Category Archives: Genetic Engineering

In his greenhouse at the Cold SpringHarbor Laboratory in Long Island, N.Y., plant geneticist Zach Lippman is growing cherry tomatoes.

But they don't look like the ones that most people grow in their gardens and greenhouses.

Lippman's tomatoes have shorter stemsand the fruit is more tightly clustered, looking more like grapes.

"With gene editing, we now have the ability to fine-tune at will," he said. "So instead of having black or white, small fruit [or] big fruit, you can have everything in between."

Lippman used CRISPR arevolutionarygene-editing tool that can quickly and precisely edit DNA to tweak three of the plant's genes, and make them suitable for large-scale urban agriculture for the first time.

With CRISPR, researchers can precisely target and cut any kind of genetic material. Don't want your mushrooms to turn brown after a few days? Remove the gene that causes thatand problem solved.

There's a lot of excitement about the introduction of gene-edited products into the Canadian food system over the next few years, but a lot of trepidation as well.

The food industry's last foray into genetic engineering genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the 1990s was a financial success. But the practice is an ongoing public relations nightmare, as many Canadians remain wary of products critics have labelled "Frankenfoods."

Currently, the only gene-edited product commercially available is a soybean oil being used by a restaurant chain in the American Midwest for cooking and salad dressings. It has a longer shelf life than other cooking oils and produces less saturated fat and no trans fat.

Ian Affleck, vice-president of plant biotechnology at CropLife Canada, a trade association that represents Canadian manufacturers of pesticides and plant-breeding products, estimates the soybean oil might be in Canada in a year or two, followed by some altered fruits and vegetables.

Even then, he said, supplies will likely be limited while farmers and food companies determine if consumers will embrace genetically edited food.

All the major health organizations in the world, including Health Canada, have concluded that eating GMO foods does not pose eithershort or long-term health risks.

According to the World Health Organization, GMO goods currently approved for the market "have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health."

But Canadians remain stubbornly unconvinced even though about 90 per cent of the corn, soybeansand canola grown in Canada is genetically modified, as is almost all of the processed food we consume.

A 2018 pollby market research company Statista found only 37 per cent of people surveyed strongly or somewhat strongly agreed that GMOs were safe to eat, while 34 per cent strongly or somewhat strongly disagreed.

Industry representatives now say they spent too much time marketing their GMOproducts to farmersand not enough time communicating the benefitsto consumers.

"We spoke to two per cent of the population, who are those who farm," said Affleck. "And those who opposed the technology spoke to the other 98 per cent of the population."

"We thought it was just another transition in plant breeding," recalled Stuart Smyth, who holds the University of Saskatchewan's industry-funded research chair in agri-food innovation. "Nobody expected the environmental groups to develop into a political opposition."

With gene-edited foods, Smyth believes the industry needs to focus on public education to counteract what he calls the "propaganda" that will be coming from the other side.

Gene-edited foods will differ from GMOs in one important respect.

When foods are genetically modified, foreign genes are often added to an existing genome. If you want a vegetable to grow better in cold weather, you could add a gene from a fish that lives in icy water.That's what earned GMO products the "Frankenfoods" moniker.

With gene-editing tools like CRISPR, genes can be cut out, or "turned off," but nothing new is added to the genome.

Lucy Sharratt, co-ordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network, isn't convinced there's a significant difference.

"The new techniques of gene editing are clearly techniques of genetic engineering," she said. "They are all invasive methods of changing a genome directly at the molecular level.

"While we can produce organisms with new traits, that doesn't mean we know exactly all of what we've done to that organism. There can be many unintended effects," Sharratt further argued.

Unlike GMOs, which require extensive regulatory approval before going to market, gene-edited foods will likely appear without undergoing a risk assessment by Canadian regulators.

Health Canada doesn't require safety testing for new products if it determines those products aren't introducing "novel traits" into the food system. Since it considers gene editing to be an extension of traditional plant breeding, no stamp of approval will be necessary.

That concerns Jennifer Kuzma, co-director of the Genetic Engineering and Society Center at North Carolina State University, whothinks gene-edited products should be tracked and monitored "for those low-level health effects that some products might be contributing to."

Sharratt is also skeptical that gene editing will produce the benefits its supporters claim, pointing to "a biotech industry that has oversold technology and made all kinds of broad promises for the use of genetic engineering that didn't come to pass." Things like reduced pesticide use and greater drought resistance, for example.

Kuzma agrees that GMO researchers have sometimes been guilty of "perhaps overstating the promise of the technology and understating potential risk."But she believes those involved in developing gene-editing techniques want to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past.

"They have a really sincere desire to be more open and transparent in the ways that they communicate and in the sharing of information," she said. "They do realize that the first generation of genetic engineering did not go so well from a public confidence perspective."

The GMO food industry has fiercely opposed one of the most obvious methods to boost public confidence: mandatory labelling, even as a 2018 survey from Dalhousie University showed an overwhelming majority of Canadians support it.

Sixty-four countries require mandatory labelling for GMO products. Canada is not one of them.

There are no plans to require mandatory labelling of gene-edited foods, either.

Jonathan Latham, executive director of the Bioscience Resource Project, a New York-based non-profit organization that researches genetic engineering, thinks that's a mistake.

"If you want people to make informed decisions and you want them to make that in a democratic fashion, then the more information you give them, the better," he said. "And so to deny people information about the content of their food is to violate a very basic democratic right."

Lathamalso believes that not labelling genetically engineered productsincreases consumer skepticism.

"[Consumers] don't really understand why, if a company wants to produce a product and advertise it and tell everybody how good it is, why they shouldn't also want to label it," he said.

Sharratt would like to see Canada adopt the approach taken by the European Court of Justice, which ruled in 2018 that gene-edited foods must undergo the same testing as GMOs before being allowed on grocery store shelves.

Lippman doesn't believe that will happen. In fact, he thinks the potential of gene-edited foods is so great that the public will demand even greater access to suchproducts.

"People will start to be educated and see that there's nothing harmful about it. It's completely fine. And then the only issue sticking out there will be whether we're over-promising.That'll be it."

Click 'listen' above to hear Ira Basen's documentary, The Splice of Life.

Read more here:
Gene editing could revolutionize the food industry, but it'll have to fight the PR war GMO foods lost - CBC.ca

Last year left us with this piece of bombshell news: He Jiankui, the mastermind behind the CRISPR babies scandal, has been sentenced to three years in prison for violating Chinese laws on scientific research and medical management. Two of his colleagues also face prison for genetically engineering human embryos that eventually became the worlds first CRISPRd babies.

The story isnt over: at least one other scientist is eagerly following Hes footsteps in creating gene-edited humans, although he stresses that he wont implant any engineered embryos until receiving regulatory approval.

Biotech stories are rarely this dramatic. But as gene editing tools and assisted reproductive technologies increase in safety and precision, were bound to see ever more mind-bending headlines. Add in a dose of deep learning for drug discovery and synthetic biology, and its fair to say were getting closer to reshaping biology from the ground upboth ourselves and other living creatures around us.

Here are two stories in biotech were keeping our eyes on. Although successes likely wont come to fruition this year (sorry), these futuristic projects may be closer to reality than you think.

The idea of human-animal chimeras immediately triggers ethical aversion, but the dream of engineering replacement human organs in other animals is gaining momentum.

There are two main ways to do this. The slightly less ethically-fraught idea is to grow a fleet of pigs with heavily CRISPRd organs to make them more human-like. It sounds crazy, but scientists have already successfully transplanted pig hearts into baboonsa stand-in for people with heart failurewith some recipients living up to 180 days before they were euthanized. Despite having foreign hearts, the baboons were healthy and acted like their normal buoyant selves post-op.

But for cross-species transplantation, or xenotransplants to work in humans, we need to deal with PERVsa group of nasty pig genes scattered across the porcine genome, remnants of ancient viral infections that can tag along and potentially infect unsuspecting human recipients.

Theres plenty of progress here too: back in 2017 scientists at eGenesis, a startup spun off from Dr. George Churchs lab, used CRISPR to make PERV-free pig cells that eventually became PERV-free piglets after cloning. Then last month, eGenesis reported the birth of Pig3.0, the worlds most CRISPRd animal to further increase organ compatibility. These PERV-free genetic wonders had three pig genes that stimulate immunorejection removed, and nine brand new human genes to make themin theorymore compatible with human physiology. When raised to adulthood, pig3.0 could reproduce and pass on their genetic edits.

Although only a first clinical propotype that needs further validation and refinement, eGenesis is hopeful. According to one (perhaps overzealous) estimate, the first pig-to-human xenotranplant clinical trial could come in just two years.

The more ethically-challenged idea is to grow human organs directly inside other animalsin other words, engineer human-animal hybrid embryos and bring them to term. This approach marries two ethically uncomfortable technologies, germline editing and hybrids, into one solution that has many wondering if these engineered animals may somehow receive a dose of humanness by accident during development. What if, for example, human donor cells end up migrating to the hybrid animals brain?

Nevertheless, this year scientists at the University of Tokyo are planning to grow human tissue in rodent and pig embryos and transplant those hybrids into surrogates for further development. For now, bringing the embryos to term is completely out of the question. But the line between humans and other animals will only be further blurred in 2020, and scientists have begun debating a new label, substantially human, for living organisms that are mainly human in characteristicsbut not completely so.

With over 800 gene therapy trials in the running and several in mature stages, well likely see a leap in new gene medicine approvals and growth in CAR-T spheres. For now, although transformative, the three approved gene therapies have had lackluster market results, spurring some to ponder whether companies may cut down on investment.

The research community, however, is going strong, with a curious bifurcating trend emerging. Let me explain.

Genetic medicine, a grab-bag term for treatments that directly change genes or their expression, is usually an off-the-shelf solution. Cell therapies, such as the blood cancer breakthrough CAR-T, are extremely personalized in that a patients own immune cells are genetically enhanced. But the true power of genetic medicine lies in its potential for hyper-personalization, especially when it comes to rare genetic disorders. In contrast, CAR-Ts broader success may eventually rely on its ability to become one-size-fits-all.

One example of hyper-tailored gene medicine success is the harrowing story of Mila, a six-year-old with Batten disease, a neurodegenerative genetic disorder that is always fatal and was previously untreatable. Thanks to remarkable efforts from multiple teams, however, in just over a year scientists developed a new experimental therapy tailored to her unique genetic mutation. Since receiving the drug, Milas condition improved significantly.

Milas case is a proof-of-concept of the power of N=1 genetic medicine. Its unclear whether other children also carry her particular mutationBatten has more than a dozen different variants, each stemming from different genetic miscodingor if anyone else would ever benefit from the treatment.

For now, monumental costs and other necessary resources make it impossible to pull off similar feats for a broader population. This is a shame, because inherited diseases rarely have a single genetic cause. But costs for genome mapping and DNA synthesis are rapidly declining. Were starting to better understand how mutations lead to varied disorders. And with multiple gene medicines, such as antisense oligonucleotides (ASOs) finally making a comeback after 40 years, its not hard to envision a new era of hyper-personalized genetic treatments, especially for rare diseases.

In contrast, the path forward for CAR-T is to strip its personalization. Both FDA-approved CAR-T therapies require doctors to collect a patients own immune T cells, preserved and shipped to a manufacturer, genetically engineered to boost their cancer-hunting abilities, and infused back into patients. Each cycle is a race against the cancer clock, requiring about three to four weeks to manufacture. Shipping and labor costs further drive up the treatments price tag to hundreds of thousands of dollars per treatment.

These considerable problems have pushed scientists to actively research off-the-shelf CAR-T therapies, which can be made from healthy donor cells in giant batches and cryopreserved. The main stumbling block is immunorejection: engineered cells from donors can cause life-threatening immune problems, or be completely eliminated by the cancer patients immune system and lose efficacy.

The good news? Promising results are coming soon. One idea is to use T cells from umbilical cord blood, which are less likely to generate an immune response. Another is to engineer T cells from induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSC)mature cells returned back to a young, stem-like state. A patients skin cells, for example, could be made into iPSCs that constantly renew themselves, and only pushed to develop into cancer-fighting T cells when needed.

Yet another idea is to use gene editing to delete proteins on T cells that can trigger an immune responsethe first clinical trials with this approach are already underway. With at least nine different off-the-shelf CAR-T in early human trials, well likely see movement in industrialized CAR-T this year.

Theres lots of other stories in biotech we here at Singularity Hub are watching. For example, the use of AI in drug discovery, after years of hype, may finally meet its reckoning. That is, can the technology actually speed up the arduous process of finding new drug targets or the design of new drugs?

Another potentially game-changing story is that of Biogens Alzheimers drug candidate, which reported contradicting results last year but was still submitted to the FDA. If approved, itll be the first drug to slow cognitive decline in a decade. And of course, theres always the potential for another mind-breaking technological leap (or stumble?) thats hard to predict.

In other words: we cant wait to bring you new stories from biotechs cutting edge in 2020.

Image Credit: Image by Konstantin Kolosov from Pixabay

Read the original:
The Top Biotech Trends We'll Be Watching in 2020 - Singularity Hub

ARTS WORK IN THE AGE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY: SHAPING OUR GENETIC FUTURES

Through Sunday, March 15

The Gregg Museum of Art & Design, Raleigh

Where do we draw the lines dividing art from science, natural from unnatural, and boldness from hubris?

An exhibit at N.C. States Gregg Museum of Art & Design doesnt answer these questions. Instead, it offers head-spinning new ways to ask them at the nexus of art and biotechnology, sharpening our insight into the fields future and expanding our understanding of it into the past.

These hard-to-classify collaborations between artists and scientistsseethe with hot-button issues related to ethics, privacy, human nature, and more. But if they have one message in common, its to be careful what you wish for.

Arts Work in the Age of Biotechnology: Shaping Our Genetic Futures is the result of more than two years of planning led by Molly Renda, the exhibit program librarian at N.C. State University Libraries, and the universitys Genetic Engineering and Society Center. Guest-curated by Hannah Star Rogers, who studies the intersection of art and science, the main exhibit at the Gregg has annexes in Hill and Hunt libraries.

On a recent tour of the exhibit, Renda and Fred Gould, the co-director of the GESC, said that they wanted to bring artists into the welter of science-and-design innovation taking place at the university because their differing perspectives on fundamental human issues create balance, tension, and discovery.

In the course of this, Ive found that artists tend to be more dystopian and designers are more utopian, Renda says.

There are different ways of knowing things, Gould adds. Thats why Molly came up with the name: not artwork, but arts work. What is an artist supposed to do?

Some pieces take on the dangers of day-after-tomorrow DNA testing and engineering technology. Heather Dewey-Hagborg is best known for Probably Chelsea, a piece in which she collected DNA samples from Chelsea Manning and generated thirty-two possible portraits of the soldier and activist.

When we worry about biotechnology, we usually worry that our food is going to be dangerous. But sometimes you wish for something thats rare: What happens when biotechnology makes it available to you?

The Gregg is showing a similar piece in which Dewey-Hagborg harvested DNA from cigarette butts and gum she found on the street and created probablebut not definitereplicas of the litterers faces, which hang on the walls above the specimens. Dewey-Hagborg demonstrates not only the unnerving extent of whats currently possible with DNA testing, but also the limits, which create misidentification risks.

Other pieces probe how biotechnology might reshape life as we know it. In a film and a sculpture representing an ancient Greek rite for women, Charlotte Jarvis raises the possibility of creating female sperm, based on the idea that, because stem cells are undifferentiated, you could theoretically teach womens stem cells to develop into sperm.

Still other pieces pointedly poke holes in the boundary between science and art. Adam Zaretskys Errorarium (entitled "Bipolar Flowers")looks like a cross between an arcade cabinet and a terrarium. It houses a few genetically modified Arabidopsis specimens, which Gould calls the white mice of research plants. When you turn the knobs, it changes the sonic parameters of a synthesizer, notionally testing the effects of the sound on the mutant plants.

It doesnt really do anythingor does it? Zaretskys experiment with no hypothesis is a playful tweak on science with something a little dangerous in the background.

Joe Davis, a bio-art pioneer, touches on something similar in his piece, which consists of documentation of an experiment where mice roll dice to determine if luck can be bred. Renda says that Davis couldnt get permission to run the test (universities are wary of drawing attention for ridiculous-seeming experiments), so he did it as conceptual art at N.C. State, instead.

Its notable that two artists home in on luck, one of many human concepts that genetic engineering, which will allow us to take control of our bodies and environment in untested ways, will transform. In We Make Our Own Luck Here, Ciara Redmond has bred four-leaf clovers (without genetic modification), which ruins themtheyrelucks evidence, not its cause. This whimsical iteration of unconsidered consequences raises a serious question: What else are we not thinking of?

When we worry about biotechnology, we usually worry that our food is going to be dangerous, Gould says. But sometimes you wish for something thats rare: What happens when biotechnology makes it available to you?

The exhibit takes an expansive view of biotechnology. Maria McKinney uses semen-extraction straws to sculpt proteins from double-muscled breeding bulls, underscoring that weve been tampering with life since long before CRISPR. Biotech feels radically new, but its revealed as part of a centuries-long process.

Another part of the exhibit, which closed at the end of October but can still be experienced through virtual reality at the Gregg, was From Teosinte to Tomorrow, Rendas land-art project at the North Carolina Museum of Art. In what was essentially a walk back through agricultural history, a bed of teosinte, which is thought to be the ancestor of modern maize, waited at the center of a corn maze.

That teosinte was in some sense genetically enhanced by subsistence farmers in Mexico since the time of the Aztecs, Gould says. Now were doing it in the laboratory with the same genesso whats the difference? Arts work is to make us think and question.

Contact arts and culture editor Brian Howe at bhowe@indyweek.com

Support independent local journalism.Join the INDY Press Clubto help us keep fearless watchdog reporting and essential arts and culture coverage viable in the Triangle.

See the rest here:
At the Crossroads of Art and Biotech, a Warning: Be Careful What You Wish For. - INDY Week

Job Description

Applications are invited for a temporary Post ofPostdoctoral Fellowship under a Indo-French Academia-Industry Collaborative Projectfunded by CEFIPRA, in Centre for Bio Separation Technology, Vellore Institute of Technology (VIT).

Title of the Project:

Cost effective strategy for the induction of immune tolerance to therapeutic Factor VIII in haemophilia A

Qualification:

PhD in Biochemistry /Molecular Biology/Genetic Engineering/Biotechnology/ Microbiology/Life Sciences

Desirable (if any):

Experience in molecular cloning, expression and purification of proteins

Stipend:Rs.47,000/ per month + 10% HRASponsoring Agency:CEFIPRADuration:Upto April 2020 (3 months)

Principal Investigator:

Principal Investigator: Dr.Krishnan V (Professor & Director, Centre for BioSeparation Technology)

Coinvestigator: Prof.M.A.Vijyalakshmi (Professor, Centre for BioSeparation Technology)

Send your resume along with relevant documents pertaining to the details of qualifications, scientific accomplishments, experience (if any) and latest passport size photo etc. on or before(20/01/2020)through onlinehttp://careers.vit.ac.in

Salary:Not Disclosed by RecruiterIndustry:Education / Teaching / TrainingFunctional Area:Teaching, Education, Training, CounsellingRole:Trainee

Keyskills

immune toleranceBiochemistry/

Desired Candidate Profile

Please refer to the Job description above

Education-

Doctorate:Ph.D - Microbiology, Bio-Chemistry/Bio-Technology

Company Profile

Vellore Institute of Technology

VIT was established with the aim of providing quality higher education on par with international standards. It persistently seeks and adopts innovative methods to improve the quality of higher education on a consistent basis.The campus has a cosmopolitan atmosphere with students from all corners of the globe. Experienced and learned teachers are strongly encouraged to nurture the students. The global standards set at VIT in the field of teaching and research spur us on in our relentless pursuit of excellence. In fact, it has become a way of life for us. The highly motivated youngsters on the campus are a constant source of pride. Our Memoranda of Understanding with various international universities are our major strength. They provide for an exchange of students and faculty and encourage joint research projects for the mutual benefit of these universities. Many of our students, who pursue their research projects in foreign universities, bring high quality to their work and esteem to India and have done us proud. With steady steps, we continue our march forward. We look forward to meeting you here at VIT.

View post:
Postdoctoral Fellowship Under A Indo-French Academia-Industry job with VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY | 192385 - Times Higher Education (THE)

Share this Article

You are free to share this article under the Attribution 4.0 International license.

Poplar trees, which emit trace amounts of the gas isoprene, can be genetically modified not to harm air quality while leaving their growth potential unchanged, according to new research.

While providing benefits to the environment, some trees, like poplars, also emit gases to the atmosphere that worsen air pollution and alter climate.

The findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences are important because poplar plantations cover 9.4 million hectares (36,294 square miles) globallymore than double the land used 15 years ago. Poplars are fast-growing trees that are a source of biofuel and other products including paper, pallets, plywood, and furniture frames.

Poplars and other trees used in plantation agroforestry, including palms and eucalyptus, produce isoprene in their leaves in response to climate stress such as high temperature and drought. The isoprene alleviates those stresses by signaling cellular processes to produce protective molecules; however, isoprene is so volatile that millions of metric tons leak into the atmosphere each year.

The isoprene reacts with gases that tailpipe pollution produces to create ozone, which is a respiratory irritant. Isoprene also causes higher levels of atmospheric aerosol production, which reduces the amount of direct sunlight reaching the earth (a cooling effect), and it causes the global warming potential of methane in the atmosphere to increase (a warming effect). The warming effect is most likely greater than the cooling effect. The net effect of emitted isoprene is to worsen respiratory health and, most likely, warm the atmosphere.

Researchers genetically modified poplars not to produce isoprene, then tested them in three- and four-year trials at plantations in Oregon and Arizona.

They found that trees whose isoprene production was genetically suppressed did not suffer ill effects in terms of photosynthesis or biomass production. They were able to make cellulose, used in biofuel production, and grow as well as trees that were producing isoprene. The discovery came as a surprise, given the protective role of isoprene in stressful climates, especially in the case of the Arizona plantation.

The suppression of isoprene production in the leaves has triggered alternative signaling pathways that appear to compensate for the loss of stress tolerance due to isoprene, says lead author Russell Monson, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona. The trees exhibited a clever response that allowed them to work around the loss of isoprene and arrive at the same outcome, effectively tolerating high temperature and drought stress.

Our findings suggest that isoprene emissions can be diminished without affecting biomass production in temperate forest plantations, says coauthor Steven Strauss, a distinguished professor of forest biotechnology at Oregon State University.

Thats what we wanted to examinecan you turn down isoprene production, and does it matter to biomass productivity and general plant health? It looks like it doesnt impair either significantly.

To modify the poplars, the researchers used a genetic engineering tool known as RNA interference. RNA transmits protein coding instructions from each cells DNA, which holds the organisms genetic code. Scientists at the Institute of Biochemical Plant Pathology at the Helmholtz Research Center in Munich, Germany who collaborated on the study developed the genetic tools for modifying the trees, and the protein analyses that revealed changes in the use of biochemical pathways.

RNA interference is like a vaccinationit triggers a natural and highly specific mechanism whereby specific targets are suppressed, be they the RNA of viruses or endogenous genes, Strauss says.

You could also do the same thing through conventional breeding. It would be a lot less efficient and precise, and it might be a nightmare for a breeder who may need to reassess all of their germplasm and possibly exclude their most productive cultivars as a result, but it could be done. New technologies like CRISPR, short for clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats, which allows for precise DNA editing at specific stretches of the genetic code, should work even better.

In an additional discovery, the researchers found that trees were able to adjust to the loss of isoprene because most plantation growth takes place during cooler and wetter times of the year.

This means that, for this species, the natural seasonal cycle of growth works in favor of high biomass production when the beneficial effects of isoprene are needed least, Monson explains.

This observation also clarified an adaptive role for isoprene in natural forests, where protection that enhances survival during mid-season climate stress is likely more important than processes that promote growth early in the season.

The fact that cultivars of poplar can be produced in a way that ameliorates atmospheric impacts without significantly reducing biomass production gives us a lot of optimism, Monson says.

Were striving toward greater environmental sustainability while developing plantation-scale biomass sources that can serve as fossil fuel alternatives.

Additional researchers from Portland State University; the University of California, Riverside; NASAs Goddard Space Flight Center; and the Institute for Microbiology in Greifswald, Germany also collaborated on the study.

Funding came, in part, from the National Science Foundation, the US Department of Agriculture, and the German Ministry of Education and Research.

Source: Russell Monson for University of Arizona

See more here:
Genetically modified poplar trees won't pollute the air - Futurity: Research News

According to arecent reportin The Hindu Business Line, Indias intelligence agencies are investigating the role of a global investment company and international seed companies in supporting farmers organisation Shetkari Sanghatana (SS) in the distribution of illegally procured genetically modified (GM) herbicide tolerant (HT) cotton seeds. The planting of such seeds is an offence under the Environment Protection Act and Seeds Act.

In May 2019, SS broke the law and freely distributed these seeds. In early January 2020, it broke the law again by distributing second generation seeds. According to the report, a senior intelligence official had toldBusiness Linethat a global investment company, with investments in seeds and agrochemicals companies, has chosen to support the farmers organisation.

Business Line reports that the investment company is allegedly putting pressure on the Modi government to ensure that the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee fast tracks the clearance of HT seeds, so the seeds could be legally harvested and sold in the country.

In India,five high-level reportshave advised against the adoption of GM crops. Appointed by the Supreme Court, the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) Final Report (2013) was scathing about the prevailing regulatory system and highlighted its inadequacies and serious inherent conflicts of interest. The TEC recommended a 10-year moratorium on the commercial release of all GM crops.

The reason why Bt cotton to date, Indias only officially approved GM crop made it into farmers fields in the first place was due to approval by contamination. Bt cotton was discovered in 2001 growing on thousands of hectares in Gujarat. In March 2002, it was approved for commercial cultivation.

The pro-GMO lobby has again resorted to such tactics. The 2010 moratorium on Bt brinjal was implemented because science won out against a regulatory process that lacked competency, possessed endemic conflicts of interest and demonstrated a lack of expertise in GM risk assessment protocols, including food safety assessment and the assessment of environmental impacts.

As we have seen with the relentless push to get GM mustard commercialised, the problems persist. Now, to justify breaking the law, we are seeing unscientific claims and well-worn industry-inspired soundbites about GM crops: political posturing unsupported by evidence to try to sway the policy agenda in favour of GM.

Drawing on previous peer-reviewed evidence, a2018 paperin the journal Current Science by renowned scientists PC Kesavan and MS Swaminathan concluded that Bt crops and HT crops are unsustainable and globally have not decreased the need for toxic chemical pesticides, the reason for these GM crops in the first place.

We need to look at GM objectively becauseplenty of evidenceindicates it poses risks or is not beneficial and that non-GM alternatives are a better option. Moreover, many things that scientists are trying to achieve with GM have already beensurpassed by means of conventional breeding.

Those behind the distribution and planting of illegal seeds talk about helping the farmer. But the real agenda is to open-up India to GM and get farmers hooked on a corporate money-spinning GM seed-chemical treadmill.

The watchdog GMWatch recently produced an article about how hired public relations agencies and key individuals with firm links to the biotechnology sector are attempting to deceive the public and policy makers. The articles author, Jonathan Matthews, notes that in June 2019 the pro-GMO campaignerMark Lynasbegantalking upwhat heclaimedwas to be the worlds first pro-GMO protest.

The term astroturfing is the process by which orchestrated marketing and public relations campaigns are presented as emanating from grassroots participants or ordinary members of the public rather than from powerful corporate interests.Lynas, a well-known industry lobbyist, said the protest would involve Indian farmers planting banned GM seeds in what hecalledGandhi-style civil disobedience. This attention-grabbing campaign was being led by SS, which Lynasdescribedas very grass roots.

According to Matthews, SS is not a mass movement of grassroots farmers but an allegedlywell-fundedfringe group created by the lateSharad Joshi, a right-wing economist andmemberof the Advisory Board of the Monsanto-backedWorld Agricultural Forum, an organisation whose founder and first chairman was for many years Monsantos director of public policy.

Joshi was also Chairman of Shivar Agroproducts Ltd, says Matthews, but he is best remembered for his ultra-libertarian ideology, his links to certain farmersgroupsand the political party (Swatantra Bharat Paksh) that he founded all vehicles for promoting his free market fundamentalism.

Matthews says:

Lynas was not the first to present Shetkari Sanghatana as representing ordinary Indian farmers. A full two decades earlier, the European biotech industry and their PR firm Burson-Marsteller brought some of Shetkari Sanghatanas leading lights to Europe to try and counter the view that Indian farmers opposed GMO crops. To that end, they were toured around five different countries by the industrys lobby group, EuropaBio, which in apress releasepresented this free market fringe group, which islargelyconfined to the state of Maharashtra, as the mainstream farmers movement in India.

Matthews adds that the US is the biotech industrys chief propaganda hub for promoting wide-ranging fakery to the world. Referring to the illegal planting of HT cotton seeds and SS, he says:

Among the notable cheerleaders promoting the protesters cause were the Gates-backed GMO propaganda outfitThe Alliance for Science, which paysMark Lynasto lobby for GMOs;CS PrakashofAgBioWorld, who has long served as a conduit forMonsanto disinformation;Bayer-consultantandMonsanto collaboratorKevin Folta, who made apodcaston the protests withCS Prakash

Matthews piece, Fake Farmer Willi part of an international fake parade, provides details of the various characters and strategies involved in faking it for the biotech industry, not just in India but across the world.

As a market for GM proprietary seeds, chemical inputs and agricultural technology and machinery, India is vast. The potential market for herbicide growth alone for instance is huge: sales could now have reached USD 800 million with scope for even greater expansion, especially with the illegal push to get HT seeds planted.

With GM crops largely shut out of Europe and many countries reluctant to embrace the technology, Western agro-biotech conglomerates are desperate to seek out and expand into untapped (foreign) markets to maintain profitability.India presents potential rich pickings. And this is the bottom line: GM is not about helping farmers or feeding the masses (myths that have been deconstructed time and again). It is about hard-nose interests endeavouring to displace existing systems of production and capturing and exploiting markets by any means possible not least fakery and deception.

Continued here:
GM in India: Faking it on the Astroturf - CounterPunch

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE

Can an AI Be an Inventor? Not Yet.Angela Chen | MIT Technology Review[Ryan Abbott] believes there will be more and more cases where AI should be considered a genuine inventor and that the law needs to be ready. At stake in this discussion is the future of innovation, he says. Not allowing AI be recognized as an inventor is not only morally problematic, he says, but will lead to unintended consequences.

The Superpowers of Super-Thin MaterialsAmos Zeeberg | The New York TimesAs researchers like [Toms Palacios] see it, two-dimensional materials will be the linchpin of the internet of everything. They will be painted on bridges and form the sensors to watch for strain and cracks. They will cover windows with transparent layers that become visible only when information is displayed. Increasingly, the future looks flat.

Panasonics VR Glasses Support HDR and Look Pretty SteampunkSam Byford | The VergeThe problem with VR headsets is that they still all look like VR headsetsglorified ski goggles that shut you off from the world. my main takeaway from the demo was that hey, turns out its possible to make VR glasses that are both better qualityand with a better form factor.

Why the Quantum Internet Should Be Built in SpaceEmerging Technology From the arXiv | MIT Technology Review[Sumeet Khatri and colleagues have] studied the various ways a quantum internet could be built and say the most cost-effective approach is to create a constellation of quantum-enabled satellites capable of continuously broadcasting entangled photons to the ground. In other words, the quantum internet should be space-based.

The Gene Drive Dilemma: We Can Alter Entire Species, but Should We?Jennifer Kahn | The New York Times MagazineA new genetic engineering technology could help eliminate malaria and stave off extinctionsif humanity decides to unleash it.

Bots Are Destroying Political Discourse as We Know ItBruce Schneier | The AtlanticSoon, AI-driven personas will be able to write personalized letters to newspapers and elected officials, submit individual comments to public rule-making processes, and intelligently debate political issues on social media. They will be replicated in the millions and engage on the issues around the clock, sending billions of messages, long and short. Putting all this together, theyll be able to drown out any actual debate on the internet.

Image Credit: Karlis Reimanis /Unsplash

Originally posted here:
This Week's Awesome Tech Stories From Around the Web (Through January 11) - Singularity Hub

DetailsCategory: More NewsPublished on Sunday, 12 January 2020 11:23Hits: 1134

LEVERKUSEN, Germany & FARMINGTON, CT, USA I January 10, 2020 I Bayer and Azitra Inc., a clinical-stage medical dermatology biotech company, today announced a joint development agreement to collaborate in the identification and characterization of skin microbiome bacteria. The partnership will leverage Azitras proprietary panel of Staphylococcus epidermidis strains to identify potential candidates for the treatment of adverse skin conditions and diseases. Based on the results of the research partnership, Bayer plans to develop selected Staphylococcus epidermidis strains into new natural skin care products under a future License Agreement. Prospective areas of application include medicated skin care products for sensitive, eczema-prone skin as well as therapeutic products for skin diseases such as atopic dermatitis.

Recent scientific publications suggest that microorganisms such as bacteria and especially skin-friendly bacteria, commonly referred to as skin microbiome, can significantly contribute to the protection of the skin from hostile invasions. Additional positive effects include supporting the recovery from skin diseases such as atopic dermatitis, acne, and rosacea, and may also accelerate wound healing.

The skin microbiome offers a promising platform for the development and commercialization of natural skin care products more and more people are looking for. As Bayer is committed to the development of science-based consumer health products through our own research as well as external partnerships, were delighted to collaborate with Azitra. The company has already demonstrated tolerability of a selected Staphylococcus epidermidis strain in healthy volunteers and is now planning to start the clinical demonstration of efficacy, Heiko Schipper, Member of the Board of Management of Bayer AG and President of Bayer Consumer Health, comments on the new partnership.

Bayer, a global leader in innovative and trusted skincare solutions, will actively contribute to the research collaboration by providing suitable topical formulations that are able to maintain Staphylococcus epidermidis viability while showing excellent skin compatibility and sensorial performance.

"We are strongly committed to the potential of the microbiome to provide significant benefits for improved skin health and appearance and by working together with Bayer I am confident we can deliver on the promise of this technology," states Richard Andrews, President and CEO of Azitra.

Azitras versatile platform technology offers further screening options for beneficial strains appropriate for the treatment of dermatological diseases such as atopic dermatitis, acne or psoriasis. In addition, Bayer will review the use of Azitras genetically modified bacteria in Dermatology and other Consumer Health areas such as Nutritionals and Digestive Health.

About Azitra

Azitra, Inc. is a clinical-stage medical dermatology company that combines the power of the microbiome with cutting-edge genetic engineering to treat skin disease. The company was founded in 2014 by scientists from Yale University and works with world-leading scientists in dermatology, microbiology, and genetic engineering to advance its pharmaceutical programs to treat cancer therapy associated skin rashes, targeted orphan indications and atopic dermatitis. Learn more at http://www.azitrainc.com

About Bayer

Bayer is a global enterprise with core competencies in the life science fields of health care and nutrition. Its products and services are designed to benefit people by supporting efforts to overcome the major challenges presented by a growing and aging global population. At the same time, the Group aims to increase its earning power and create value through innovation and growth. Bayer is committed to the principles of sustainable development, and the Bayer brand stands for trust, reliability and quality throughout the world. In fiscal 2018, the Group employed around 117,000 people and had sales of 39.6 billion euros. Capital expenditures amounted to 2.6 billion euros, R&D expenses to 5.2 billion euros. For more information, go to http://www.bayer.com.

SOURCE: Bayer

More here:
Bayer and Azitra partner to harness the human skin microbiome as a source for new natural skin care products for sensitive and eczema-prone skin |...

ROCK HILL, South Carolina and REHOVOT, Israel, Jan. 13, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- Today, 3D Systems (NYSE: DDD) and CollPlant Biotechnologies(NASDAQ: CLGN),announced signing a joint development agreement intended to play a pivotal role in advancing and accelerating breakthroughs in the biomedical industry. The collaboration brings together two industry pioneers--3D Systems, renowned for its 3D printing technologies and healthcare expertise; and CollPlant, the developer of proprietary recombinant human collagen (rhCollagen) BioInk technologycurrently used for 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. The two companies plan to jointly develop tissue and scaffold bioprinting processes for thirdparty collaborators.

3D Systems and CollPlant recognized an unmet market need for a comprehensive solution to produce tissues and scaffolds for regenerative medicine applications. The companies intend to create integrated 3D bioprinting solutions comprised of state-of-the-art 3D bioprinters and BioInks to produce tissues and scaffolds. In accordance with the collaboration agreement, both companies may use a combination of 3D Systems' printers, CollPlant's BioInks, and new formulations of rhCollagen-based BioInks jointly developed by the companies, for their own products, as well as for deployments with third parties.

"3D Systems is excited to work with CollPlant to develop groundbreaking bioprinted tissue and scaffold technologies," said Chuck Hull, co-founder and chief technology officer, 3D Systems. "We believe 3D printing to be a key technology for regenerative medicine, and this collaboration is one of many we are entering to play an integral role in this exciting field.Combining our innovative 3D printing technologies with CollPlant's rhCollagen based BioInks has the potential to make a significant impact in bioprinting and regenerative medicine."

"We strongly believe that our proven rhCollagen is the finest building block for regenerative medicine tissues and scaffolds available today," Yehiel Tal, chief executive officer of CollPlant, stated. "As the leading additive manufacturing printing solutions company, 3D Systems is the perfect partner for us. Together, we can offer the best combined technology for 3D bioprinting. We are honored to have established this important collaboration and we look forward to working together to advance 3D bioprinting technology to the commercial phase."

About 3D Systems

More than 30 years ago, 3D Systems brought the innovation of 3D printing to the manufacturing industry. Today, as the leading AM solutions company, it empowers manufacturers to create products and business models never before possible through transformed workflows. This is achieved with the Company's best-of-breed digital manufacturing ecosystem - comprised of plastic and metal 3D printers, print materials, on-demand manufacturing services and a portfolio of end-to-end manufacturing software. Each solution is powered by the expertise of the company's application engineers who collaborate with customers to transform manufacturing environments. 3D Systems' solutions address a variety of advanced applications for prototyping through production in markets such as aerospace, automotive, medical, dental and consumer goods. More information on the company is available atwww.3dsystems.com.

About CollPlant

CollPlant is a regenerative medicine company focused on 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs, and medical aesthetics. Our products are based on our rhCollagen (recombinant human collagen) that is produced with CollPlant's proprietary plant based genetic engineering technology.

Our products address indications for the diverse fields of organ and tissue repair, and are ushering in a new era in regenerative medicine. Our flagship rhCollagen BioInk product line is ideal for 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. In October 2018, we entered into a licensing agreement with United Therapeutics, whereby United Therapeutics is using CollPlant's BioInks to develop the manufacture of 3D bioprinted lungs for transplant in humans.

For more information about CollPlant, visit http://www.collplant.com

Safe Harbor for Forward-Looking Statements

This press release may include forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements may include, but are not limited to, statements relating to CollPlant's and 3D Systems' objectives, plans and strategies, as well as statements, other than historical facts, that address activities, events or developments that CollPlant and 3D Systems each intends, expects, projects, believes or anticipates will or may occur in the future. These statements are often characterized by terminology such as "believes," "hopes," "may," "anticipates," "should," "intends," "plans," "will," "expects," "estimates," "projects," "positioned," "strategy" and similar expressions and are based on assumptions and assessments made in light of management's experience and perception of historical trends, current conditions, expected future developments and other factors believed to be appropriate. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in such statements. Many factors could cause CollPlant's and 3D Systems' actual activities or results to differ materially from the activities and results anticipated in forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, the following: the CollPlant's history of significant losses and its need to raise additional capital and its inability to obtain additional capital on acceptable terms, or at all; CollPlant's and 3D Systems' expectations regarding the timing and cost of commencing clinical trials with respect to tissues and organs which are based on its rhCollagen-based BioInk; the CollPlant's and 3D Systems' or its business partners ability to obtain favorable pre-clinical and clinical trial results; regulatory action with respect to rhCollagen-based BioInk, including but not limited to acceptance of an application for marketing authorization, review and approval of such application, and, if approved, the scope of the approved indication and labeling; commercial success and market acceptance of the CollPlant's rhCollagen-based BioInk and 3D Systems' technologies; CollPlant's ability to establish sales and marketing capabilities or enter into agreements with third parties and its reliance on third-party distributors and resellers; the CollPlant's and 3D Systems' ability to establish and maintain strategic partnerships and other corporate collaborations; CollPlant's and 3D Systems' reliance on third parties to conduct some aspects of its product manufacturing; the scope of protection CollPlant and 3D Systems are able to establish and maintain for intellectual property rights and the companies' ability to operate their business without infringing the intellectual property rights of others; the overall global economic environment; the impact of competition and new technologies; general market, political, and economic conditions in the countries in which the companies operate; projected capital expenditures and liquidity; changes in the companies' strategy; and litigation and regulatory proceedings. More detailed information about the risks and uncertainties affecting CollPlant and 3D Systems is contained under the heading "Risk Factors" included in CollPlant's most recent annual report on Form 20-F and 3D Systems' most recent annual report on Form 10-K, and in other periodic filings, that CollPlant and 3D Systems have filed with the SEC. The forward-looking statements contained in this press release are made as of the date of this press release and reflect CollPlant's and 3D Systems' current views with respect to future events, and neither company undertakes, and each company specifically disclaims, any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

3D Systems Corporation 333 Three D Systems Circle Rock Hill, SC 29730 http://www.3dsystems.com NYSE:DDD

Investor Contact: Email: investor.relations@3dsystems.com Media Contact: Nicole York,Email: press@3dsystems.com

CollPlant 4 Oppenheimer StreetRehovot7670104 Israelwww.collplant.com NASDAQ:CLGN

Investor & Media Contact: Eran Rotem, Deputy CEO Email: Eran@CollPlant.com Tel: +972-73-2325600

View original content to download multimedia:http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/3d-systems-and-collplant-biotechnologies-join-forces-to-accelerate-breakthroughs-in-regenerative-medicine-300985546.html

SOURCE CollPlant

Link:
3D Systems and CollPlant Biotechnologies Join Forces to Accelerate Breakthroughs in Regenerative Medicine - P&T Community

Agricultural practices have the potential to address climate change by sequestering carbon,witnesses told a Housesubcommittee Thursday at a hearing focused on regenerative agriculture and ag technology.

David Potere, head of GeoInnovation at Indigo Agriculture,outlinedhow his company is creating a new market for a different type of crop: carbon. The company, which was founded in 2014, has begun an initiative to sequester 1 trillion tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide in farmland around the world, and through Indigo Carbon is offering farmers the opportunity to get paid for increasing the carbon content of their soil.

Bringing farmers into the solution can be a definitive part of the solution for climate change because of the potential of ag soils to absorb carbon, Potere told members of the House Innovation and Workforce Development Subcommittee.

Potere pointed totheEnergy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008, which contains a provision allowing oil companies to receive a tax incentive for carbon sequestration when they pull oil out of the ground. The way the act is currently written, farmers don't get the same incentive.

If there is broad bipartisan support for federal policy that incentivizes corporate, industrial and energy producers to sequester carbon, why cant the same support be there when farmers try and do the same?Potere said.

When asked about other ways growers can employ ag technology to make their farms more sustainable, witnesses offered a variety of suggestions.

Roberto Meza, co-founder of Emerald Gardens Microgreens in Bennett, Colo., touted the importance of channeling funding into regenerative agriculture practices to help develop innovative models for producing food.

Interested in more climate changecoverage and insights? Receive a free month of Agri-Pulse or Agri-Pulse West by clickinghere.

Kevin France, president and CEO of SWIIM Systems in Denver,said instead of asking the government to create somethingnew, it should make programssuch as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program more accessible to farmers.

Douglas Jackson-Smith, professor and assistant director of the school of environment and natural resources at Ohio State University, brought up the missed opportunity and regulatory hurdles surroundinggenetic engineering. He said there are many technologies that could benefit farmers and consumers but havent hadthe opportunity to enter the marketplace because of the current regulatory process set in place on genetic engineering.

Witnesses and members of Congress also used the occasion to call for improved rural connectivity. Subcommittee chairman Jason Crow, D-Colo., called connectivitythe backbone of ag tech," noting the ability ofbroadband to makeit possible for farmers to aggregate and analyze data in real time. He emphasized the need forgreater deployment of high-speed internet in rural communities to help ag technology thrive.

Potere commented on the impact rural broadband access has had on his company, sayingIndigo has had tobuildmobile technology that is resilient to the lack of internet connectivity. Creating this technology for farmers has required Indigo to increase itsdevelopment cost, something Potere said puts unnecessary financialpressure on the company, especiallywhen a simple solution such as rural broadband already exists.Farmers, he said, just lack access to it.

For more news, go to http://www.Agri-Pulse.com.

Here is the original post:
Rural broadband and regenerative ag make waves in subcommittee hearing | 2020-01-09 - Agri-Pulse