Category Archives: Biotechnology

Around 130 national and international academicians and scientists hailing from seven different countries including Turkey, Tunisia, Sudan, Iran, Sri Lanka, and Uzbekistan attended a workshop held here to promote the safe use of modern biotechnology to attain the goal of food security and defeating hunger and poverty.

Minister for Food Security and Research Sikandar Hayat Khan Bosan inaugurated the 3rd International Conference on Agriculture, Food Security and Biotechnology on Wednesday.

The 2-day event being held at the National Agriculture Research Center, Islamabad, is jointly organised by Commission on Science and Technology for Sustainable Development in the South (COMSATS), ISESCO and Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (PARC).

Addressing the audiences, the minister said that it was time that the countries of the region should encourage and support smart agricultural practices.

He said safe use of modern biotechnology was needed to enhance agricultural production and get rid of malnutrition and starvation. The minister pledged full support for agricultural production which was the backbone of economy with sustainable food security.

Dr Ghulam Muhammad Ali, Member Coordination and Monitoring, PARC, Islamabad, noted that advances in science and technology were the need of time for food security and safety. Noting the hunger still prevailing in various parts of the world, he opined that biotechnology was the basis of production of vast variety of transgenic and genetically modified crops which can solve the problem of hunger.

He said that the conference having similar agenda was good for the developing countries as it would open ways for research, collaboration and capacity building.

Speaking on the occasion, Dr Kauser Malik, Department of Biological Sciences, FC College Lahore, mentioned that it was our fear of unknown that kept the human beings away from adapting new technologies and advocated the use of genetically modified crops for addressing hunger.

In his message, Dr SM Junaid Zaidi, Executive Director COMSATS, said that despite major developments around the globe, many areas struggle with challenges of starvation and malnutrition. Even the developed countries cannot engage in bigger pursuits without ensuring food security. Mentioning the importance of biotechnology in agriculture, he noted that biotechnological influence on food production and agriculture is undeniable especially for countries like Pakistan with fertile lands and good weather conditions.

The message from Director General ISESCO, HE Dr. Abdulaziz Othman Altwaijri, noted that there was a dire need to provide an enriching and engaging environment to foster crop science research towards new and improved livelihood opportunities and sustainable food security. He considered collaborations in this regard necessary and appreciated the cooperation between ISESCO and COMSATS.

Shields were given to the esteemed participants who came from different countries for the conference.

Continue reading here:
Use of biotechnology must to attain food security: Bosan - Pakistan Today

DUBLIN, Apr. 24, 2017 /PRNewswire/ --

Research and Markets has announced the addition of the "Global Biotechnology Reagents Market 2017-2021" report to their offering.

Research and Markets Logo

The global biotechnology reagents market to grow at a CAGR of 10.13% during the period 2017-2021.

The report, Global Biotechnology Reagents Market 2017-2021, has been prepared based on an in-depth market analysis with inputs from industry experts. The report covers the market landscape and its growth prospects over the coming years. The report also includes a discussion of the key vendors operating in this market.

Ready-to-use reagents help minimize calculation, dilution, and pipetting errors. They reduce the duration of the diagnostic procedure and prevent contamination of samples. These factors have resulted in the demand for ready-to-use reagents among clinical laboratories and hospitals.

According to the report, the biotechnology industry is spending a huge amount on R&D to innovate new techniques and technologies. The companies are more focused to improve the products, their quality, and standards. The biotech companies are majorly spending on protein synthesis, drug assessment, therapeutics, DNA and RNA analysis, and cell culture applications. Biotechnology reagents are used in all the processes.

Further, the report states that biotechnology instruments are often complex and require sophisticated software for various measurement procedures. To operate the instruments and analyze a sample, the user must have a significant level of training with not only the method and the instrument but also the software required to run the analysis and the collection of data.

Key vendors

Other prominent vendors

Key Topics Covered:

PART 01: Executive summary

PART 02: Scope of the report

PART 03: Research Methodology

PART 04: Introduction

PART 05: Market landscape

PART 06: Market segmentation by technology

PART 07: Market segmentation by application

PART 08: Geographical segmentation

PART 09: Decision framework

PART 10: Drivers and challenges

PART 11: Market trends

PART 12: Vendor landscape

PART 13: Key vendor analysis

PART 14: Appendix

For more information about this report visit http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/dqbbgf/global

Media Contact:

Research and Markets Laura Wood, Senior Manager press@researchandmarkets.com

For E.S.T Office Hours Call +1-917-300-0470 For U.S./CAN Toll Free Call +1-800-526-8630 For GMT Office Hours Call +353-1-416-8900

U.S. Fax: 646-607-1907 Fax (outside U.S.): +353-1-481-1716

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-biotechnology-reagents-market-to-grow-at-a-cagr-of-1013-by-2021---rising-demand-for-ready-to-use-reagents-among-clinical-laboratories--hospitals---research-and-markets-300443626.html

Link:
Global Biotechnology Reagents Market to Grow at a CAGR of 10.13 ... - Yahoo Finance

NIGERIAN TRIBUNE (press release) (blog)

[ April 25, 2017 ] World Earth Day: Stakeholders canvass for adoption of biotechnology for food security Agriculture NIGERIAN TRIBUNE (press release) (blog) The Head of Agriculture Division of the ECOWAS Commission, Ernest Aubee, who spoke with Nigerian Tribune, said the ECOWAS has a biotechnology technology action plan which it is currently implementing across the 15 member states. The Nigerian ...

View original post here:
[ April 25, 2017 ] World Earth Day: Stakeholders canvass for adoption of biotechnology for food security Agriculture - NIGERIAN TRIBUNE (press...

LONDON, UNITED KINGDOM--(Marketwired - Apr 24, 2017) - Planda Biotechnology, Inc. (OTCQB: PLPL) ("Planda" or "the Company"), producer of the highly bioavailable Phytofare Catechin Complex, today announced that NutriBullet SuperFood Fat Burning Boost featuring Planda's Phytofare Catechin Complex will be available at retail outlets across the United States as early as May 2017.As announced last November, Capital Brands, the makers of NutriBullet SuperFoods, will now be featuring Planda's Phytofare Catechin Complex as the active ingredient in their product, SuperFood Fat Burning Boost.Capital Brands is expected to launch the revised product containing Phytofare with their retailers and on their website (nutriliving.com) as early as next month.

Callum Cottrell-Duffield, Chief Operating Officer for Planda Biotechnology, commented, "We are excited to have Phytofare associated with such a fantastic brand as Nutribullet. Their use of Phytofare as an active ingredient in their reformulation is a clear indication of their commitment to use only the best ingredients to ensure that their customers receive a supremely effective product. It is also testimony to our shareholders that we are indeed on the right track and that our Phytofare ingredients are game changers for the supplement industry."

NutriBullet has formulated specialized, plant-based SuperFood products using a variety of plant proteins,prebiotic and other dietary fibers, proprietary spice blends, and other unique ingredients etc. that can be easily combined into healthy smoothies using their industry-leading nutrient extraction blenders. The company uses all GMO-free ingredients sourced from the world's most reputable farms that undergo extensive testing for purity, effectiveness and flavor.

Planda operates an 8,000-acre estate in Mpumalanga, South Africa, where it grows and processes the green tea used in its Phytofare products. The company uses solar power for on-site housing and organic, sustainable farming practices to ensure the highest quality. Between the farm and factory, the company provides employment for hundreds of local families and, through profit sharing and rental payments, is able to bring economic value to the Zulu community.

About Capital Brands LLC Capital Brands LLC and its subsidiaries create, produce, and sell NutriBullet blenders as well as SuperFood formula mixes and other accessories for their blenders that help give the consumer the best possible health benefits using only the best and most quality ingredients available. The company focuses on nutrient extraction in order to deliver the most nutrients possible from food and other ingredients to increase the health of people everywhere. For more information, please visit https://www.nutribullet.com/."NutriBullet" and "SuperFood Fat Burning Boost" are the registered trademarks of Capbran Holdings, LLC.

About Planda Biotechnology, Inc. Planda Biotechnology, Inc. and its subsidiaries develop highly phyto-available extracts. Planda Biotechnology controls every aspect of the process, from growing the raw materials on its farms in South Africa, to producing its proprietary Phytofare extracts in-house, allowing the Company to guarantee the continuity of supply as well as quality control throughout the entire process. Targeted industries for the Company's products include beverage, cosmeceutical, wellness, nutraceutical, anti-aging, and pharmaceutical. For more information, please visit http://www.plandaibiotech.com.

Safe Harbor Statement This release contains forward-looking statements that are based upon current expectations or beliefs, as well as a number of assumptions about future events. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in the forward-looking statements and the assumptions upon which they are based are reasonable, we can give no assurance or guarantee that such expectations and assumptions will prove to have been correct. Forward-looking statements are generally identifiable by the use of words like "may," "will," "should," "could," "expect," "anticipate," "estimate," "believe," "intend," or "project" or the negative of these words or other variations on these words or comparable terminology. The reader is cautioned not to put undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, as these statements are subject to numerous factors and uncertainties, including but not limited to: adverse economic conditions, competition, adverse federal, state and local government regulation, international governmental regulation, inadequate capital, inability to carry out research, development and commercialization plans, loss or retirement of key executives and other specific risks. To the extent that statements in this press release are not strictly historical, including statements as to revenue projections, business strategy, outlook, objectives, future milestones, plans, intentions, goals, future financial conditions, events conditioned on stockholder or other approval, or otherwise as to future events, such statements are forward-looking, and are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The forward-looking statements contained in this release are subject to certain risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the statements made. Readers are advised to review our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that can be accessed over the Internet at the SEC's website located at http://www.sec.gov.

See the article here:
NutriBullets SuperFood Boost Featuring Plandai Biotechnology's ... - Marketwired (press release)

Two years after the $9 billion start-up unicorn Theranos crumbled, Silicon Valley still appears to be struggling to learn its lesson when it comes to health and medical start-ups. Improbable-sounding companies continue to turn up with tens of millions of dollars in funding, no published research to back them up, and nothing but criticism from scientists.

Venture-capital firms insist that the standard that needs to be met for investment is much higher for medical start-ups, which must prove that their technology works with data, not just a pitch. And yet somehow, when these start-ups finally surface to public consciousness, they dont appear to pass even the most basic smell test with literally any experienced researcher in the field.

There is a pervasive sense in Silicon Valley, bolstered by ten years of world-conquering success, that any sufficiently intelligent, sufficiently driven person can will what they want.

But the move fast and break things mantra that has helped Silicon Valley disrupt countless industries over the last two decades is more dangerous when applied to medical scienceThe things being broken by health start-ups are laws of science and ironclad guidelines for research. When a health start-up moves fast and breaks things, it can directly result in the death, dismemberment, and injury of real people.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post:Why Silicon Valley Keeps Getting Biotechnology Wrong

For more background on the Genetic Literacy Project, read GLP on Wikipedia

View post:
Why so many biotechnology start-ups, like Theranos, fail | Genetic ... - Genetic Literacy Project

BBNS

Vetr Inc. Downgrades iShares NASDAQ Biotechnology Index (IBB ... The Cerbat Gem iShares NASDAQ Biotechnology Index (NASDAQ:IBB) was downgraded by Vetr from a buy rating to a hold rating in a research note issued to investors on ... iShares NASDAQ Biotechnology Index (IBB) Lifted to Buy at Vetr Inc.Sports Perspectives iShares NASDAQ Biotechnology Index (IBB) Earning Favorable ...BBNS all 4 news articles »

Go here to read the rest:
Vetr Inc. Downgrades iShares NASDAQ Biotechnology Index (IBB ... - The Cerbat Gem

OTTAWA, Ontario--(BUSINESS WIRE)--BioTalent Canada announced today that its animated short, Expanding Accessibility in Biotechnology, has won the Platinum Award for Motion Graphics Information at the 2017 Hermes Creative Awards, an international competition overseen by the Association of Marketing and Communications Professionals (AMCP). The award showcases the talent and creativity of marketing and communications professionals, many of whom have contributed to public service or charitable organizations.

Expanding Accessibility in Biotechnology was created as part of BioTalent Canadas Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) employer-awareness campaign, launched in 2016 and funded in part through the Government of Ontarios EnAbling Change Program. The campaign aims to reach and educate bio-economy employers on compliance with the new AODA accessibility standards.

As a national non-profit HR association for the Canadian biotechnology industry, BioTalent Canada works to ensure that the bio-economy has access to the talent it needs. According to research by the organization, only 7.6% of bio-economy companies had persons with disabilities on staff.

BioTalent Canadas animation seeks to increase awareness among employers on the importance of persons with disabilities as a strategically valuable labour market for Canadas biotechnology sector. Developed by eSolutions Group, the animation addresses the importance of creating an inclusive and diverse workforce, which in turn strengthens an organizations innovation.

Canadians with disabilities represent a valuable labour market, one which is under-represented in the bio-economy, says Rob Henderson, BioTalent Canadas President and CEO. It is encouraging to see an animation focused on the benefits of diversity win this award and get showcased at an international level.

Along with the animated short, BioTalent Canada is hosting events across Ontario to educate and train employers on AODAs accessibility standards and what they need to do to comply. The next event will be taking place on April 25th, in the heart of the City of Mississaugas life sciences core.

For more information on the Expanding Accessibility in Biotechnology event in Mississauga, or to register, visit BioTalent Canadas event page.

About BioTalent Canada

BioTalent Canada is the HR partner of Canadas bio-economy. As an HR expert and national non-profit organization, BioTalent Canada focuses on building partnerships and skills for Canadas bio-economy to ensure the industry has access to job-ready people. Through projects, research and product development BioTalent Canada connects employers with job seekers, delivers human resource information and skills development tools so the industry can focus on strengthening Canadas biotech business. For more information, please visit biotalent.ca.

See original here:
BioTalent Canada's Animation to Promote Accessibility in Biotechnology Honoured with Award - Business Wire (press release)

FARGO, N.D. Those attending the recent International Sugarbeet Institute in Fargo got a glimpse of what the future of agriculture is going to look like. That peek into the future was made possible by the keynote speaker Robert Fraley, Ph.D., the executive vice president and chief technology officer at Monsanto. In addition, he is often recognized as the father of agricultural biotechnology.

In his position, Fraley has his finger on the pulse of agricultures future, which he claims is very strong and promising.

Ive been doing this at Monsanto for 37 years, he said, and I would tell you today that the amount of science coming into agriculture is just stunning. I helped invent GMO. Today we are talking about the second or third generation beyond GMO.

From those first Roundup Ready soybeans and BT cotton approved about 20 years ago, a wide variety of crops have been added to the list such as corn, canola, sugarbeets and alfalfa, along with many other lesser crops, he noted.

Fraley feels the most important advancement of adapting GMO technology is the ability to use germplasm from all around the world.

This means the next improvement in corn could easily come from a breeder in South America or the next advancement in soybeans could come from a plant breeder in China. Now that we have every gene sequenced in these plants, each one of these breakthroughs can quickly be bred in.

Monsanto is currently spending over half of its research and development budget on breeding crops better with these new technologies, he said.

One of the biggest advancements to be used in the last two or three years is what is known as gene editing, and what is remarkable about it is the fact it isnt a GMO, even though it has the power to literally change every gene and do it in a very specific and precise way.

The distinction is, when we make a GMO, like a Roundup Ready sugarbeet, we have added a new gene to the sugarbeet, he said. In the case of gene editing, we are just precisely changing the genes that are there, but doing it in a way that gives us an enormous ability to improve the crop.

He listed several new products that Monsanto will soon be bringing to the market in an effort to make agriculture more productive and profitable.

Some would claim that only a few companies are involved in finding new products and services to bring to the ag industry. However, a study conducted by Fraley has shown that approximately 4,000 entities, both private and public, from around the world are working on a wide range of subjects ranging from the planting phase to the harvest phase of the industry.

Just considering the planting phase of agriculture, the survey shows over 325 companies are involved with planting equipment, over 525 with crop protection products and approximately 1,240 companies associated with fertilizers.

Over the last two years, investors in start-up companies, have invested over $10 billion in agriculture, Fraley said. There are literally a thousand new start-up companies involved in satellites, imagery and gene editing. It is a very dynamic area, with lots of new players coming in.

We are seeing the best of all worlds thousands of new startups and players coming in, and we are seeing some of the established players realize that they need to up their game, raise the ante and do more. And that is a really healthy thing.

The latest word on wheat

According to Fraley, wheat is the last major crop that has not seen the real benefits of biotechnology, molecular breeding or gene editing that we have seen for the other crops.

Monsanto, through its acquisition of WestBred and merger with Bayer, has started to do some of this work in wheat. The combination of the companies capabilities creates a pretty strong presence to be able to drive innovation in wheat.

I think that is one of the upsides from the business combination, he said, referring to the eventual merger of the two agribusiness firms.

Methods of winning acceptance of biotechnology

The final challenge Fraley issued to those attending his presentation is the need to communicate more. Today, less than 1 percent of the U.S. population is engaged in farming.

We are the 1 percent that needs to reach out, magnify our voices, and continually explain to consumers, politicians, the decision makers, the regulators the importance of agriculture innovation, he said. The consumers need to understand and can support and be comfortable with the kinds of innovations that we need to farm better, farm more profitable and to farm more sustainable.

This was the 55th annual International Sugarbeet Institute that brings together the growers and the allied industries that are engaged in sugarbeet production.

Read the original:
Agriculture's biotechnology has a bright future - Farm and Ranch Guide

CRISPR is a gene-editing tool that enables scientists to do things like turn off the enzyme that makes mushrooms turn brown when bruised or cut.

Brand X Pictures/Thinkstock

In April 2016, an unlikely thing made headlines: the common white button mushroom.

Gene-Edited CRISPR Mushroom Escapes US Regulation, wrote Nature.

Whats a GMO? Apparently Not These Magic Mushrooms, wrote Grist.

And from MIT Technology Review: Who Approved the Genetically Engineered Foods Coming to Your Plate? No One.

The white button mushroom in question looked like any other in the grocery store, with one imperceptible difference: It was missing a gene that codes for an enzyme called PPO, or polyphenol oxidase, which makes mushrooms turn brown when theyre bruised or cut. Scientists at Pennsylvania State University essentially turned off this PPO geneone of six in the mushroomwith a new gene-editing tool called CRISPR, or clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. CRISPR is a bit like a biological word processor. It zooms to a specific genetic sequence in any living thingthe biotech equivalent of using Ctrl+F. Then, the tool can add, delete, or replace genetic information like an editor tweaking a sentence.

While the Penn State scientists used biotechnology to manipulate the mushrooms genes, their work didnt trigger government oversight, in part because current law doesnt necessarily apply to food made with CRISPR. The case highlights a chronic challenge with biotechnology regulation: It cant keep up with the fast pace of innovation. No surprise there: The relevant laws havent had a proper update in more than 30 years.

Not only that, the regulations are cobbled together, says Jaydee Hanson, a senior policy analyst at Center for Food Safety, an advocacy group. If you were writing a sci-fi novel, your editor would say, Thats just too unbelievable. No one would ever do it that way.

Your Cheat-Sheet Guide to Synthetic Biology

What Exactly Is Synthetic Biology? Its Complicated.

Can You Patent an Organism? The Synthetic Biology Community Is Divided.

The U.S. Regulations for Biotechnology Are Woefully Out of Date

The CRISPR mushroom doesnt appear to pose a health or environmental threat, so in this case the regulatory gaps may not matter. But what about a potentially damaging biotech creation made the same way? How will we regulate synthetic organisms made with technologies that dont yet exist? These questions arent just about food, as important as that istheyre also key for any biotech or synbio product, such as mosquitoes engineered to curb diseases and microbes made from scratch.

Depending on whom you talk to, the CRISPRd mushroom isnt strictly defined as synthetic biology. Still, genetic technology exists on a continuum, and the regulatory conundrum the mushroom raises is relevant to any organism tweaked in a lab.

Over the past two years, policymakers had a fleeting chance to improve biotech lawsand they missed it. Now that were in the wild and unpredictable world of the Trump administration, the future of biotech regulation is a big fat question mark.

To understand biotech regulations, we have to go back in time to 1986, when the cool kids were pegging their jeans, Top Gun was in the theaters, and Lionel Richie and Bananarama dominated the airwaves.

Another trend back then: recombinant DNA. Scientists discovered this genetic engineering tool in the early 1970s, when they first swapped genes from one species into another using the bacteria E. coli. The discovery was a landmark for biotechnology. By the 1980s, companies were commercializing microbes and plants made with recombinant DNA, and regulators ears perked up.

The decision fell to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, which has two main jobs. The first is to advise the president on matters of science, tech, and engineering. The second is to help coordinate multiple agencies on scientific policy. Rather than writing a new law, the OSTP decided to fit genetically engineered products into existing laws. The result, called the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology, published in June 1986. A small update in 1992 didnt change much.

Under the coordinated framework, regulation falls to the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Food and Drug Administration.

Yang Labs

The EPAs job is to protect human health and the environment. Several laws allow the EPA to do this, but the two relevant for biotech regulation relate to pesticides and toxic materials. Under the coordinated framework, the EPA can regulate any biotech organisms that produce these chemicals in some way. A genetically engineered crop that makes its own insecticide, for example, would trigger EPAs oversight on pesticides, while a microbe altered to produce biofuel would trigger the rules for potentially toxic chemicals.

The USDAs job, in part, is to protect U.S. agriculture. When it comes to biotech, the relevant laws that give USDA power relate to plant health. When the coordinated framework first published, the state-of-the-art genetic engineeringrecombinant DNAused microbes to deliver new genes. In crops, for example, scientists used agrobacterium, a bacterium that can infect plants. Its a weird way to apply the lawthese microbes arent likely to hurt crops. But the microbes are technically plant pathogens, which gives the USDA the authority to regulate any crop made this way.

As for the FDA, part of its job is to keep our food safe. Under the coordinated framework, companies proposing to sell a biotech food may submit to a voluntary safety review, to prove that its not going to poison anyone or give them a horrifying allergic reaction.

The original coordinated framework was a messy solution, but it worked OK for the technologies that were available back in the 80s and 90s. Today? Not so much. Take the CRISPRd mushroom. Because the mushroom doesnt produce pesticides or potentially toxic chemicals, the EPA had no reason to regulate it. The Penn State scientists who made the mushroom didnt use microbes to deliver DNACRISPR doesnt require that stepand so their work didnt trigger USDA oversight. As for the voluntary FDA review, the agency hasnt published anything on the mushroom so far.

Policymakers knew the coordinated framework was rickety even before the mushroom came along. In July 2015, the Obama administration asked the OSTP to take another look at the policy to ensure that the system is prepared for the future products of biotechnology.

To do this, the OTSP proposed three steps. One was to commission a report from the National Academies of Science exploring new biotech that may come out over next five to 10 years (more on this in a minute). For the other two, the agencies had to update their role in current biotech regulation and spell out a long-term strategy for future products.

The update took more than a year and included a series of closed and public meetings. A draft published last September, and the final version came out in early January. It was a lot of work for an underwhelming document. Rather than update the coordinated framework, the document lists a series of hypothetical biotech products and explains how each agency might regulate them. But none of the hypothetical exercises explored how products made with new technologies, like the CRISPR mushroom, may fit the current rules.

Its hard to imagine President Trump giving biotech much thought.

I thought it was a missed opportunity, says Jennifer Kuzma, a professor of science and technology policy and co-director of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University.

A better approach may have been to blow the whole thing up and start over: Write a new law that could adapt to future technologies. Such a law would have a broad scope that could capture any biotech or synbio product, regardless of how its made. Ideally, the law would also be more elastic when it comes to risk. We should let the traits of the organism determine the level of regulation, says Greg Jaffe, biotechnology director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Things that are potentially more risky should get more scrutiny, and things that are potentially less risky should have less scrutiny.

Of course, writing new biotech laws would require legislative approvala tough job in any year, made even more unlikely in todays hyperpartisan, dysfunctional Congress.

But there are other ways biotech laws could change. Remember, the OSTP also tasked the agencies with a long-term strategy for future biotech products. In January, just days before Obama left office, the FDA published draft guidance on regulating genetically altered animals, which will include CRISPR and other new technologies, as well as guidance on gene-edited foods and mosquitoes.

Around the same time, the USDA proposed new rules on biotech plants. In addition to potential plant pests that it already monitors, USDA wants to use a law that lets it regulate noxious weedsplants that pose a threat to the environment, the economy, or society, such as invasive species. Using this law would broaden the agencys ability to do risk assessments on genetically engineered products. The new rules would also allow the USDA to revise previous decisionsfor example, if there is evidence that an approved product is causing unexpected ecological damage.

Before the FDA and USDA proposals can move forward, theyll go through public comment periods, which end on June 19. The draft changes can help fix some of the problems with the coordinated framework, says Kuzma. Theyre not the entire solution, but theyre patches.

The other piece that could inform new policy is the National Academies report on biotech, which was published in March. It lays out several possible recommendations for regulating biotech in the future. For example, one suggestionwhich has the support of many policy folks, including Jaffeis to create a single point of entry for biotech regulation. This could do away with needless regulatory overlap. It would also be easier for companies to navigate.

But the new administration doesnt seem to be paying much attention to any of this. Science and agriculture arent high-priority, if the proposed budget cuts for 2018 are any indication. Trump still hasnt named a science adviser or a director for the OSTP. Some on Team Trump reportedly want to do away with the OSTPa tricky proposal for biotech, since the office organizes and guides the relevant policies and agencies. And its hard to imagine President Trump giving biotech much thought. A search of his tweets, a direct line into his stream of consciousness, shows no mention of genetically modified organisms. Or biotechnology. Or biology.

It could be that the agencies will just plug along under the radar and get some real work done. Or the changes and recommendations will languish, and well be stuck with the 30-year-old coordinated framework. Or the Trump administration could wipe the regulations out completely, like it has with rules on clean water or protecting hibernating bears.

Those last two choicesdoing nothing or wiping out regulations altogetherwould be huge mistakes. Either could allow for a flood of unregulated, and potentially risky, products. It would be much wiser to let the agencies continue the hard work of updating the laws for biological innovations, so we can have confidence to pile a helping of CRISPRd mushroom on our plate.

This article is part of the synthetic biology installment of Futurography, a series in which Future Tense introduces readers to the technologies that will define tomorrow. Each month, well choose a new technology and break it down. Future Tense is a collaboration among Arizona State University, New America, and Slate.

See the article here:
The U.S. Regulations for Biotechnology Are Woefully Out of Date - Slate Magazine

What can be more challenging than slogging in the laboratory, burning the midnight Bunsen burner, changing the methodology a few times, dealing with contaminated cell cultures and losing them, not having the transferred genes express themselves, and mining large genomics data in the terabytes?

It is communicating the science behind the research, repackaging it into plain language and dispelling the misinformation created by technology skeptics to ensure that viable science projects that help address food security and sustainable agriculture practices are commercialized, approved and reach the farms and our forks. This is no small task. Science communication is a complex field requiring special skills, training and experience. The heterogeneity of the public makes science communication both challenging and exciting. There is no cookie-cutter approach. Every audience, topic and concern must be approached differently. Each one is unique, requiring a customized communication strategy.

I have been a science communicator for 14 years and I have enjoyed every one of them, although it is not a bed of roses all the time. It requires patience and the ability to learn from our past mistakes and to perfect our techniques. Here I am sharing my agony and ecstasy.

The agony

Why is it that when scientists speak up for genetically modified (GM) crops we are immediately labeled as industry advocates and as recipients of industry money? In contrast, those who evangelize about organic products are seen as angels and saints? Yet, many of the critics of GM crops receive financial support from the organic industry and this industry has been no angel to science. Scientists who collaborate with agri-companies or receive funding from them are also demonized and their credibility trashed by critics. But, industry collaboration is not new in research at universities. The organic industry widely funds research. Why are only agribiotechnology scientists singled out?

Mahaletchumy Arujanan

Critics create myths about organic foods; instill guilt in mothers who dont feed their families with organic foods; and force consumers to pay hefty premiums in the pretext of serving more nutritious and sustainably grown foods. The claims that organic foods are more nutritious have been debunked many times. In spite of all this, GM crops and those who support them are painted as evil. For these reasons, I avoid organic foods like the plague it simply goes against my conscience.

Why is our job made so difficult while critics of GM crops have it easy? They create fear, doubts and myths. But those who embrace science take years to challenge the myths and doubts created by others. It takes years of research. Every time a doubt is created and turned into an unnecessary regulation, farmers pay the price in terms of economic losses. A good example is the failure to approve and commercialize insect resistant Bt brinjal in the Philippines (note the benefits were publicly acknowledged seven years ago but opponents successfully blocked its approval) and GM mustard in India.

It is not easy fighting ideology and hypocrisy with science. The opposition to GM crops has become a cult that no amount of science can dispel. I feel helpless when powerful tools are confiscated from farmers (see how EU Urges the G8 member states not to support GMO crops in Africaclause 72). They are deprived of technological innovations that could help them practice agriculture sustainably, prevent occupational hazards that are caused by the use of pesticides, increase their income and reduce their loss and costs.

A common accusation by critics is that GM seeds are patented by big agri-companies. But they fail to acknowledge that organic products are patented as well. Another favorite of scaremongers is that GM crops are dangerous and can even kill. Yet, since 1996 not a single GM-related health hazard has been reported. Not one. We cant however, say the same for organic produce. Read here, here and here to see the reality of safety of organic foods.

In spite of the mounting evidence on the benefits of GM crops, critics confuse the public with cooked-up evidence demonizing GM crops. For a science communicator backed by science, this is agonizing and makes my job extremely difficult.

The Ecstasy

When Malaysia was developing its Biosafety Act, I was involved in creating awareness about the need for a balanced, science-based regulatory instrument. I faced character assassination, accusations and sarcastic remarks.They were agonizing moments. But the agony turned to ecstasy when the act, and later the regulations and guidelines, became more science-based. Today, I sit in many meetings with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment to help implement the regulations in a balanced manner.

There have been other moments of ecstasy as well. Years ago, I waded into untested waters when I tackled issues related to Islamic principles (Shariah compliance) and GM foods. As a non-Muslim, I took a risk in handling such a sensitive topic but there were many countries that were contemplating a fatwa (decree) against GM crops, i.e. to declare GM foods and crops as haram (non-permissible). I didnt want the misinformation to spread among Muslim countries so I organized a dialogue between religious scholars and scientists.

The first meeting collapsed halfway through with many accusations hurled at me by GM opponents. I took a break from this topic for a while and analyzed my mistakes, found new credible partners and organized another high-level dialogue with top Islamic scholars from the Muslim world. It was a huge success. Here is the resolution that is used as a reference in many countries today that resulted from the discussion. Philippines became the first country after the dialogue to reverse its anti-GM rules, where initially they had a blanket decree claiming all GM foods were haram.

In 2010, I took a creative approach to educating a group that otherwise wouldnt take a second look at biotechnology fashion students, and through them a wider womens group. I engaged a university and got its fashion students to design outfits based on biotechnology themes and organized a fashion show. This was part of a bigger event called Bio Carnival with poster drawings, coloring, public speaking, debate, quizzes and spelling competitions for students, and exhibitions and hands-on sessions for the public. It was a rewarding experience when the university later introduced biotechnology as a special project for fashion students after realizing how it inspired fashion designs through its colors and unique patterns. With this approach, all the students had to search for information on biotechnology and we educated them about science and innovation.

Then there is my favorite project. I was long frustrated with the amount of space the mainstream media devoted to science issues. I tried making friends with journalists and organizing media training for scientists but it really did not effect much change. So, I decided to create my own playing field, The Petri Dish the first science newspaper in Malaysia. It is now seven years old and this year it graduated to become a digital portal to reach a wider audience.

The Petri Dish reaches all key stakeholders in Malaysia academia, researchers, policymakers, politicians (all cabinet members receive a copy), students, industry and the general public. We make it available at shopping malls and Starbucks outlets. I know a number of ministers who read it, and once a topic was fiercely debated at the cabinet meeting after being reported in The Petri Dish.

This is our initiative in bringing science to the headlines. It is aimed at creating awareness among all stakeholders on biotechnology so the public will be more receptive to emerging technologies and policymakers will be able to make informed decisions on regulations and funding. It also encourages young people to pursue STEM education and careers. Every time, I receive positive feedback on Petri Dish, I feel a rush of ecstasy. It is a struggle to sustain a science newspaper but the feeling of inspiring people about science is rewarding.

Another area I enjoy is talking to students both at schools and universities. These are uncorrupted minds and they are receptive to information backed by science when it is presented by a credible person. Every year, I reach out to more than 2000 students who are inspired by science and believe it offers solutions to many global problems.

The biggest lesson I have learned is that we need to build trust with our audiences before we start communicating with them: Connecting first and then communicating.

I believe the agony and ecstasy will continue, with exciting new developments in synthetic biology, gene editing and gene drives.

Mahaletchumy Arujanan is the Executive Director of Malaysian Biotechnology Information Centre (MABIC) and Editor-in-Chief of The Petri Dish the first science newspaper in Malaysia. She is also an Adjunct Lecturer at Monash University Malaysia. She has a degree in Biochemistry and Microbiology from Universiti Putra Malaysia, Masters in Biotechnology and PhD in science communication from the University of Malaya. She is an active science communicator who addresses policies, regulations, ethics, religions, STEM and other areas pertinent to biotechnology development. You can follow her onFacebook and Twitter @maha_mabic.

For more background on the Genetic Literacy Project, read GLP on Wikipedia

Continue reading here:
March for Science: Agony and ecstasy of a Malaysian agricultural biotechnology science communicator - Genetic Literacy Project