen in France are in a sense playing catch-up by testing previously independently untested GMOs, he is accused of "lies" and "deceit." In fact, Professor Shantharam claims that:

"You people (the 'anti-GM brigade') have no shame. You are all disgusting enemies of the poor farmers around the world by trying to block a safe product of a frontier technology..."

Little mention there of the 250,000 poor farmers who took their own lives in the Indian cotton belt because they became indebted due to this "frontier technology" not delivering the results that the GMO industry has said it would. It is easy to thus conclude that if there is a 'disgusting enemy' it is the profiteering corporate-controlled terminator seed technology of the GMO industry that has resulted in mass suicides and the destruction of traditional farmer-controlled agricultural practices developed over thousands of years.

But this is symptomatic of the industry: it says a product is safe, therefore it is. We are expected to take its claims at face value, not least because the industry has gained an air of pseudo respectability: the US FDA sanctions such products. I use the word 'pseudo' because the revolving door between top figures at Monsanto and positions at the FDA makes it difficult to see where the line between the two is actually drawn. People are rightly suspicious of the links between the FDA and GMO industry in the USand the links between it and the regulatory body within the EU.
The impact of the corporate hijacking of food and agriculture
The corporations currently forwarding their GM agenda represent the so-called "Green Revolution's" second coming. Agriculture has changed more over the last two generations than it did in the previous 12,000 years. Environmentalist Vandana Shiva notes that, after 1945, chemical manufacturers who had been involved in the weapons industry turned their attention to applying their chemical know-how to farming. As a result 'dwarf seeds' were purposively created to specifically respond to their chemicals. Over the coming years, agriculture became transformed into a chemical-dependent industry that has destroyed biodiversity. What we are left with is a monoculture, which according to Shiva reflects a monoculture of thinking. In effect, modern agriculture is part of the paradigm of control based on mass standardization and a dependency on corporate products: corporate monoculture.

The implications have been vast. Chemical-industrial agriculture has proved extremely lucrative for the oil and chemicals industry and has served to maintain and promote Western hegemony, not least via 'structural adjustment' and the consequent uprooting of traditional farming practices in favour of export-oriented policies, dam building to cater for what became a highly water intensive industry, loans, indebtedness, etc.

Apart from tying poorer countries into an unequal system of global trade and reinforcing global inequalities, the corporate hijacking of food and agriculture has had many other implications, not least where health is concerned.

Dr Meryl Hammond, founder of the Campaign for Alternatives to Pesticides, told a Canadian parliamentary committee in 2009 that a raft of studies published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals point to strong associations between chemical pesticides and serious health consequences, including endocrine disruption and fertility problems, birth defects, brain tumours and brain cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, childhood leukemia, cancer clusters in communities, gastric or stomach cancer, learning disabilities, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and canine malignant lymphoma.

Then there is Shiv Chopra, a top food advisor to the Canadian government. He exposed how all kinds of food products that were known to be dangerous were passed by the regulatory authority and put on the market there due to the power of the food industry.

Given the amount of hormones, antibiotics, food additives, preservatives and colourings, artificial sweeteners, aluminium, sulphur, flavour enhancers and heavy metals being put into what we eat, is it any wonder that we are becoming sick? Severe anemia, permanent brain damage, Alzheimer's, dementia, neurological disorders, reproductive problems, diminished intelligence, impaired immune system, behavioural disorders, cancers, hyperactivity and learning disability are just some of the diseases linked to our food.

Of course, just like cigarettes and the tobacco industry before, trying to 'prove' the glaringly obvious link will take decades as deceit is passed off as 'science' or becomes institutionalized due to the hijacking of government bodies by the corporations involved in food production.

In 'GMOs Ticking Time Bomb', Rima E Laibow, Medical Director of Natural Solutions Foundation, argues that every single independent study conducted on the impact of GMOs shows they damage organs and cause infertility, immune system failure, holes in the GI tract and multiple system failure when eaten. She argues that they cause a variety of changes, some of which we can't even guess at as new proteins are coded due to altered DNA - some which we've never seen before. Laiblow concludes we are playing with genetic fire. Yet, they are on the commercial market in the US and elsewhere.
We are standing in the way of progress!
Science has become a political football. Anyone who questions the safety of GMOs is "clueless" and indulges in "scare mongering" and "falsehoods."In fact, Shatharam says about such people that all they know "is to stop progress and US agriculture is doing fine and thanks to the absence of scientists like Seralini and Pushpa Bhargava. These two so called scientific jokers will not allowed set foot in the real world of science in North America. They have a hey day in countries like India because of ignoramuses."

He talks of progress. What he means is the progress of his industry and the raping and contamination of the natural environment for profit.

But can we expect much better from an industry that has a record of smearing and attempting to ruin people who criticise it? Are those of us who question the political links of the GMO industry and the nature of its products ready to take lessons on ethics and high-minded notions of 'human progress' from anyone involved with it?

This is an industry that has been responsible for the best part of 250,000 farmer deaths in India, an industry that has contaminated crops and bullied farmers with lawsuits in North America, an industry whose companies have been charged with and most often found guilty of contaminating the environment and seriously damaging health with PCBs and dioxins, an industry complicit in concealing the deadly impact of GM corn on animals, an industry where bribery seems to be second nature (eg Monsanto in Indonesia), an industry associated with human rights violations in Brazil and an industry that will not label its foods in the US. And that is a much shortened list.

"The hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded [with GMOs] that there's nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender" - Don Westfall, biotech industry consultant and vice-president of Promar International, in the Toronto Star,January 9 2001.

As Vandana Shiva has noted, the 2005 US-India nuclear deal (allowing India to develop its nuclear sector despite it not being a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and pushed through with a cash for votes tactic in the Indian parliament!) was linked to the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture, which was aimed at widening access to India's agricultural and retail sectors. This initiative was drawn up with the full and direct participation of representatives from various companies, including Monsanto, Cargill and Walmart.

When the most powerful country comes knocking at your door seeking to gain access to your market, there's good chance that once its corporate-backed jackboot is in, you won't be able to get it out. In India, the pressure is building to release GM food onto the market.

Writer Marie-Monique Robin has famously stated that whoever controls the food business controls the world. While the GMO sector hides behind notions of democracy, human progress and champions of the poor, scratch beneath the surface and the ugly face of corporate self-interest lurks for all to see.

"What you are seeing is not just a consolidation of seed companies, it's really a consolidation of the entire food chain" - Robert Fraley, co-president of Monsanto's agricultural sector 1996, in the Farm Journal. Quoted in:FlintJ. (1998) Agricultural industry giants moving towards genetic monopolism. Telepolis, Heise.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetic Engineering and the GMO Industry: Corporate Hijacking of Food and Agriculture - Global Research

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Anyone who questions the safety of GMOs is said to be indulging in "scare mongering". What the GMO sector fails to grasp is that the onus is on them to prove that their products are safe. They have patently failed to do this.

# data[].attributes.headline
Genetic engineering of animals: Ethical issues, including welfare concerns

# data[].attributes.subject
Genetic engineering of animals: Ethical issues, including welfare concerns

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetic engineering of animals: Ethical issues, including welfare concerns

# data[].attributes.headline
Genetically Engineered Animals: Frequently Asked Questions

# data[].attributes.subject
Genetically Engineered Animals: Frequently Asked Questions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Genetic engineering is the direct manipulation of an organism's genes. Genetic engineering is different from traditional breeding, where the organism's genes are manipulated indirectly. Thanks to this technology, scientists can precisely transfer beneficial genes from one animal species to another.
What animals are being genetically engineered?
In research studies, animals that have been safely genetically engineered (GE) include cattle, pigs, chickens, goats, sheep, dogs, cats, fish, rats, and mice.
Why are animals being genetically engineered?
As scientists have sequenced the genomes of domestic animals, more is known about genes and the traits that they control. By finding genes that control beneficial traits, we are able to precisely introduce those genes into another animal's genome, so the GE animal will possess that trait.

One example is the Enviro-Pig™. Through genetic engineering, this animal emits 30 to 60 percent less phosphorus than traditional pigs fed the same conventional diet. This lessens livestock's impact in the environment.
Is a GE animal an animal clone?
No. A GE animal has a deliberate modification made to its genome. In genetic engineering, scientists can precisely transfer a beneficial gene (for disease resistance, for example) from one animal species to another.

Cloning technology is a type of breeding technology to produce an exact genetic copy of an animal - usually a high quality animal with desirable breeding traits.

Benefits of Genetic Engineering
What are the benefits of genetic engineering?
Genetic engineering of animals offers solutions for improving public health and enhancing quality of life. The benefits include advancing human health, enhancing food production, reducing environmental impact, optimizing animal health and welfare and production of cutting edge industrial applications.
What is the most important application of genetic engineering -- human health or food applications?
Genetic engineering provides significant opportunity to improve human health and the foods we eat. It follows that the regulatory process used by the federal government should equally apply to all possible applications, particularly agricultural animals, which by their nature, are food animals.
What are the primary issues holding up realization of these benefits?
The primary issue holding up the realization of these benefits has been the lack of a U.S. federal regulatory process. However, in January 2009, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clarified the regulatory process for GE animals. Then on February 6, 2009, the FDA approved the first product from a GE animal in the United States. Now new approvals from the FDA of applications that are in the pipeline are needed. The lengthy delay in reaching this point has contributed to a lack of investor confidence as well as a decline in the availability of government research funding. The good news is that because of the published federal regulatory process the industry is now on a positive pathway to provide consumer benefits from new approved products.

General Genetic Engineering Questions:
How many GE animals exist currently?
The numbers of GE animals in research facilities in the U.S. are unknown to BIO, but researchers/producers are required by law to keep records regarding their disposition.
Are GE animals in the food supply?
No. To date, FDA has not permitted GE animals to be placed into the human food supply.
Are GE animals tracked or labeled?
Yes. As a requirement of the regulatory review process, all GE animals are identified and tracked throughout the research and development (R&D) process. Since no GE animals or products of GE animals have been approved for commercialization, this is only being done at the R&D stage at this time.

If GE animals or the products of GE animals have been approved and deemed as safe as conventional animals by the government's arduous review and approval process, then it should not be necessary to differentiate them. Some companies, however, may choose to voluntarily implement labeling programs for specific products for marketing and branding purposes.

BIO supports the labeling policies of FDA and USDA, which state that the labeling of foods is not required unless there has been a significant change in the nutritional components (or an anti-nutritional component) or other chemical characteristic compared to its conventional counterpart. BIO supports voluntary labeling of products.
Will industry propose a supply chain management program for GE animals similar to that developed to track animal clones?
No. Since approved GE animals will be as safe as any animal and no different, there will be no safety or health reason for a supply chain management program.

Industry is exploring other aspects for such a program, such as meeting marketing claims and identity preservation to track a branded product.
How does genetic engineering affect animal welfare?
Genetic engineering has the potential to greatly improve the health and welfare of agricultural animals. GE animals may be disease resistant, parasite resistant, and withstand stress. The beneficial trait can likely improve their well being because they will be more productive. Such animals may need fewer veterinary interventions, use of special feed supplements, or other growth stimulants.

BIO supports animal welfare as a high priority in the conduct of research and development with genetically engineered animals. Research institutions, biotech companies and producer groups engaged in the growing field of animal biotechnology place animal well-being as a top priority. The humane care and use of animals in genomics, cloning and genetic engineering is guided by rigorous regulatory review by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in accordance to the Animal Welfare Act. In many cases, third party and international organizations have established animal welfare guidelines for use by companies engaging in the genetic engineering of animals.

Genetic Engineering Regulatory Process
Why regulate GE animal and their products?
It is important that the technology is approved as safe for humans, animals and the environment.

Industry recognizes that any new technology can create doubt and mistrust in some sectors. To forestall that doubt and to, in part, ensure consumer acceptance, strong regulation based upon an internationally recognized approval process will lead to more efficient commercialization of GE animals, processes and products.

The federal government set the precedent for science-based oversight of biotechnology through the development of its GE plant regulatory framework.
Are all GE animals subject to regulation by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)?
Yes. The FDA has stated in Guidance 187 that any animal containing an rDNA construct intended to alter its structure or function is subject to regulation by FDA prior to commercialization. However, based on risk, there are some GE animals for which the FDA may not require a formal approval. In general, these include laboratory animals used for research. On a case-by-case basis, the FDA may consider exercising enforcement discretion for GE animals of very low risk, such as it did for an aquarium fish genetically engineered to express fluorescence (tradenamed "GloFish"). The FDA has stated that it does not anticipate exercising enforcement discretion for any GE animal of a species traditionally consumed as food, and expects to require approval of all GE animals intended to go into the human food supply.
How many GE animals or their products are approved?
There is only one approved product in the world from a GE animal. That product is called ATryn®, a human pharmaceutical developed to prevent blood clots. This drug is produced in the milk of GE goats. It was first approved by the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA) of the European Commission in August 2006. It was also approved in the United States by the FDA in February 2009. In addition, as noted above, a type of aquarium fish that expresses fluorescence is marketed under regulatory discretion.
What will be the next approved product in the United States?
BIO does not know what the next approved product will be in the United States. However two companies discuss their regulatory progress publicly. AquaBounty Technologies, a BIO member, has publicly announced its application with the FDA to seek approval for a rapid-growth salmon, the AquAdvantage™ salmon. The fish grows at two times the rate of conventional salmon to the same mature weight while producing safe and healthful salmon for human consumption, and reducing environmental impact.

In addition, the Enviropig™, whose developer, the University of Guelph is a BIO member, has publicly announced its application with the FDA. The Enviropig™ produces dramatically lower levels of phosphorus pollution than traditional pigs, and has a decreased impact on the environment.
The FDA finalized its regulatory guidance document in January 2009. What is the purpose of the guidance and what did the FDA say?
The purpose of the FDA Guidance for Industry 187 (the FDA Guidance) is to clarify the FDA regulatory framework for GE animals based on the New Animal Drug process of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

The FDA laid out a process for the science-based review of applications and how they would lead to an approval. The proposed framework is similar to international guidelines published by the Codex Alimentarius Commission on July 4, 2008.
Why is the Guidance important?
The FDA Guidance is the first policy statement published by the U.S. government describing how it regulates GE animals and their products. This system will ensure the products made available through this science will go through a thorough and transparent application process before being approved for the marketplace.
Why is the New Animal Drug (NAD) framework the regulatory process supported by the biotechnology industry, food chain, producer groups, patient groups and consumer groups?
FDA's regulatory pathway, the NAD approval process, provides the following key elements of regulation for these animals:

The NAD pathway criteria can be applied to all genetically engineered animals equitably, including those agricultural animals developed for biomedical purposes and not for food.

The NAD pathway has been used by FDA for the last decade, after scientific, regulatory, and legal experts devised this consensus-based framework to ensure coordination among all centers within FDA.

It is a mandatory process that leads to a formal FDA 'approval.' Such formal recognition by the agency is necessary for both domestic and international government and consumer acceptance of the technology, leading to successful commercialization of the technology and products.

This rigorous, science-based approval process has been demonstrated to be critical to consumer acceptance of the technology and the products that will result.

The NAD process is consistent with key international guidelines for food safety risk assessment for GE animals that was adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission on July 4, 2008.
Does the FDA Guidance affect international trade?
International trade has not been affected by release of the FDA Guidance. In fact, trading partners have active research programs in genetic engineering of animals.

On July 4, 2008, the 176 member countries of the Codex Alimentarius Commission unanimously adopted international guidelines for the conduct of food safety risk assessment for genetically engineered animals.

The FDA Guidance describes a framework similar to the Codex-approved guideline for evaluating food safety risk assessment of GE animals. The international guideline was the end product of work of a task force led by Japan and Australia, which expedited the finished document due to unprecedented support from countries around the world.
What is BIO's Guidance for Genetically Engineered Animal Stewardship?
The mission of BIO's Stewardship Initiative is to institute and promote guidelines for the development and use of GE animals, which promote good animal welfare, enhance industry credibility, and comply with current regulatory requirements.

BIO's Guidance for Genetically Engineered Animal Stewardship provides information for the development and implementation of stewardship programs for product developers in industry and academia that plan to engage in research, development and commercialization of GE animals.

The Guidance is being developed as a series of educational modules that can be adapted to the specific activities pertinent to the user's own operations. The first module on Research and Development has been completed and publicly released.

Additional modules that are planned for inclusion in the Guidance include Commercialization, Post-Market Monitoring, and Discontinuation - Product Recall.

For more information:

Visit FDA's GE Animals web resource page at http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEn...

BIO commissioned a scientific report entitled "Genetically Engineered Animals and Public Helath: Compelling Benefits for Helath Care, Nutrition, the Environment and Animal Weflare" by Dr. Scott Gottlieb and Dr. Matthew Wheeler. It is posted at http://www.bio.org/sites/default/files/2011_ge%20animal_benefits_report.pdf

Visit AquaBounty's press room for more information on the AquAdvantage™ salmon online at http://www.aquabounty.com/PressRoom/

More information on the Enviropig™ is located on the University of Guelph website at http://www.uoguelph.ca/enviropig/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetically Engineered Animals: Frequently Asked Questions - BIO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is genetic engineering? Genetic engineering is the direct manipulation of an organism's genes. Genetic engineering is different from traditional breeding, where the organism's genes are manipulated indirectly. Thanks to this technology, scientists can precisely transfer beneficial genes from one animal species to another. What animals are being genetically engineered?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Agricultural biotechnology has created many thousands of well-paying jobs requiring advanced education and skills since from its R&D beginning back in the 1970s. Thousands of Syngenta jobs are related to plant biotechnology-in R&D, regulatory, seed production, sales and more. In addition, the direct and indirect economic impact from the plant biotech industry as a whole is many times greater than that which directly involves the seed companies.

For context, consider that in 2013 a record 18 million farmers grew biotech crops. Remarkably over 90 percent, or more than 16.5 million, were small resource-poor farmers in developing countries. From 1996 to 2012, biotech crops increased crop production valued at US $116.9 billion and helped alleviate poverty for more than 16.5 million small farmers and their families totaling about 65 million people, who are some of the poorest people in the world.

A good example of job creation is the recent and ongoing expansion at RTP.

Syngenta currently employs 1,130 in North Carolina and have invested $94 million to expand its Syngenta Innovation Center, adding 200,000 square feet in laboratory and office space. The expansion in Research Triangle Park will create 150 new research and development jobs ranging from plant scientists to information technology specialists by 2018.

Research at the site will focus on traits that can help crops better tolerate climate variability, combat plant stresses such as drought, and enhance productivity and plant performance. In addition to the current focus on corn, soybean, and sugar cane, research will be expanded to support other crops such as cereals, rice and vegetables.

- Currently Syngenta are actively hiring for 55 positions within the R&D and Biotechnology arena

- In 2013 Syngenta filled 416 positions including the following within R&D/Biotechnology:

74 Biological Assessment

16 Biotechnology

8 Product Safety

7 R&D Crops

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does the GMO industry create jobs in agriculture? | GMO Answers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Agricultural biotechnology has created many thousands of well-paying jobs requiring advanced education and skills since from its R&D beginning back in the 1970s. Thousands of Syngenta jobs are related to plant biotechnology-in R&D, regulatory, seed production, sales and more.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Richard Green * August 28, 2014

Originally posted on SkeptiForum.

When you search online for "GMOs" (Genetically Modified Organisms) the results that come up speak to GM crops, but GMOs are more than just plants. The technology of genetic modification or genetic engineering was first developed in the early 1970s, commercialized in pharmaceutical applications in the early 1980s, and then agricultural applications in the early 1990s.

The technology has been around for 40 years. It is hardly new. Perhaps if you compare it to the internal combustion engine it is new, but compared to something as recent and ubiquitous as flat screen HDTVs, DVRs, and Wi-Fi-friendly touch screen devices like iPhones and Tablets, it is a time tested technology.

In medicine, genetic engineering (GE) is used to make biopharmaceutical drugs. Various organisms are engineered for use as factories to produce the drug product. Bacteria are the preferred option, as they are the easiest to grow and scale-up for production, but depending on the complexity of the drug's molecular structure, other organisms such as yeasts, mammalian cells, etc., can also be used to express the drug product. The first GE drug approved for use was insulin. By the year 2000, there were over 100 GE drugs on the market. Currently, people's lives are changed every day by drugs like Remicade, Epo, Avastin, and Neulasta.

With the notable exception of Golden Rice, the agricultural applications for GE have been predominantly directed at the practical concerns of farming, such as controlling destructive insects and weeds. Herbicide resistant and insect resistant crops have given farmers more choices.

While the techniques used to modify the organisms are similar, the intent couldn't be more different. Pharmaceutical companies are looking to manufacture drugs that are intended to have deliberate effects on the biochemistry of their targets. Agricultural companies are adding traits that will help farmers or benefit consumers (e.g. non-browning apple), without affecting the safety of the crop. In agriculture, the goal is to have no greater effect on our health and metabolism than the crop's non-GE variety. Again Golden Rice is the exception, as it is designed to have a higher nutritional content than its non-GE counterpart.

GE drugs and crops do have some commonalities. Both are the result of very long and careful screening processes to find the right molecules/proteins and the genes that code for them. For a drug product, the candidates are molecules with the potential to treat or cure a disease or condition. The intent in agriculture is to find proteins/molecules that will provide a useful trait to a plant and does not cause harm to people or the environment. The next step is to take the candidate genes and insert them in the appropriate host organism/crop species, and after 40 years of refinement this is now the most routine part of the process. Then begins the painstaking operation of selecting the organism or plant that is expressing exactly what you want the way you want it. Which leads to the last bit GE crops and drugs have in common; both go through a multi-year approval process.

The approval process for drug products is to ensure that the drug does what it is designed to do with minimal side effects. Because these compounds are designed to have such profound biological impacts, they have a more in depth approval process. They must not only be shown to be safe, but also to be effective for the condition they are targeted to treat.

The approval process for agriculture is only concerned with safety and substantive equivalence. The process confirms that the crop is as safe to eat or use as its non-GE counterpart, and that it is not an unintended risk to the environment. Currently only a few genetic changes are made to a crop which ultimately results in the expression of well understood proteins. That makes checking for known allergens and digestibility a relatively straightforward process. These safeguards are doing their job, as the scientific consensus is quite clear, the currently approved GE crops pose no greater health or environmental concerns than their non-GE counterparts.

While genetic engineering is used in both agriculture and medicine, it is far more controversial in agriculture. Here is an explanation that helped shape my point of view: intellectually, I can grasp that adding or silencing a few well-characterized genes out of thousands is a drop in the genome bucket, but for me it makes it a bit more real to think of it in terms of people. Just look at the variety among us. Variations between our thousands of genes are why we are all different from each other, but even with those differences, we are all human. It is similar with plants. Changing one, or as we get better, a few genes, in the plant genome is barely a blip compared to the normal diversity between individuals. To paraphrase what a wise man once said, GE corn is just corn.

It is my hope that this review of the parallels between GMOs in medicine and agriculture has added some perspective to the ongoing discussion surrounding the uses of genetic engineering.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Originally posted on SkeptiForum.When you search online for "GMOs" (Genetically Modified Organisms) the results that come up speak to GM crops, but GMOs are more than just plants. The technology of genetic modification or genetic engineering was first developed in the early 1970s, commercialized in pharmaceutical applications in the early 1980s, and then agricultural applications in the early 1990s.

# data[].attributes.body
Genetically modifying tobacco has created incredible medical discoveries; what else remains to be found?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Genetically engineered tobacco plants can produce human skin proteins to rapidly heal burns. [Image credit: Wikimedia user 1Veerjte]

Turns out tobacco may actually be a lifesaver. Despite genetically modified organisms' bad press, scientists are continuing to practice the technique with a plant that may surprise you. Researchers are genetically modifying tobacco to make human collagen - a protein needed to build our skin, tendons, and connective tissue - as well as vaccines and drugs for devastating diseases such as rabies and Ebola.

These incredible discoveries, which have the potential to save more than tens of thousands of lives are the result of deliberate tweaks to an organism's genome, and raise the question: Are all GMOs bad?

Researchers at Mapp Biopharmaceutical created Zmapp, an experimental drug that received positive- if still tentative-results for helping victims of the ongoing West African Ebola outbreak, by inserting Ebola proteins into a plant virus. The scientists then infected tobacco plants with the virus, triggering an immune response. The plants began to pump out antibodies, proteins that grab and neutralize harmful bacteria and viruses, which the researchers collected to treat patients suffering from Ebola. While Zmapp's efficacy still needs more testing, the drug provides proof of concept that genetically modified tobacco plants can provide huge medical benefits.

Using a similar infect-and-collect method, scientists have engineered tobacco plants to make treatments for other devastating diseases, vaccines for rabies and hepatitis, as well as human collagen, which could be used in wound care to rebuild tattered flesh.

Questions remain about GMOs leading to monocultures, excess pesticide use, or bad business ethics, but the discoveries make it clear that these sophisticated genetic manipulations have the potential to improve our health.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GMO- A Great Medical Opportunity | Scienceline

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Genetically engineered tobacco plants can produce human skin proteins to rapidly heal burns. [Image credit: Wikimedia user 1Veerjte] Turns out tobacco may actually be a lifesaver. Despite genetically modified organisms' bad press, scientists are continuing to practice the technique with a plant that may surprise you.

# data[].attributes.headline
12 Disadvantages and Advantages of Human Cloning

# data[].attributes.subject
12 Disadvantages and Advantages of Human Cloning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Human cloning is possibly one of the most heated and relevant ethical debates of our time. Cloning is the process of taking genetic material from one organism, and creating an identical copy of it by growing it artificially. This has been researched, studied, and successfully done with the use of animals, many people believe the next step is humans. The entire world would be changed if we began to clone humans, in some ways for the better, but in others it would be much worse. When talking about human lives, lines must be drawn, but where? In order to form a valid and educated opinion on human cloning it is very important to understand the argument from both sides.

The Advantages of Human Cloning

1. Biological Children To Infertile Couples
Couples who are not able to naturally conceive a child would be able to clone themselves in order to have a biological child. This would also open the possibility for gay or lesbian couples to have a child that contains both parents DNA and genes.

2. Medical Advancement Boom
Once the process of cloning humans is perfected and becomes a common practice, many other worlds of medical research would be expanded. This would result in improved medicines and even possibly cures for terminal and deadly diseases.

3. Compensating A Loss
Parents who have lost a child could clone them and have their child back. This would also go for someone who lost a spouse or other family member. This breaches into the more controversial side of human cloning, but is an advantage none the less.

4. Organ Harvesting
Anyone who is in need of an organ transplant is placed on an excruciatingly long donor list. Many of these people pass on from their illness before ever receiving a transplant. With human cloning, organs could be cloned from the person's tissue and used as a transplant. This would effectively eliminate the organ transplant waiting list.

5. The Elimination of Birth Defects
Any severe birth defect that is detected in the womb could be reversed using human cloning. They would simply take the tissue of the child and create a clone. After they have done this they could manipulate the embryos genes to remove the birth defect and give them a better possibility of living a long and fulfilling life.

6. Prolonged Life
If a person is aging, they could have their young cell cloned in order to preserve their youth. This would be done with the technology of human cloning, and could prolong the average life span of a human being dramatically.

7. Bring Back Great Minds
Legendary, genius, and influential people could be brought back using human cloning. This means that we could possibly create a dozen Einsteins or Abraham Lincolns to come and help solve world problems.

The Disadvantages of Human Cloning

1. Currently Low Success Rates
With the current information that we have on the process of cloning, there seems to be very limited success. Out of all of the animal testing on cloning that has been conducting, only about 3 percent have been successful. This is a very scary statistic, especially when you're talking about using human lives.

2. Development of New Illnesses
When you are creating entirely new forms of genes, you run the risk of also developing new illnesses and diseases. The extent and effects of these could be devastating.

3. Devalues Human Lives
The belief that a person only has one life to live has been ingrained into people since the beginning of humanity. Being able to simply clone some one who has passed devalues the life that they have.

4. Divisions In Society
People who are cloned would likely be viewed as lesser citizens than those who where conceived naturally. This would bring an entirely new breed of racism and prejudice to the world that could cause devastating social divides. Clones would feel as though they are not as much of a human as other people.

5. Moral and Ethical Problems
Religion and cultural problems have played the largest part in the argument against human cloning. Many people believe that cloning a human being is "playing God" and should not be done under any circumstance.

Want to learn how to become a professional blogger and never have to get a job? Listen to the award winning podcast The Blog Millionaire to find out how. Go here to subscribe for free and download the episodes straight to your phone, tablet, or computer.

Important Facts About Human Cloning

A human clone would begin it's life as an infant, no matter how old the donor.

Great Britain is the only country that cloning can be done, but for medical purposes only.

All other countries have bans on the practice of human cloning of any kind.

The company CLONAID, claims to have successfully cloned humans.

The first mammal to ever be successfully cloned was Dolly the sheep in 1996.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
12 Disadvantages and Advantages of Human Cloning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Human cloning is possibly one of the most heated and relevant ethical debates of our time. Cloning is the process of taking genetic material from one organism, and creating an identical copy of it by growing it artificially. This has been researched, studied, and successfully done with the use of animals, many people believe the next step is humans.

# data[].attributes.headline
Genetically Modified Bacteria Produce 50 Percent More Fuel

# data[].attributes.subject
Genetically Modified Bacteria Produce 50 Percent More Fuel

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Researchers at UCLA have opened a path to cheaper and cleaner biofuels by using genetic engineering to fundamentally change how certain organisms process sugar.

Ethanol boosters: The bacteria in this petri dish have been genetically modified to increase the amount of biofuel that can be made from sugar.

Conventional biofuels are either too expensive to compete with fossil fuels or they release so much carbon dioxide that they're hardly worth making-or both.

The UCLA advance, which increases the amount of biofuel that can be made from sugar by 50 percent, could make it cheaper to produce biofuels from a variety of sources, especially biomass such as wood chips and grass. The U.S. biofuels industry is in desperate need of such advances-even though Congress has mandated that a certain amount of biofuel from biomass be blended with gasoline, high costs and other factors have limited production, leading the EPA to repeatedly waive the requirement.

The UCLA work is a "promising advance in biofuels technology," says Wade Robey, chief technology officer at the ethanol producer POET. He says it shows the potential of advanced genetic engineering "to drastically reduce both greenhouse gas emissions and the amount of corn or biomass used to produce a gallon of biofuel."

In conventional biofuels production, sugar derived from sources such as corn and biomass is fed to yeast, which ferments it to produce ethanol. But the fermentation process wastes a third of the carbon atoms that make up sugar; rather than being used to make ethanol, the carbon is released in the form of carbon dioxide.

The UCLA researchers cobbled together genes from a variety of organisms to create an alternate way to process sugar that doesn't emit any carbon dioxide, and uses all of the carbon in sugar to make biofuel. They created genetically modified E. coli bacteria to demonstrate the process, but they say the same genetic pathway could be incorporated into other organisms, including yeast.

"Anytime you use fermentation, you lose one-third of the carbon to carbon dioxide. We can retain that carbon, reduce the carbon footprint of ethanol production, and make more money," says James Liao, professor of chemical and biomolecular engineering at UCLA.

In order to use all of the carbon in sugar, it's necessary to add hydrogen to the process. The source of that hydrogen and its cost relative to the cost of sugar determine both the total carbon emissions and the cost savings. Using hydrogen from natural gas is the cheapest option. But getting hydrogen from natural gas also releases carbon dioxide, offsetting some of the carbon dioxide savings of the new process. In this case, emissions from the production of ethanol would be reduced by about 50 percent. Using hydrogen made by splitting water with solar power would eliminate all of the carbon dioxide emitted during fermentation, but the cost would likely be too high for the process to be economical.

Since the new approach produces more ethanol from sugar, less land would be needed to produce corn or biomass. And that would reduce carbon dioxide emissions involved in farming (such as from clearing land and using diesel to power farm equipment).

The biggest cost savings will be for cellulosic ethanol derived from biomass. Sugar from cellulosic sources is much more expensive than sugar from corn or sugarcane, so there are greater benefits to getting more biofuel out of that sugar.

Researchers still need to demonstrate that it's possible to grow organisms with the genetic changes at a large enough scale to produce commercial biofuels.

Kevin Bullis Senior Editor, Materials

My reporting as ... MIT Technology Review's senior editor for materials has taken me, among other places, to the oil-rich deserts of the Middle East and to China, where mountains are being carved away to build the looming cities. More

Growing up, I lived for a time in the Philippines, where I knew people who lit their tiny homes with single lantern batteries or struggled to breathe through the dense diesel fumes of Manila, so I have a feel for the pressing need around the world for both cheap energy and clean energy.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetic Engineering Boosts Ethanol Production by 50 Percent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Researchers at UCLA have opened a path to cheaper and cleaner biofuels by using genetic engineering to fundamentally change how certain organisms process sugar. Conventional biofuels are either too expensive to compete with fossil fuels or they release so much carbon dioxide that they're hardly worth making-or both.

# data[].attributes.headline
Report: First Genetically Altered Babies

# data[].attributes.subject
Report: First Genetically Altered Babies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Researchers in New Jersey claim that 30 human babies might have been born with genes from three people: their mother, their father - and a third person, whose genes were added in the laboratory.

The researchers call their experiment "the first case of human ... genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children."

The team at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St. Barnabas in West Orange, N.J. was trying to help infertile women become pregnant.

In each of the 30 cases, something in the mother's egg had prevented her from conceiving naturally. So St. Barnabas researchers extracted material from cells donated by a third woman.

This additional material from the donor's cell somehow allowed the egg to become fertile.

Their first success of having a child born with this cellular transfer technique was published in a medical journal in 1997. But an analysis of the genetic consequences of the method in two babies was only reported in March, in the journal Human Reproduction. DNA tests on two of them show they have a small number of genes that are not from their parents.

The genetic status of the other 28 babies is unknown.

The different genes come from DNA contained in mitochondria - little organs inside cells that create the energy to do life's work. They contain DNA - only about 0.03 percent of the total DNA - so they can make copies of themselves when cells divide. The other 99.97 percent of a cell's DNA comes from the nucleus and the 23 pairs of chromosomes.

A number of scientists question the ethics of the experiment. For the first time, they say, it has been confirmed that children have been born with genetic alterations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Report: First Genetically Altered Babies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Researchers in New Jersey claim that 30 human babies might have been born with genes from three people: their mother, their father - and a third person, whose genes were added in the laboratory. The researchers call their experiment "the first case of human ... genetic modification resulting in...

# data[].attributes.headline
Article: I know I was born to save Charlie instead of being born just for me: Incredible story of the saviour sibling who sparked an ethical furore

# data[].attributes.subject
Article: I know I was born to save Charlie instead of being born just for me: Incredible story of the saviour sibling who sparked an ethical furore

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I know I was born to save Charlie instead of being born just for me: Incredible story of the saviour sibling who sparked an ethical furore

Fifteen minutes after the chemotherapy treatment began, Charlie Whitaker, not yet five, started to vomit.

His temperature rocketed and he shivered uncontrollably. He complained of excruciating stomach cramps and pain in his eyes, and suffered continual diarrhoea.

For his parents, Jayson and Michelle, helplessly watching their child suffer in the isolation wing of Sheffield Children's Hospital, it was both harrowing and terrifying.

The chief consultant had compared giving chemotherapy to one so young with 'pouring poison on a rose garden'.

But the couple had elected, after long and tortured deliberation, for Charlie to have the potentially fatal treatment in an attempt to cure him of a debilitating and dangerous genetic condition.

Now they questioned whether they had made the right decision. 'Charlie started to scream and said he wanted to come home,' Michelle remembers.

'It was agonising to watch him and every time I left his room I couldn't hold back my tears.

'When I saw how desperately ill he was from the chemo, I felt I had made the wrong decision and that first day asked the doctors to stop. They told me it was too late but that we were doing the right thing. But I kept asking myself, "Have we done the right thing?" At that stage I had no answer.'

It was a question Michelle was to ask herself time and time again over the next ten days of treatment.

The previous year, 2003, the Whitakers had found themselves at the centre of controversy when it was revealed Michelle had given birth to one of Britain's first genetic 'designer' babies, Jamie, whose stem cells might cure Charlie of his rare form of anaemia.

Jamie was born after being genetically matched, while still an IVF embryo, to his brother. And just last week, the Whitakers were in the news again when doctors declared Charlie cured.

Talking now, in the spotless kitchen of their large home near Chesterfield, Derbyshire, they admit they could never have imagined being the centre of so much media attention when they met as a young couple in 1989 in a pub in Oxford.

Michelle, 39, a former medical secretary and now a full-time mother, and Jayson, 40, the managing director of a utility company, had married seven years later. They agreed they wanted a family of five so Michelle was thrilled when she became pregnant with Charlie.

However, she started to worry about him soon after the birth. 'He barely ate, looked so grey and was very floppy,' she says. 'The doctor told me I was being an over-anxious first-time mum.

'But I was so certain something was wrong that when he was 12 weeks old I took him to my office Christmas party at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford - and asked one of the specialists to have a look at him.'

Charlie was admitted to the hospital immediately and tests showed that his haemoglobin, responsible for transporting oxygen around the body, was around one third the level it should have been.

'His vital organs were shutting down and he could have died in his sleep at any time,' says Michelle.

Diamond Blackfan Anaemia (DBA), a rare, life-threatening blood condition, was diagnosed. It is caused by a failure within the bone marrow to produce vital red blood cells.

The treatment consisted of blood transfusions every two to three weeks in hospital and agonising injections every night.

Michelle recalls: 'Charlie hated his transfusions and injections and, when he was three, used to shout, "Why are you hurting me? You don't really love me." It was so hard to hear your child say that.

'We were told that although neither of us were carriers we should consider whether to have more children. The risk was one in 50 that another child would also be affected but we decided to go ahead. Charlie's sister Emily was born in 2001 and was perfectly healthy.'

However, Charlie became increasingly ill. A bone-marrow transplant was his only hope of a cure but neither his parents nor Emily were a suitable match. If Michelle and Jayson were to try for another child, there was no guarantee that the infant would be either.

However, if they used IVF, the process would result in a number of embryos, thereby increasing the chances of finding a match.

'We both agreed that embryo selection was the obvious answer,' says Jayson. 'Our decision was reinforced by the fact that when couples go through IVF, doctors pick the embryos that have the best chance of survival.

'We wanted another baby anyway and fixing Charlie's condition would be the by-product.'

They were aware there was debate over the medical ethics of such procedures but felt that if a healthy child could also save the life of the child they already had, then it was a double blessing.

Having tried a number of fertility experts, Mohammed Taranissi, Britain's most controversial fertility doctor, was the keenest to help. He agreed to give Michelle treatment to stimulate ovulation, which was successful.

But there was another hurdle. Embryo selection was banned in the UK, so permission had to be sought from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. The HFEA's deliberations took an agonisingly long time.

'They stated that while it was acceptable to test and select embryos to prevent the birth of a baby with a genetic disease, it was not acceptable to select them to help another child.' (Largely as a result of the Whitaker case, the HFEA has reviewed its policy on 'pre-implantation genetic diagnosis' to find tissue matches, now allowing it in certain circumstances.)

But Michelle and Jayson wouldn't take no for an answer. Dr Taranissi organised for the family to travel to The Reproductive Genetics Institute in Chicago. He paid for all their medical treatment both in the US and UK. To this day the Whitakers have no idea how much it all cost but an informed guess suggests it could have been a six-figure sum.

'I felt very committed to them and wanted it to be successful,' Dr Taranissi explains. 'You cannot put a value on the feeling I had when I later saw Charlie looking so well.'

Timing was crucial. They had a three-week window of opportunity. 'Charlie couldn't last beyond three weeks without a transfusion, which for medical and financial reasons was best done in the UK,' Michelle says.

'We travelled out in October 2002. Charlie had a blood transfusion on a Friday and we all flew to Chicago the next day. I had my embryos harvested on Monday.

'Six out of 13 survived more than six days, three were a tissue match for Charlie, two were implanted and we flew home.

'One of the embryos took and I had a normal pregnancy. I felt very emotional when Jamie was born at Sheffield Teaching Hospital because he was so special.

'Stem cells were removed from the umbilical cord, frozen and stored. Although Jamie was perfect genetically you can't diagnose DBA in the womb as it only becomes obvious when the body has to produce its own blood.

'We waited until we were sure Jamie didn't have DBA, which took about a year.'

Then the Whitakers had to decide whether to go ahead with the potentially life-saving but inevitably risky transplant.

'We were told there was a five per cent chance of Charlie dying because of the transplant,' Michelle recalls with a shudder. 'Even if he survived, there was no guarantee he would be cured. We agonised over when to have it done.

'Should we leave the stem cells frozen until Charlie was a young adult so he could decide for himself if and when he wanted a transplant?

'If we did, there might not be enough cells to help an adult man and he would have to spend his entire childhood dependent on blood transfusions every two to three weeks and nightly injections to stay alive.

'On the other hand, he was the healthiest he had ever been and we were advised to use the frozen stem cells before he reached five. Jayson and I talked endlessly about it and decided in 2004 to go for it.'

The first step was to 'kill off' Charlie's bone marrow using chemotherapy. But the procedure can be difficult for an adult to cope with, let alone a four-year-old. It was a traumatic time for the family.

Charlie had to take 15 different medicines to counteract the effects of the chemo. His hair fell out and he was so sick they had to use a nasal gastric tube for his drugs and to keep him hydrated, which he hated.

Then the stem cells from Jamie were implanted, a process doctors hoped would kick start ¬Charlie's bone marrow to do its job properly.

'The doctors kept doing blood tests and, after a couple of days, one of them showed us a slide with one new white cell - the bone marrow makes white cells first before the red - and said he thought it was working,' says Michelle.

'I shouted "Yeah!" and threw my arms up into the air.'

Charlie left hospital in July. Now, more than seven years after Jamie's birth, doctors have pronounced his brother cured.

Jamie may be too young to fully understand all the complexities of bioethics and the arguments over 'saviour siblings' - the term Michelle and Jayson prefer to 'designer baby' - yet his parents have clearly done an excellent job explaining to him what he needs to know.

Like his siblings, he is charming, well-adjusted and articulate.

'I was three when Mummy and Daddy told me that I had saved my brother's life,' he says.

'I am happy I did it but I don't really feel like a superhero. I think I feel both good and bad about it but more good than bad. One bad thing is that Charlie nearly died and that's awful to think about. The other bad thing is that Emily was upset she couldn't help save him.'

Emily, now nine, nods. 'I used to ask Mummy and Daddy why I couldn't help save Charlie's life and felt really left out,' she says.

'They explained that I had princess blood whereas Jamie and Charlie had army blood. And that the soldiers in Jamie's blood went into Charlie to beat up the soldiers in his blood and that made him better. I was fine then because I don't want army blood.'

Jamie understands that he was born specially to save Charlie's life. 'I know I was born to do that instead of being just born for me,' he says. 'It makes me feel close to Charlie even though now he is nearly a teenager he gets grumpy and backchats all the time. I also know Mummy and Daddy want and love me and always wanted a big family.'

Charlie is, understandably, more interested in talking about his Taekwondo black belt test in a couple of weeks than in delving into his past but, polite boy that he is, he indulges me.

'I don't remember much about all the treatment. It was so long ago,' the 12-year-old says. But I do remember the awful tube they put up my nose and down into my stomach that made me sick all the time - and that they kept having to change it.

'My illness has affected me in several ways. I am a bit of a role model. As a family we meet up once a year with the DBA UK support group and share experiences.

'I tell other children about marking the doctors who put needles into my arm out of ten and how some of them used to sweat about getting a low mark.

'Some of them really look up to me. It is OK but sometimes I feel it is a big responsibility. I think I am more adult than other children my age because of what I have been through. When I do team stuff in or out of school, like Scouts, I am always the leader and help the younger ones.

'Most children don't come near serious illness. I have and I feel very sorry for people and especially children who are really ill, especially when there isn't a cure.

'Sometimes when we go on the annual weekend trip with the support group, a child who came along the previous year doesn't come back and that is really sad.'

Jamie interrupts. 'I've remembered what upset me most. Red Nose Day reminds me of Charlie. I know that some of the ill children they show on the TV could die and I get upset.'

Emily agrees. 'It's why we buy lots of red noses and badges for charity,' she says. 'We all feel very lucky and especially lucky that Charlie has survived and is healthy now.'

I don't think anyone would begrudge them their luck.

For further information contact info@diamondblackfan.org.uk, 0845 094 1548.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
I know I was born to save Charlie instead of being born just for me: Incredible story of the saviour sibling who sparked an ethical furore

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fifteen minutes after the chemotherapy treatment began, Charlie Whitaker, not yet five, started to vomit. His temperature rocketed and he shivered uncontrollably. He complained of excruciating stomach cramps and pain in his eyes, and suffered continual diarrhoea. For his parents, Jayson and Michelle, helplessly watching their child suffer in the isolation wing of Sheffield Children's Hospital, it was both harrowing and terrifying.

# data[].attributes.headline
Video: Genetic bacterial engineering could herald new era of biofuels

# data[].attributes.subject
Video: Genetic bacterial engineering could herald new era of biofuels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetic bacterial engineering could herald new era of biofuels

# data[].attributes.headline
Webinar: Genetically Modified Algae: A Risk-Benefit Assessment

# data[].attributes.subject
Webinar: Genetically Modified Algae: A Risk-Benefit Assessment

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Genetically Modified Algae: A Risk-Benefit Assessment

# data[].attributes.headline
Video: How Biotechnology Is Changing Our World: Medical Research, Genetics (2003)

# data[].attributes.subject
Video: How Biotechnology Is Changing Our World: Medical Research, Genetics (2003)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Biotechnology Is Changing Our World: Medical Research, Genetics (2003)