Salmon, Plus An Added Little Bonus

    The thought of eating genetically modified anything tends to send most American's "spidey senses" tingling. The stigma associated with eating genetically altered food has plagued American society and the government as well. An article in the New York Times brings to light the plight of a genetically engineered salmon who has the FDA and politicians everywhere in a frenzy. In his article, Pollack describes the extremely slow, seemingly inhibitory regulatory methods that the FDA has used to screen the genetically engineered salmon from entering our markets and our bodies.

 The so called "genetically engineered salmon" are created by infusing a growth hormone gene from the Chinook salmon and a promotor from an eel that keeps the growth hormone switch turned on year round, resulting in salmon that grow bigger, faster. AquaBounty, the company responsible for the salmon, deemed the AquAdvantage salmon, has explained that the salmon would not cause any adverse effects to the environment and that its production actually takes the stress off of the natural ocean nests used for salmon breeding. Furthermore, naysayers tried to say that an escaped salmon might become invasive and outcompete the natural salmon populations, however, AquaBounty stated that the fish cannot reproduce in nature due to sterilization techniques and proper security measures that have been placed to keep the salmon from ever escaping into the wild. All in all, the prospect of a better, feasible foodstuff that can be reproduced rapidly has been tied up in paperwork. It's just a matter of time now.

   In her book, Frankenstein's Cat, Emily Anthes addressed this same issue. Anthes lists the plight of AquaBounty and their battle with the FDA to get approval to allow these AquAdvantage salmon onto the market. However, Anthes states that legal battles like these can end up sucking the company dry and causing bankruptcy because the companies are not able to fund their organisms anymore. Additionally, Anthes speaks to the idea of using biotechnology for the benefit of humans. The possibilities are endless, but regarding medical research, the idea sounds a lot better to us. Anthes brings up a few examples where genetically engineered animals have produced drugs that can be used to alleviate genetic disorders common in humans such as goats engineered to produce Athyrin, an antithrombin that prevents clotting. Also, Anthes mentions two researchers who have engineered goats that produce an enzyme in their milk that can reduce the risk of diarrhea and can help alleviate it as well. The amount of children and adults worldwide that can be potentially saved from diarrheal and intestinal problems can be significantly reduced, if only governments allow such animals to be used for the public.

   Anthes shows both sides, the potential medical benefits, but also the ethical dilemmas raised with messing with an animal's genes. She shows the risk of animals becoming overexploited more so than they already are as tools with only an instrumental value vs. an intrinsic value to humans. More and more, with the advent of technology, humans are exploiting animals, like the salmon and the goat, to fit their needs. But will these changes to the animals affect them adversely? Anthes cites an ethic of professor Bernard Rollin of Colorado State University stating a "conservation of welfare" meaning that the newly engineered animal must have an increased sense of welfare from before or equal to but never less. Using this principle, we should be able to appropriately solve our ethical dilemmas concerning genetic engineering respectively for each genetically modified organism.

  As for the AquAdvantage salmon, we can only heed Anthes advice as a society and embrace a progressing, more genetically altered future. And we can hope that the government institutions can also learn from this and plan a more progressive approach in dealing with these newer genetically modified organisms.

Sources:

Anthes, Emily. Frankenstein's Cat. Scientific American/Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 2013.

Pollack, Andrew. "Engineered Fish Moves a Step Closer to Approval". New York Times. December 12, 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/business/gene-altered-fish-moves-closer-to-federal-approval.html?_r=0>