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