Friday, October 11, 2013

Synthetic Biology Getting to the Root



The Idea
Genetically modifying animals to produce protein, enzymes and antibodies to aid in the combat of terminal diseases is enticing to say the least. The doors that can be opened by influencing the genetic code of our four legged friends may seem like a never ending corridor filled with opportunities to answer some of the world’s most challenging questions. However it must be made clear as to where the lines should be drawn to protect other species from becoming just another tool in the shed.
 In an everyday kind of way I could ask you when does a cow turn into food?  Is it food once the knife touches flesh or after it has been processed? The same question can be posed for experimenting with the genome of another species.  At what point do we start to forget the value of a creature’s life and begin to focus solely on what we gain from spicing its code up.

In an article written by Ed Yong entitled “Can We Save the World by Remixing Life?” Yong describes Synthetic biologists as enthusiastic and optimistic about their contributions to the global stage. Like wide eyed children running through a candy store these synthetic biologists haphazardly splice the genomes of other species studying  the effects of an added or removed sequence of amino acids exchanging “oo’s” and “aahh’s” between results. It isn’t hard to then question whether these scientists are actually considering their impacts on both sides of the spectra or just simply poking away hoping that eventually their  work will benefit the world.


In Anthes’ chapter entitled "Got Milk?" Frankenstein's Cat: Cuddling up to Biotech's Brave New Beasts, Anthes quotes Peter Singer stating “our mistreatment of animals, and our exploitation of their bodies for food or research, was akin to the subjugation of women or racial minorities.”(Anthes.41) Anthes also quotes Benard Rollin ”If you are going to modify a line of animals, the resulting animals should be no worse off from a welfare point of view- and preferably better”(Anthes 50) So then careful consideration must be taken to ensure that we do not overlook the wellbeing of our fellow species.

Should we give up on synthetic biology then?
Well No, I’m not saying that we should abandon synthetic biology completely but rather we should weigh the benefits of manipulating an animal’s genetic material and compare them with what we already know about a particular problem prior to firing up the autoclaves.
“The starting point of taking a tool and asking how it will solve a set of problems is putting the cart before the horse” as stated by Jim Thomas in the article sums up the issue pretty nicely. If we simply modify species prior to establishing a goal we are left with daunting question revolving around a practical use for our GMO leaving us with unhappy sponsors and a very confused animal.


 Taking a note out of the conservationists’ handbook we can see the consequences that a lack of foresight can create. The introduction of invasive species for example to control native species lead to a quick initial solution to overpopulation but in the long run caused more harm than good. In that sense  when we open  doors before knowing what is on the other side we may end up creating a bigger mess than the one we set off to clean up in the first place.
Rather than poking around the genetic code scientists have started to move towards focused goals that benefit the organism and environment by starting with the consequences of their actions and working backwards towards a solution. Yong describes a method being developed to manipulate bacteria to aid in the extension of plant roots in the hopes that this modified strand of bacteria could one day help reforest wastelands.  The team behind this experiment knew from the start that bacteria swap genes like people change their pants and so in an attempt to regulate their mutated genome they set in place what they referred to as a “GeneGuard”. This guard allowed the bacteria to live freely in the plant it was influencing but if its genetic material was somehow leaked into the environment it would cause the recipient organism to implode because the organism would lack a protein needed to combat the GMO’s toxin. This extra step would ensure that the foreign strand could never influence native strands with its genome.  As an added precaution they made the GM strand completely dependent on the host organism so that if it did manage to make its way into the surrounding environment it would degrade before it could cause any harm. 

But I thought you said the benefit of the organism was what mattered!
I did say this and I strongly believe that the welfare of the organisms in question to be the most important factor when deciding whether or not to begin an experiment. However what is important to note from this example is that the research team not only “ chose to modify a gut bacterium rather than a more obvious soil-dweller like Bacillus subtilis” they even went as far as “discuss[ing] whether the engineered bacteria could ever harm human health or hurt their plant partners.”. So then  by taking a bacterium that was already host dependent for its existence they did not pose any added harm to it by adding the safeguard.  This is no different from Anthes example of the modified goats who benefit from their higher concentrations of lysozyme discussed on page 51, these bacteria benefit from their interactions with the plant and the plant from its presence. Research like this can be used as the prototype for how GMO testing should be conducted.  I applaud these forerunners in synthetic biology for going the extra mile and deciding to “not just solve a problem, but talking to people and finding out the issues that they’re concerned about,” as stated by Keith Crandall, a geneticist from Brigham Young University. Helping to remove the shroud of doom and gloom surrounding the field of synthetic biology one strand at a time.     

  

 Works cited
Anthes, E. (2013). "Got Milk?" Frankenstein's Cat: Cuddling up to Biotech's Brave New Beasts. (pp. 16-45). New York: Scientific American/Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Yong, Ed. "Phenomena:Can We Save the World by Remixing Life." Phenomena.nationalgeographic. Natonal Geographic, 11 Apr. 2013. Web. 11 Oct. 2013. <http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/04/11/can-we-save-the-world-by-remixing-life/>

No comments:

Post a Comment