Next-generation disease resistance breeding
(TAL) effectors are molecules that can cut DNA at precise and known locations and might prove to be game-changing in everything from plant breeding to treating human disease.
This guest post on Biofortified explores the potential of (TAL) effector nuclease technology, but raises questions about its acceptability in crop breeding, comparing it (or trying to differentiate it) from genetically modified crops
TAL
The possibilities are immense for using TAL technology to induce targeted variations in the genomes of mammals, flies, worms and plants.
An application of TAL technology to crop breeding is described in a recent paper in Nature Biotechnology – link in Biofortified post. In this study, the authors used TAL-nucleases to remove a small stretch of DNA from the genome of rice that rendered it susceptible to bacterial blight, an important disease that affects millions of hectares throughout Asia.
TechNyou
This post on Biofortified asks for this breeding technology to be distinguished from transgenics – the technology that produces GMOs (or GM crops). Somehow I think this is wishful thinking because the genome has been modified and as the issue of GMO is more about values than the science, I suspect the same values that cause people to reject GMOs will be applied to the (TAL) effector technology. It will still be considered unnatural, and if it is as effective as predicted big companies will use it to their advantage. They will still questions its safety and potential effect on the environment….and so on
One comment I do align with is their reference to the random mutagenesis method, which requires highly toxic radiation or chemical treatment of seeds and why this is perfectly acceptable in the production of crop varieties that can be sold as “organic”, or simply accepted by those opposed to GM crops in general. I have yet to receive an acceptable answer from anyone about this.
Jason
TechNyou
Electricity from viruses
Scientists have developed a way to generate power using harmless viruses that convert mechanical energy into electricity.
Lawrence Berkeley national Laboratories: 13 May 2012
Gene-modified stem cell transplant protects patients from toxic side effects of chemotherapy
Researchers have transplanted brain cancer patients’ own gene-modified blood stem cells to protect their bone marrow against the toxic side effects of chemotherapy.
Medical X-press: 9 May 2012
Hopes for a salt-tolerant barley lift after first test
A salt-tolerance gene inserted into barley has undergone a small GM field trial in WA and producing a yield benefit in high salt conditions
GRDC Ground Cover – May-June 2012
Q&A: Plant scientists answer your questions about GM wheat
Two UK scientists, one involved in the GM aphid-resistant wheat, answer questions in a Q&A by Sense about Science
Sense About Science, May 2012
Developing countries face up to synthetic biology challenges
As commercial synthetic biology production gathers speed, there are growing calls for greater regulation.
SciDev Net: 27 April 2012
Drought-tolerant GM soy: do arguments against hold water?
By Jason Major
TechNyou
Researchers in Argentina have isolated a drought-resistant sunflower gene and spliced it into soy, but the anti-GM crop arguments in this case appear contradictory and fail to hold water.
News about the research and the arguments from Greenpeace and others appeared in a number of news sites including PhysOrg . More info is at the bottom of this post.
For now we will assume the crop can achieve what the developers claim, that it grows and have better yields across all climate conditions – from wet to dry. Apparently it even performs better under saline conditions.
The research team that developed the crop is from Argentina’s Agrobiotechnology Institute of the Littoral, created by the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) and the public National University of the Littoral, in the northeastern Argentine province of Santa Fe.
The researchers isolated one of the 50,000 sunflower genes. The gene known as HAHB4 helps the plant endure water shortages. They introduced the gene into wheat, corn and soybean species, followed by three years of field testing in different regions of the Argentina with varying climates and soils.
The opponents emerge
It is possible that the comments in this article have been taken out of context and in isolation as they are presented here maybe be misrepresenting what Greenpeace and others say, so I am happy to be enlightened, but here are my thoughts on the anti-arguments as presented in the article:
Greenpeace has apparently said this GM drought-tolerant soy will promote deforestation and the expansion of soy crops into new regions such as Pantagonia as well as cause a “significant loss” in biodiversity and force thousands of farmers and native people to relocate.
I find this interesting because the anti-GM groups are happy for a drought-tolerant crop to be developed through conventional breeding, indeed CSIRO’s recent news about their conventionally-bred salt-tolerant wheat was applauded. The obvious problem is of course that if indeed a GM, drought-tolerant soy bean did promote deforestation, loss of biodiversity, etc, then so will a conventionally-bred, drought-tolerant soy, for the same potential reasons. C’mon Greenpeace…
Economics
Because it is genetically modified, the new soy seed would have little to no prospects of being sold in markets where such crops are opposed or outlawed, as in Europe, according to Greenpeace.
This argument may or may not be true, although they seem to sell their existing GM soy without any problems. From a purely personal perspective, however, I find farmers are generally smart people, they will make an economic decision about this crop. They will make an economic and agronomic judgement and if they decide to grow it, and can’t sell it and lose loads of money, then they won’t grow it again.
Increased pesticide use
Transgenic crops are far more widespread in South America, where environmentalists worry they could rush the shift to single-crop farming and denounce the encroachment of soy crops and the increased use of pesticides.
Again, I struggle with this argument because as stated above, a conventionally-bred drought-tolerant soy would have the same potential problems. If what they state happens becasueof the drought-tolerant trait, then it will happen regardless of whether the trait is introduced via convetional or transgenic breeding technologies. A second point is that this crop’s trait is drought-tolerance not herbicide tolerance, so it is not going to change the herbicide application regime. Unless Greenpeace are referring to the fact that the increased acreage that might (or might not) occur because of the crop’s ability to grow in drought conditions in which case more herbicide and pesticide will indeed be used, but then that, as mentioned, would also apply to a conventionally-bred drought tolerant crop.
Final point and question
The research team has signed an agreement with Argentine firm Bioceres, which is co-owned by over 230 agricultural producers, to use and exploit the gene. Another company called Arcadia Biosciences is also involved. So this technology is not owned by a large multi-national; it is even to some extent public owned, and owned by the farmers that the product is targeted at. My questions is how much influence does this fact alone have on how acceptable (or not) this particular GM crop is to the public? As alluded to in previous blog posts the fact people hate and distrust the Monsanto’s of the world is one of their key reasons for finding GM crops unacceptable. I have even had people tell me that they would find a crop acceptable if Monsanto didn’t own the thing. So what about this drought-tolerant soy?
More information
IPS Inter Press Service News Agency
Image on homepage from PhysOrg
Human neural stem cells can target cancer cells
Scientists have discovered that induced pluripotent neural stem cells possess the innate ability to target tumor cells outside the central nervous system.
Singapore Agency for Science Technology and Research: 20 April 2012
GM crops: are we anti-Monsanto rather than anti-technology?
By Jason Major
TechNyou
Another media story on GM crops, another long list of comments. The comments reveal that along with similar previous commentary we may simply fear Monsanto rather than the technology.
Adelaide Now and the Weekly Times published an article containing views of South Australian Farmers Federation president Peter White. He basically said we need GM technology and its use is essentially inevitable, calling for South Australia to drop its moratorium. As witnessed below, most of the people commenting disagree with him. But as usual most of the comments have nothing to do with the science and are overwhelmingly anti-Monsanto, or express concerns of corporate control of our food supply. The science or the technology are barely mentioned.
Food control
Of the 58 comments 29 (or about 50%) were voicing concern about corporate control of our food by multi-national companies such as Monsanto. Actually, I was surprised that of those 29 mentions only 9 mentioned Monsanto. I thought there would be more. In all my public engagement activities, this concern is by far the biggest and I am sure if you analysed the comments of other online articles about GM crops there would be a similar response regarding corporate control of our food.
Real or perceived, there is concern that we no longer have control over what we eat or feed our children and that it is in the hands of a handful of insidious, nefarious, entities in some global corporate box happily counting their growing pile of money at the expense of humanity. They can’t be trusted; they are greedy, and seek total domination of the food supply. At least that is the impression you get from reading the comments.
The next largest category was my section called “other”. This simply contained negative comments along the lines of NO; or I WON’T TOUCH THIS CRAP; or NO FRANKENFOOD FOR ME. This was all that was written so I couldn’t categorise it except that they were against GM crops for some reason, and likely they were against any GM crop, whatever, whenever, which makes it value-based decision – most likely anyway.
Values
This brings me back to once again commenting on values versus science. There were only 5 comments that could be considered having anything to do with science and all these were positive comments supporting the technology in general. In some cases the comments might also be considered values-based rather than about the science, as expressed in the following comment:
“It always amuses me when Greenies stick their heads in the sand and refuse to follow the “overwhelming scientific consensus”. GM is safe and tasty and necessary for the survival of our species. I’d rather eat clean, GM food than food covered in megadoses of nasty “organic” pesticides any day.”
That is, it could be argued that this person’s values might be pro-technology in general.
Elephant in the room
Interesting, that this is one of the first times I have seen a number of mentions about the need to control population, though it was probably prompted by relevant quotes in the article. But in the context of food security and the need to feed 9 billion by 2050, it is surprising the issue of population control isn’t raised more often. From what I understand, however, the march toward the 9 billion mark is inevitable regardless of what we do. Whether we like it or not, the issue for society is how do we accommodate all of us.
The missing
Of note also is what people did not comment on – much. Only four comments mentioned concerns about health impacts of GM crops. Two made comments about potential health benefits.
Only three made comments about adverse environmental effects. Only four were about the lack of or desire for labelling of GM foods.
Obviously the overall sentiment was negative, but that sentiment was largely based on stuff unrelated to the science, and more about how we have chosen to use that science.
My question for everyone is what concerns, if any, do we have should a GM crop be produced with public or philanthropic funding? That is, there is no giant corporate thumb hovering over the research team dictating the terms. Such crops do exist and are at various stages in the research pipeline. Should they develop a plant worth commercialising, will it be any more acceptable than one produced by or in partnership with a multi-national? Or will people, as I suspect they will, judge the crop on its traits and how it is intended to be used?
Turning up the heat on biotechnology
Scientists have inserted a foreign gene into a heat-loving microbe to create the first genetically-engineered microorganism which thrives at very high temperatures.
COSMOS: 18 April 2012
Homepage image:
Naturally occuring in hot springs hyperthermophile archae thrive at high temperatures.
Credit: veer