Category Archives: Genetic Engineering

Genetic engineering is the process to alter the structure and nature of genes in human beings, animals or foods using techniques like molecular cloning and transformation. In other words, it is the process of adding or modifying DNA in an organism to bring about great deal of transformation.

Genetic engineering was thought to be a real problem just a few short years ago. We feared that soon we would be interfering with nature, trying to play God and cheat him out of his chance to decide whether we were blonde or dark haired, whether we had blue or bright green eyes or even how intelligent we were. The queries and concerns that we have regarding such an intriguing part of science are still alive and well, although they are less talked about nowadays than they were those few years ago.

However, this does not mean that they are any less relevant. In fact, they are as relevant today as they ever were. There are a number of very real and very troubling concerns surrounding genetic engineering, although there are also some very real benefits to further genetic engineering and genetic research, too. It seems, therefore, as though genetic engineering is both a blessing and a curse, as though we stand to benefit as well as lose from developing this area of science even further.

With genetic engineering, we will be able to increase the complexity of our DNA, and improve the human race. But it will be a slow process, because one will have to wait about 18 years to see the effect of changes to the genetic code.Stephen Hawking

Although at first the pros of genetic engineering may not be as apparent as the cons, upon further inspection, there are a number of benefits that we can only get if scientists consider to study and advance this particular branch of study. Here are just a few of the benefits:

1. Tackling and Defeating Diseases

Some of the most deadly and difficult diseases in the world, that have so resisted destruction, could be wiped out by the use of genetic engineering. There are a number of genetic mutations that humans can suffer from that will probably never be ended unless we actively intervene and genetically engineer the next generation to withstand these problems.

For instance, Cystic Fibrosis, a progressive and dangerous disease for which there is no known cure, could be completely cured with the help of selective genetic engineering.

2. Getting Rid of All Illnesses in Young and Unborn Children

There are very many problems that we can detect even before children are born. In the womb, doctors can tell whether your baby is going to suffer from sickle cell anemia, for instance, or from Down s syndrome. In fact, the date by which you can have an abortion has been pushed back relatively late just so that people can decide whether or not to abort a baby if it has one or more of these sorts of issues.

However, with genetic engineering, we would no longer have to worry. One of the main benefit of genetic engineering is that it can help cure and diseases and illness in unborn children. All children would be able to be born healthy and strong with no diseases or illnesses present at birth. Genetic engineering can also be used to help people who risk passing on terribly degenerative diseases to their children.

For instance, if you have Huntingtons there is a 50% chance that your children with inherit the disease and, even if they do not, they are likely to be carriers of the disease. You cannot simply stop people from having children if they suffer from a disease like this, therefore genetic engineering can help to ensure that their children live long and healthy lives from either the disease itself or from carrying the disease to pass on to younger generations.

3. Potential to Live Longer

Although humans are already living longer and longer in fact, our lifespan has shot up by a number of years in a very short amount of time because of the advances of modern medical science, genetic engineering could make our time on Earth even longer. There are specific, common illnesses and diseases that can take hold later in life and can end up killing us earlier than necessary.

With genetic engineering, on the other hand, we could reverse some of the most basic reasons for the bodys natural decline on a cellular level, drastically improving both the span of our lives and the quality of life later on. It could also help humans adapt to the growing problems of, for instance, global warming in the world.

If the places we live in become either a lot hotter or colder, we are going to need to adapt, but evolution takes many thousands of years, so genetic engineering can help us adapt quicker and better.

4. Produce New Foods

Genetic engineering is not just good for people. With genetic engineering we can design foods that are better able to withstand harsh temperatures such as the very hot or very cold, for instance and that are packed full of all the right nutrients that humans and animals need to survive. We may also be able to make our foods have a better medicinal value, thus introducing edible vaccines readily available to people all over the world

Perhaps more obvious than the pros of genetic engineering, there are a number of disadvantages to allowing scientists to break down barriers that perhaps are better left untouched. Here are just a few of those disadvantages:

1. Is it Right?

When genetic engineering first became possible, peoples first reactions were to immediately question whether it was right? Many religions believe that genetic engineering, after all, is tantamount to playing God, and expressly forbid that it is performed on their children, for instance.

Besides the religious arguments, however, there are a number of ethic objections. These diseases, after all, exist for a reason and have persisted throughout history for a reason. Whilst we should be fighting against them, we do need at least a few illnesses, otherwise we would soon become overpopulated. In fact, living longer is already causing social problems in the world today, so to artificially extend everybodys time on Earth might cause even more problems further down the line, problems that we cannot possibly predict.

2. May Lead to Genetic Defects

Another real problem with genetic engineering is the question about the safety of making changes at the cellular level. Scientists do not yet know absolutely everything about the way that the human body works (although they do, of course, have a very good idea). How can they possibly understand the ramifications of slight changes made at the smallest level?

What if we manage to wipe out one disease only to introduce something brand new and even more dangerous? Additionally, if scientists genetically engineer babies still in the womb, there is a very real and present danger that this could lead to complications, including miscarriage (early on), premature birth or even stillbirth, all of which are unthinkable.

The success rate of genetic experiments leaves a lot to be desired, after all. The human body is so complicated that scientists have to be able to predict what sort of affects their actions will have, and they simply cannot account for everything that could go wrong.

3. Limits Genetic Diversity

We need diversity in all species of animals. By genetically engineering our species, however, we will be having a detrimental effect on our genetic diversity in the same way as something like cloning would. Gene therapy is available only to the very rich and elite, which means that traits that tend to make people earn less money would eventually die out.

4. Can it Go Too Far?

One pressing question and issue with genetic engineering that has been around for years and years is whether it could end up going too far. There are many thousands of genetic scientists with honest intentions who want to bring an end to the worst diseases and illnesses of the current century and who are trying to do so by using genetic engineering.

However, what is to stop just a handful of people taking the research too far? What if we start demanding designer babies, children whose hair color, eye color, height and intelligence we ourselves dictate? What if we end up engineering the sex of the baby, for instance in China, where is it much more preferable to have a boy? Is that right? Is it fair? The problems with genetic engineering going too far are and ever present worry in a world in which genetic engineering is progressing further and further every day.

Genetic engineering is one of the topic that causes a lot of controversy. Altering the DNA of organisms has certainly raised a few eyebrows. It may work wonders but who knows if playing with the nature is really safe? Making yourself aware of all aspects of genetic engineering can help you to form your own opinion.

A true environmentalist by heart . Founded Conserve Energy Future with the sole motto of providing helpful information related to our rapidly depleting environment. Unless you strongly believe in Elon Musks idea of making Mars as another habitable planet, do remember that there really is no 'Planet B' in this whole universe.

Read the original here:
Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering - Conserve Energy Future

Over the last century, the field of genetics and biotechnology has greatly developed because of the better understanding of the gene. Because of the improvement of technology, scientists have already gone up until the manipulation of the genome (complete set of genes) of organisms. This process is called genetic engineering. In this article, we will explore 13 important genetic engineering pros and cons.

The sharing of genetic material among living organisms is known to be a natural event. This phenomenon is known to be very evident among bacteria, hence they are called natures own genetic engineer. Such phenomenon is the inspiration of scientists in this endeavor.

In literature, there are in fact many synonyms of the term genetic engineering: genetic modification, genome manipulation, genetic enhancement, and many more. However, this term shall not be confused with cloning because genetic engineering involves the production of new set of genes while the latter only involves the production of the same copies of genes in the organism.

Genetic engineering is the process of manipulating an organisms genome using biotechnology and the products of it are either referred to as genetically modified or transgenic organisms. Check out the disadvantages of genetically modified foods here.

Basically, genetic engineering is done by inserting a gene of interest from sources like bacteria, viruses, plants, and animals into the target organism. As a result, the organism with the inserted gene of interest is now able to carry out the new trait or characteristic.

This technology grants us the ability to overcome barriers, exchange genes among organisms, and produce new organisms with favorable traits.

For a more detailed explanation of the process, check out this video below:

Now we will dive into the pros and cons of Genetic Engineering now.

Supporters of genetic engineering believe that genetic engineering is indeed safe and is still comparable to the traditional process of breeding in plants and animals. Advocates of genetic engineering support the technology primarily because of the following reasons:

On the other hand, there are several types of potential health effects that could arise from the insertion of a novel gene into an organism. Critics disagree with the methods of genetic engineering because of:

Because of the technology used to create genetically modified crops and animals, private companies that produce them do not share their products at a reasonable cost with the public.

In addition, they believe that the process is somewhat disrupting the natural way and complexity of life. In addition to this, critics fear the misuse and abuse of biotechnology.

Indeed, genetic engineering will always have two opposite sides. While the possibilities of what science can create are endless, and the harmful effects also are. At present, it is important to know that the real risks and benefits of genetic engineering lie in how science is interpreted and used.

But theres really no doubt that with the rapid advancements in technology, the creation of GM organisms are also increasing.

What do you think? Are GM organisms slowly becoming the future?

13 Important Genetic Engineering Pros And Cons

See the original post here:
13 Important Genetic Engineering Pros And Cons | Bio Explorer

Genetically engineered (GE) or genetically modified (GM) foods are produced from plants and animals that have had changes made to their DNA, which introduce or modify genetic traits.

Most packaged foods contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs) engineered to be resistant to herbicides and pests; corn, soybeans and canola oil are prime examples. Concerns about GMOs range from their safety to how genetically modified plants pollen effects the environment, to the increasing use of herbicides associated with their use, with decreasing effectiveness. Polls show that consumers want mandatory labels on foods containing GE ingredients.

All living organisms are made up of cells, within which are strings of DNA molecules possessing instructions to make genes, which form a unique blueprint determining how an organism grows, develops, looks and lives. Genes make up about one percent of the DNA sequence; the rest is responsible for regulating when and how quantities of proteins are made.

Genetic engineering (GE) is the direct manipulation of genetic material (or the genome) by artificial means to alter the hereditary traits of a cell or organism. The process can involve the transfer of specific traits, or genes, from one organism to another, including across diverse species. Other types of genetic engineering include removing or switching off certain genes, adding new genes or introducing desired mutations. An organism that is created or modified by genetic engineering is called a genetically modified organism.

Genetic engineering is different from traditional cross-breeding methods, which have been used for millennia. Traditional breeding more closely resembles accelerated evolution: breeders select organisms with a desired trait and then further select and breed whichever of its offspring most exhibits that trait. A breeder seeking a disease-resistant tomato, for example, will grow many tomatoes, but save the seeds of only the most disease-resistant plants. After several generations, offspring will be much more disease resistant than the progenitor. Traditional breeding is done between the same or closely related species and keeps strands of DNA and gene sequences intact which can also mean that negative traits are reproduced alongside positive traits. Through genetic engineering, on the other hand, it is possible to isolate a single gene out of the whole genome and insert it into another organism.

The future of genetic engineering appears to be even more targeted than that: CRISPR technology (which stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat) allows scientists to isolate and essentially cut and paste very specific sections of DNA. This makes the process much more precise and efficient and inexpensive, making it easier for many more scientists to experiment with the technology. As it becomes more common, many scientists also urge caution, as unintended consequences, whether at the cellular, human or ecosystem level, cannot be known in advance.

Genetically engineered crops have been adopted at an exceptionally rapid rate. In 1997, 17 percent of US soybean acres were planted with GE varieties; by 2014, that figure rose to 94 percent. GE cotton usage went from 10 percent in 1997 to 91 percent in 2014. GE corn acreage increased from 25 percent in 2000 to 92 in 2017.

The vast majority of these crops have been engineered to tolerate herbicides, allowing the plants to be sprayed with a particular chemical while the surrounding weeds die. Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is the most common. Other crops are engineered to produce their own natural pesticide (primarily to produce Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, a naturally-occurring bacterium that is lethal to a number of agricultural pests), to increase drought resistance or improve nutritional content. The AquAdvantage Salmon, the first GE animal approved for human consumption, was engineered for faster growth, so that it reaches market weight more quickly than a natural salmon.

In addition to corn, soybeans and cotton, the other GE crops that are commercially available in the US are potatoes, papaya, squash, canola, alfalfa, apples and sugar beets. Several others are USDA approved but are not currently produced, including tomatoes, (non-sugar) beets, rice, roses, flax, plums and tobacco. The controversial hormone rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone), which increases milk production in dairy cows, is genetically engineered as well.

The FLAVR SAVR tomato, engineered to retain real tomato taste after shipping, was the first GE food approved for human consumption by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), in 1992, but has since been taken off the market. Most recently, the Impossible Burger a meatless burger that uses a genetically engineered yeast to make its signature ingredient known as heme (which accounts for its meat-like flavor) has been popping up on menus and causing controversy because it does not have FDA approval.

In the US, regulatory approvals for GMOs are a complicated patchwork of the Food and Drug Administration for pharmaceutical developments, the Environmental Protection Agency for insecticide uses and the USDA for food crops.

For many farmers, GE crops require much less work and provide a larger yield, which offsets the substantially higher cost of GE seed. One 2014 metastudy found that globally, GE crops have reduced pesticide use by 37 percent, increased crop yields by 22 percent and increased farmer profits by 68 percent. It is important to note that it was insect-resistant Bt crops that had much more advantage than herbicide-tolerant crops (from Roundup Ready seeds).

A 2014 analysis of USDA data had similar findings for insect-resistant crops in the US, but many more mixed results on herbicide resistance. Certainly, when farmers start with GE seeds, yields and profits increase in the first few years. But some studies show that this tapers off. For reasons discussed below, GMO technology is problematic for farmers and consumers alike.

On a larger scale, corporate interest plays an enormous role in the rapid growth of the technology. In 1980, the Supreme Court ruled that scientists could patent a GE bacterium developed to break down oil spills. This ruling stating that life itself could be patented and owned gave companies an incentive to develop GMOs that could be useful and profitable.

Monsanto (now part of Bayer ), the largest manufacturer of GMOs, has a long history as a chemical maker, including as one of several makers of Agent Orange, the highly toxic defoliant used during the Vietnam War. Following the war, the company turned to making agricultural chemicals, including its bestseller glyphosate herbicide, Roundup, and experimenting with genetically modifying seeds to resist the chemical so that pesticides could be liberally applied without fear of killing the crops. It introduced Roundup Ready seed in 1996 and spun off its chemical operations two years later to focus on biotechnology.

In 2017, Monsantos net sales of GE corn, soybean and cotton seeds and traits totaled $9.5 billion. Most troubling, in the last two decades, is that Monsanto has bought many competitor seed companies, giving it control of a wide swath of the seed market and its accompanying genetic diversity. In 2018, Monsanto was bought by Bayer, further consolidating the production and ownership of seed stocks around the world.

The biotech industry claims that this chemical-based agricultural technology and biotechnology is necessary to feed a growing world population, increase crop yields and adapt to a changing climate. Herbicide-resistant crops do not require tilling, which leaves carbon in the ground and is better for soil structure, and proponents claim that they require less pesticide application than non-GE crops. However, this does not tell the whole story. These crops have actually driven up the use of herbicides like glyphosate, thereby increasing weed resistance and leading to the reintroduction of more potent herbicides. These false narratives are perpetuated by biotech and other agribusiness corporations, but also by land grant universities (which receive more funding from agrochemical companies than public dollars ), many agricultural scientists and farm organizations.

However, technology and the industrialized food system are not currently feeding the world, so there is reason for skepticism about this claim. Globally, agriculture produces more than one and a half times the number of calories needed to feed the world population, yet one in nine people goes hungry. The profit motive of Bayer/Monsanto and other agrochemical companies, as well as their long lack of support for small farmers, should subject their claims of working solely for the public good to scrutiny.

When it comes to increasing calorie production for the parts of the world that sorely need to feed a hungry populace, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development report from the United Nations proposes that organic and sustainable agriculture is the best solution for countries like Africa and India, where the need is greatest.

Much of the debate around genetically modified food crops and animals focuses on potential threats to human health. But, long-term studies of the impact of consuming GM foods have yet to be done. Some independent studies have documented health effects on animals from eating GMO foods, which have become the subject of controversy.

Companies have determined that GE crops are different enough from those derived by conventional crops to get a patent, but not different enough to require adequate safety testing before they get to market. Additional independent studies and testing are needed. Ways in which GE foods can cause health problems are already documented, particularly in terms of allergens: genes from an allergenic plant can transfer the allergen to the new plant, causing it to provoke a reaction in those sensitive to the first plant. It is also possible that new allergens could be created from combinations of genes that did not previously exist. Overall, though, we do not understand all of the potential health concerns, but that uncertainty is enough to warrant more oversight, not less.

Perhaps the most concerning consequence of herbicide-resistant crops is the huge increase in herbicide use and the evolution of herbicide-resistant superweeds. Weeds resistant to glyphosate, which have survived annual use of the herbicide, have become a problem. A 2016 survey across the Midwest found that one third to upwards of three quarters of fields showed resistant weeds. To address the problem, seed and chemical companies have turned to older chemicals such as 2,4D and dicamba, engineering seeds resistant to these more toxic compounds and increasing their use in farmers fields.

Contrary to industry promises that GE crops would require less pesticide application, chemical use has increased steadily, particularly by farmers growing herbicide-resistant crops. Farmers growing Bt pest-resistant crops have been able to decrease their insecticide use, but scientists are concerned that the effect may not last, as pests also evolve resistance.

One of the major ways that GMOs have impacted the environment, therefore, has been in a mass of side effects stemming from increased pesticide use, including compromised water quality, loss of biodiversity and threats to human health.

While biotech seeds are touted as the only way to feed a growing world population, the data on yields are mixed. It should also be noted that GE crops rely on the promise of reduced pest and weed pressure to boost yields; no successful GE technique has yet increased intrinsic yields (such as more kernels per corncob).

A 2008 literature review by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that herbicide-tolerant GE crops produced no yield gain, while Bt crops produced marginal increases. A 2013 New Zealand study found that average US GE corn yields were slightly lower than non-GE corn yields in western Europe in the same period. 2016 studies by both the National Academies of Sciences and the New York Times found no evidence that yield increases could be tied to GM technology.

Meanwhile, traditional plant breeding techniques have increased yields significantly and have even outperformed GE technology in improving drought tolerance and other factors necessary for farming in a warming climate. But investment in GE research means less funding going to these more promising methods.

Farmers adopt GE seeds and their attendant herbicides ostensibly to make farming easier and more profitable. However, GE seeds cost a lot more than conventional seeds (up to $150 more per bag, according to one report) plus the cost of herbicides. An analysis by AgriWize farm business consultant Aaron Bloom found that GM corn costs an average of $81 more per acre per season than conventional. For many farmers, the yield increase at harvest time makes the upfront costs worth it, but for others, the proliferation of superweeds or simply one bad harvest can put them in debt, with few options for how to get off the GE treadmill.

Congress passed the Plant Patenting Act in 1930, as the rise of hybrid seeds made the business of selling seeds (which since time immemorial have been freely reproducible) profitable for the first time. The law applied to certain plants only, but in 1985, it was expanded to include not only all crops but also their cells, genes and DNA. Seed patents, along with laws on intellectual property, seed marketing and more, have exploded in years since.

Humans have been breeding seeds for aeons, making plants more productive, tastier and better adapted to local conditions. In fact, adaptation has been bred into seeds throughout the ages by subsistence farmers; we take ancient farmer breeding ingenuity for granted. Todays seed patents, meanwhile, bestow rights and profits on multinational companies for discovering the newest traits, ignoring the long and unsung contributions of farmers localized agricultural knowledge.

Patents and other legal measures put control of this long heritage of seed development, and therefore our future food security, in the hands of a very few companies. The seed industry is one of the most concentrated in the US economy. Almost 80 percent of corn and more than 90 percent of soybeans grown in the US feature Monsanto/Bayer seed traits, while the top three seed firms control more than half of the total seed market, with Monsanto/Bayer alone controlling one quarter. Up-to-date numbers on seed market control are difficult to come by, however, because huge mergers in the industry, including the 2017 Dow/Dupont and the 2018 Monsanto/Bayer mergers have shifted the landscape.

These companies value their patents and other intellectual property highly. Monsanto/Bayer has filed suit against 147 farmers for violating the terms of their planting agreement and has also at times threatened or intimidated farmers.

Surveys consistently show that upwards of 90 percent of Americans support labeling of GMO foods, but unlike most developed countries including 28 nations in the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia and China the US had for many years no federal requirement for labels. States responded by taking the matter into their own hands. More than 70 labeling bills or ballot initiatives were introduced across 30 states, and labeling laws were passed in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine. In high-profile cases in Washington State and California, bills were defeated due to aggressive lobbying efforts by big food and biotechnology companies to the tune of $63.6 million in 2014.

In 2016, a federal law was passed, mandating labeling of GE ingredients in foods, which strikes down or pre-empts state labeling laws. The federal laws many critics dubbed it the Denying Americans the Right to Know (DARK) Act, because not only does it override state efforts (which in some cases, as in Vermont, are stringent), but because many GMOs would be exempted from being labeled. Further, the federal law states that labeling can be in the form of a digital QR code or toll-free phone number rather than a textual label that clearly marks the product as containing GMOs.

Read more from the original source:
Sustainable Table | Genetic Engineering

The production of technologies based on genetic engineering is often referred as modern biotechnology. With the improvement of genetic engineering ....

Genetic engineering facilitates the manipulation and duplication of DNA pieces, for industrial, medical and research purposes. Genetic engineering has produced a revolution in molecular biology. Benefits of Genetic Engineering are experienced in whole array of fields especially in agriculture, in production of valuable proteins and vaccine production.

Pic Credit : Link

The production of technologies based on genetic engineering is often referred as modern biotechnology. With the improvement of genetic engineering techniques, the time for generating and evaluating new germplasm (a collection of genetic resources for an organism) can be drastically reduced. Genetic engineering may ultimately have their most significant effect on agriculture. Recent advances have raised possibility of development of new plant germplasm through introduction of any gene from any organism into plant.

With respect to agriculture, modern biotechnology has been considered as the second phase of green revolution. Organisms whose genes have been altered by manipulation are called genetically modified organism (GMO). The working of GMO is due to nature of transferred genes, nature of host organism and food web formed. Some useful benefits of genetically modified plants in agricultural biotechnology are:

The first genetically modified food was Flavr Savr Tomato which was resistant to rotting.

Pic Credit : Link

Another genetically modified food is golden rice (Pro Vitamin A enriched). Several other genetically modified foods include, soybeans, corn, cotton, seed oil etc have been formed. But many controversies are associated with genetically modified food including environment and human safety, ethics, food security, poverty reduction etc.

Some success has been achieved in developing varieties resistant to herbicides, viral diseases and insect pest. Genetic engineering promises rapid acceleration of plant breeding efforts for crop improvement.

Another benefit of genetic engineering is realized in production of valuable proteins. Recombinant DNA made possible the use of bacteria to produce proteins of medical importance. One such example is that of genetically engineered human insulin which is of great importance and now marketed throughout the world.

Some important genetically engineered proteins include:

Human InsulinHuman insulin or Humulin has great importance. Earlier, patients could not tolerate pig insulin, as it has slightly different amino acid sequence as compared to human. Humulin eventually became cheaper than that extracted from animal pancreas and is now available.

InterferonInterferon is an antiviral agent which is secreted by cells which are attacked by virus. Several types of genetically engineered interferon are available in market and gives rise to antitumoral effect (thwarting formation of cancerous tumors).

Growth hormoneIn humans, growth hormone helps in treatment of hypopituitary dwarfs. Genetically engineered growth hormones may prove useful in the treatment of bone fractures, skin burns and bleeding ulcers of digestive tract. The human hormone is marketed in United States and bovine hormone is expected to yield bigger cattle and thus more beef. Hence growth hormones are commercially very demanding.

Vaccines produced by genetic engineering offer an advantage that the microbial strains from which the proteins are extracted do not contain complete viruses. And thus, there are no risks of accidental inoculation with live virus.

Cloning directly into vaccinia virus DNA holds great promise, although vaccines so produced are not yet in the market. Recombinant vaccinia viruses for example, a gene from genital herpes virus within its DNA, can multiply and can subsequently be inoculated into humans. The vaccinia virus produces mild infection, and expresses some of herpes virus protein and produces immunity. This is very similar in a way to what Edward Jenner did over 100 years ago when he introduced the first vaccination scheme, which eventually led to the extinction of smallpox.

Vaccines can be produced using recombinant DNA technology or using cell culture. Vaccines of common use are usually produced by cell cultures or animals. Such vaccines contain weakened or inactivated pathogens. Crop plants can bear cheaper bioreactors to produce antigens to be utilized as Edible vaccines. These edible vaccines are said to be a cheap alternative as compared to recombinant vaccines.

The transgenic plants are treated as edible vaccines and consumption of these transgenic plants viz. transgenic banana and tomato cure diseases like Cholera and Hepatitis-B. Foot and mouth diseases can be cured by feeding them transgenic sugar beet. In the near future, these vaccines can be used as conventional vaccines.

Humulin was the first therapeutic product to be made commercially by genetically engineered bacterium. Recently a genetically engineered malarial vaccine SPF 66 has been produced.

Genetic engineering, promises to have an enormous impact on the improvement of crop species. Genetic transformation can boost plant breeding efforts for developing disease resistant varieties. Now the disease resistant genes can be isolated and transferred to high yielding susceptible plants to produce pathogen free plants. Through gene sequencing, it is possible to locate gene and after identification, gene is isolated and transferred to the host. Several disease resistant somaclones have been identified for resistance to severe potato disease, early blight of potato, caused by Alternaria Solani. Scientists are using Agrobacterium gene transfer system to produce tobacco plants with increased resistance to Tobacco Mosaic Virus (TMV).

Insect resistant plants are also developed, using biotechnological applications. Several biopesticides are developed e.g. Bt cotton, Bt corn, rice, tomato, potato, and soybeans etc.

Process of Insertion of Bt gene in corn to make it resistant from insect attack

Pic Credit : Link

Bt signifies Bacillus thuringiences. This bacterium contains insect toxin gene. Bt toxin gene is cloned from the bacteria and expressed in plant to provide resistance from insects, without requirement of insecticides. These modified disease resistant plants are called transgenic plants.

Mar 11, 2009admin

Continued here:
Benefits of Genetic Engineering | Chemistry Learning

Manipulation of genes in natural organisms, such as plants, animals, and even humans, is considered genetic engineering. This is done using a variety of different techniques like molecular cloning. These processes can cause dramatic changes in the natural makeup and characteristic of the organism. There are benefits and risks associated with genetic engineering, just like most other scientific practices.

Genetic engineering offers benefits such as:

1. Better Flavor, Growth Rate and NutritionCrops like potatoes, soybeans and tomatoes are now sometimes genetically engineered in order to improve size, crop yield, and nutritional values of the plants. These genetically engineered crops also possess the ability to grow in lands that would normally not be suitable for cultivation.

2. Pest-resistant Crops and Extended Shelf LifeEngineered seeds can resist pests and having a better chance at survival in harsh weather. Biotechnology could be in increasing the shelf life of many foods.

3. Genetic Alteration to Supply New FoodsGenetic engineering can also be used in producing completely new substances like proteins or other nutrients in food. This may up the benefits they have for medical uses.

4. Modification of the Human DNAGenes that are responsible for unique and desirable qualities in the human DNA can be exposed and introduced into the genes of another person. This changes the structural elements of a persons DNA. The effects of this are not know.

The following are the issues that genetic engineering can trigger:

1. May Hamper Nutritional ValueGenetic engineering on food also includes the infectivity of genes in root crops. These crops might supersede the natural weeds. These can be dangerous for the natural plants. Unpleasant genetic mutations could result to an increased allergy occurrence of the crop. Some people believe that this science on foods can hamper the nutrients contained by the crops although their appearance and taste were enhanced.

2. May Introduce Risky PathogensHorizontal gene shift could give increase to other pathogens. While it increases the immunity against diseases among the plants, the resistant genes can be transmitted to harmful pathogens.

3. May Result to Genetic ProblemsGene therapy on humans can end to some side effects. While relieving one problem, the treatment may cause the onset of another issue. As a single cell is liable for various characteristics, the cell isolation process will be responsible for one trait will be complicated.

4. Unfavorable to Genetic DiversityGenetic engineering can affect the diversity among the individuals. Cloning might be unfavorable to individualism. Furthermore, such process might not be affordable for poor. Hence, it makes the gene therapy impossible for an average person.

Genetic engineering might work excellently but after all, it is a kind of process that manipulates the natural. This is altering something which has not been created originally by humans. What can you say about this?

Read the original here:
Pros and Cons of Genetic Engineering - HRF

Designer babies, the end of diseases, genetically modified humans that never age. Outrageous things that used to be science fiction are suddenly becoming reality. The only thing we know for sure is that things will change irreversibly.

Support us on Patreon so we can make more videos (and get cool stuff in return): https://www.patreon.com/Kurzgesagt?ty=h

Kurzgesagt merch here: http://bit.ly/1P1hQIH

Get the music of the video here:

soundcloud: http://bit.ly/2aRxNZdbandcamp: http://bit.ly/2berrSWhttp://www.epic-mountain.com

Thanks to Volker Henn, James Gurney and (prefers anonymity) for help with this video!

THANKS A LOT TO OUR LOVELY PATRONS FOR SUPPORTING US:

Jeffrey Schneider, Konstantin Kaganovich, Tom Leiser, Archie Castillo, Russell Eishard, Ben Kershaw, Marius Stollen, Henry Bowman, Ben Johns, Bogdan Radu, Sam Toland, Pierre Thalamy, Christopher Morgan, Rocks Arent People, Ross Devereux, Pascal Michaud, Derek DuBreuil, Sofia Quintero, Robert Swiniarski, Merkt Kzlrmak, Michelle Rowley, Andy Dong, Saphir Patel, Harris Rotto, Thomas Huzij, Ryan James Burke, NTRX, Chaz Lewis, Amir Resali, The War on Stupid, John Pestana, Lucien Delbert, iaDRM, Jacob Edwards, Lauritz Klaus, Jason Hunt, Marcus : ), Taylor Lau, Rhett H Eisenberg, Mr.Z, Jeremy Dumet, Fatman13, Kasturi Raghavan, Kousora, Rich Sekmistrz, Mozart Peter, Gaby Germanos, Andreas Hertle, Alena Vlachova, Zdravko aek

SOURCES AND FURTHER READING:

The best book we read about the topic: GMO Sapiens

https://goo.gl/NxFmk8

(affiliate link, we get a cut if buy the book!)

Good Overview by Wired:http://bit.ly/1DuM4zq

timeline of computer development:http://bit.ly/1VtiJ0N

Selective breeding: http://bit.ly/29GaPVS

DNA:http://bit.ly/1rQs8Yk

Radiation research:http://bit.ly/2ad6wT1

inserting DNA snippets into organisms:http://bit.ly/2apyqbj

First genetically modified animal:http://bit.ly/2abkfYO

First GM patent:http://bit.ly/2a5cCox

chemicals produced by GMOs:http://bit.ly/29UvTbhhttp://bit.ly/2abeHwUhttp://bit.ly/2a86sBy

Flavr Savr Tomato:http://bit.ly/29YPVwN

First Human Engineering:http://bit.ly/29ZTfsf

glowing fish:http://bit.ly/29UwuJU

CRISPR:http://go.nature.com/24Nhykm

HIV cut from cells and rats with CRISPR:http://go.nature.com/1RwR1xIhttp://ti.me/1TlADSi

first human CRISPR trials fighting cancer:http://go.nature.com/28PW40r

first human CRISPR trial approved by Chinese for August 2016:http://go.nature.com/29RYNnK

genetic diseases:http://go.nature.com/2a8f7ny

pregnancies with Down Syndrome terminated:http://bit.ly/2acVyvg( 1999 European study)

CRISPR and aging:http://bit.ly/2a3NYAVhttp://bit.ly/SuomTyhttp://go.nature.com/29WpDj1http://ti.me/1R7Vus9

Help us caption & translate this video!

http://www.youtube.com/timedtext_cs_p...

See the rest here:
Genetic Engineering Will Change Everything Forever ...

Nigeria remains Africas largest [corn] producer, growing nearly 8 million tons annually. It is closely followed by South Africa, Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda. It was therefore a nightmare when Nigeria, like the rest of Africa, woke up to the fall armyworm (FAW) infestation that is rapidly spreading across the region. The five zones affected by the infestation include the southeast, south, southwest, northeast and northwest.

[Chief Audu Ogbeh, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development] said the federal government required N2.98 billion to curb the armyworm infestation in farmlands across the country, adding the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) had pledged to support the country in its fight against the armyworm.

However, scientists are calling on farmers to embrace biotechnology by using genetically engineered (GE) crops, which have been proven safe for humans and the environment, to permanently tackle such occurrences.

[Dr. Rose Gidado, the country coordinator of the Open Forum on Agricultural Biotechnology (OFAB)] said adopting genetic modification technology to develop maize varieties resistant to pests offered a lasting solution for army worm infestation, adding that GE plants are selectively bred and enhanced with genes to withstand common problems that confront farmers.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. Read full, original post: Food shortages loom as Nigeria battles fall armyworm infestation

Related Stories

Read more:
Fall armyworm threatens Nigerian crops; genetic engineering offers ... - Genetic Literacy Project

This article originally appeared on Massive.

Even small changes in temperature can have massive impacts on crop productivity. In the United States, a single degree of warming is expected to decrease corn yield by 10 percent. Worldwide, one degree of warming is expected to decrease crop productivity by 3-7 percent. Making matters worse, at the same time as crop yields are expected to decrease, the global population will continue to rise. If we do nothing to slow the effects of climate change, we risk a global food shortage that will affect us all.

Deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions could do a lot to stave off disaster. But many researchers predict that even if we stopped all emissions tomorrow, wed still experience some degree of future warming due to past emissions. So, even if we prevent additional damage, well still have to adapt to the changes in climate that are already underway.

If we want to feed our growing population, well have to tackle the problem of adapting agriculture to climate change head-on. Right now, one of our best hopes for adapting to a warming climate is a controversial one: genetically engineering our crops to survive better in higher temperatures.

Genetic engineering, the process of directly modifying an organisms DNA, strikes many people as an arrogant, unsafe intrusion on the natural world. The debate over GMOs (genetically modified organisms) has raged for decades, with opponents arguing that our capacity to tinker with nature has outpaced our understanding of the risks.

Concerns about the safety and ethics of genetic engineering are absolutely valid, but we should also realize that, in some cases, our ethical intuition may lead us astray. If you have ever grown a tomato plant, and you live somewhere other than the Andean region of South America, you have selected a plant with mutations that allow it grow somewhere it wouldnt naturally do so. When we domesticated the tomato plant, we picked out mutant plants that were able to thrive in different areas of the globe. The difference between that process and genetic engineering is that scientists dont have to search for a rare mutant; they can create it themselves.

Speedier adaptation

CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing tools have made modifying DNA much easier. Using CRISPR/Cas9, scientists can create a DNA break in a specific place in the genome. They provide a strand of DNA that has a new sequence and the cell copies from that strand when it repairs the break, creating a genetic change.

Crops made using this technique are not, strictly speaking, GMOs, because they contain no foreign DNA. A wild tomato plant that was modified using CRISPR/Cas9 to be able to grow further north would be indistinguishable from the mutant plants that arose naturally, right down to the molecular level. And yet if engineers use genome editing to make that same change, it strikes many people as dangerous, even though the plants are completely identical.

Our food sources have already benefited from past forays into genetic engineering. Researchers past efforts were focused on creating crops that are resistant to pests and disease. This is an important part of feeding the world we could feed 8.5 percent of all the people on Earth with the crops lost to fungal pathogens alone. Climate change is making this problem worse: as warmer temperatures have spread toward the poles, so has disease.

But disease isnt the sole consequence of climate change: the overall yield of food will likely drop because the areas where crops grow will no longer have the right weather for them to thrive.

Expanding crop-growing regions

One solution to this problem is to move heat-sensitive crops closer to the poles. But its not that simple: the seasonal cue that tells many plants when to flower is day length, and day length depends on latitude. That means you cant take a plant that requires short days, move it further north, and expect it to produce fruit, even if its at the right temperature.

Recently, researchers discovered the gene that represses flowering in tomato plants in response to long days. Its thanks to the variation in this gene that were able to grow tomatoes further from the equator. These researchers used CRISPR to show that disrupting this gene results in plants that flower rapidly, regardless of day length. That means that if we want crops to grow at different latitudes, we wont have to find a rare mutant. By zeroing in on the genes that control day-length-sensitive flowering, we can create those crops within months.

Increasing yields

And when it comes to boosting crop productivity, one option is to create plants that convert sunlight into food more efficiently. Thats the goal of the RIPE(Realizing Increased Photosynthetic Efficiency) project, an international group working to increase crop yield by improving photosynthesis through genetic engineering.

Surprisingly, photosynthesis isnt as efficient as it could be. Plants dont adapt as quickly as they could to transitions between sunlight and shade. When theres too much sunlight, plants protect themselves by releasing excess light as heat. But if a cloud passes in front of the sun, the protective mechanism lingers, which means less photosynthesis and lower yield. By speeding up the process of adaptation, RIPE scientists have shown that they can increase crop yield by 15 percent.

Although producing enough food to feed the world is crucial, genetic engineering isnt a cure-all. As long as we fail to confront the problems of war and unequal distribution of wealth, people will starve no matter how much food we produce. But adapting agriculture to climate change is unquestionably part of the equation, and genetic modification allows us to produce those changes quickly, easily, and safely.

Critiques of genetic engineering often focus on the most ethically questionable and unsettling research, but many scientists are doing work that could save the lives of millions. Keeping a closed mind risks demonizing a technology that may help us to survive.

Go here to see the original:
Climate change will cause food shortages. We should use genetic engineering to prevent them - Salon

This article originally appeared on Grist

The Impossible Burger has had a charmed honeymoon period. Crowds offoodies surged into fancy eateriesto try it.Environmentalistsandanimal rights activistsswooned. So did investors: Impossible Foodsbrought in $75 millionduring its latest investment round.

Now the backlash is here. The activist organizationsFriends of the Earthand theETC Groupdug up documents which they claim show that Impossible Foods ignored FDA warnings about safety and they handed them over to the New York Times.

Theensuing storydepicted Impossible Foods as a culinary version of Uber disrupting so rapidly that its running headlong into government regulators. In reality, Impossible Foods has behaved like a pedestrian food company, working hand in hand with the FDA and following a well-worn path to comply with an arcane set of rules.

So why isnt this story a nothingburger?

In a word: GMOs. You see, soy leghemoglobin, or SLH, the key ingredient that makes the Impossible Burger uniquely meaty, is churned out by genetically modified yeast. This is a protein produced with genetic engineering; its a new food ingredient, Dana Perls, senior food and technology campaigner at Friends of the Earth, told me when I asked why theyd singled out Impossible Foods.

The company has never exactly hidden the fact that they used genetic engineering, but they havent put it front and center either. You have to dig into theirfrequently asked questionsto catch that detail and thats a recent edit, according to Perls. When I first looked at the Impossible Foods website, maybe back in March, there was no mention of genetic engineering, she said.(An Impossible Foods spokesperson disputed Perlss claim, saying the FAQ has included references to genetic engineering for at least a year, since before the burgers launch in restaurants. But areview of cached webpagessuggests the references were added in June.*)

By tiptoeing around this issue, Impossible Foods set themselves up for a takedown by anti-GMO campaigners. These groups monitor new applications of genetic engineering, watch for potentially incriminating evidence, then work with journalists to publicize it. In 2014, Ecover, a green cleaning company,announced it was using oils made by algae as part of its pledge to remove palm oil a major driver of deforestation from its products. When Friends of the Earth and the ETC Groupfigured out the algae was genetically engineered, they pingedthe same Times writer. Ecover quickly went back to palm oil.

WhenI asked Impossible Foods founder Pat Brownabout the GMO question, he said he didnt think that battle was theirs to fight. After all, the SLH may be produced by transgenic yeast, but it isnt a GMO itself. He also pointed out that this isnt unusual:nearly all cheese contains a GMO-produced enzyme.

But now, Friends of the Earth and the ETC Group have brought their battle to Impossible Foods doorstep. (In ablisteringseriesofresponsesto the New York Times article, the company charged it was chock full of factual errors and misrepresentations and was instigated by an extremist anti-science group.)The FDA documents handed over to the Timesinclude worrying sentences like this one: FDA stated that the current arguments at hand, individually and collectively, were not enough to establish the safety of SLH for consumption.

If FDA officials say your company hasnt done enough to convince them that a new ingredient is safe, arent you supposed to stop selling it?

Not according toa risk expert at Arizona State Universitywho reviewed the documents released by activists. There are no indications that they should have pulled this off the market, Andrew Maynard told me.

Thats just not how the food safety review process works, said Gary Yingling, a former FDA official now helping Impossible Foods navigate the bureaucracy. In the United States, its up to the companies themselves to determine if an ingredient is safe. (Not everyone likes that systemorthinks the FDA is doing enoughto protect public safety, but it is the law.)

Impossible worked with a group of experts at universities who decided in 2014 that their burger was safe. SLH, it turns out, grows naturally in the roots of soy plants, and the proteins in the burger look a lot like animal proteins a good indicator of safety.

Impossible could have stopped there: Companies, however, can ask the government to weigh in on their research. Sometimes, the FDA asks for more information, which is what happened with Impossible Foods. Its not unusual for the FDA to determine it cant establish the safety of a new ingredient its happened more than 100 times, with substances like Ginkgo biloba, gum arabic, and Spirulina. The FDA has called for more information in about one in every seven of the ingredients companies have asked it to review.

In the case of SLH, the FDA suggested more tests, including rat-feeding trials. Impossible Foods has finished these tests, and academics who have studied the new data confirmed that its generally recognized as safe. Next, Impossible Foods will bring the new evidence back to the FDA, Yingling said.

The criticism raised in this case is really criticism of a system that allows companies to decide for themselves if a new ingredient is OK to add to our food.

If a company decides something is safe, they can go ahead and do it, said Maynard, the risk expert. So thats a weakness in the system. On the other hand, you can argue that once you start this process with the FDA, they have smart scientists who ask tough questions. You can see in those documents that the level of due diligence that a company has to go through is really pretty deep. You really want to make sure that you have a system that doesnt inhibit innovation, but captures as much potentially harmful things as possible.

Each new innovation creates the potential for new hazards. We can block some of those hazards by taking precautions. But how high should we put the precautionary bar?

Impossible Burger could indeed pose some unknown hazard. We just have to weigh that against the known hazards of the present foodborne diseases in meat, greenhouse gases from animal production, the development of antibiotic resistant bacteria in farms, and animal suffering. These are problems which Impossible Foods is trying to solve.

There are other companies trying to solve these problems. (Friends of the Earthnotesthat the success of non-animal burgers, like the non-GMO Beyond Burger, demonstrates that plant-based animal substitutes can succeed without resorting to genetic engineering.) But its not yet clear that any of these companies including Impossible Foods will be successful in just generating a profit, let alone in replacing the global meat industry. No one knows which startups will pan out. And well probably need to try and discard lots of new things as we shift to a sustainable path.

Trying new things can be risky. Not trying new things and staying on our current trajectory is even more risky.

*This story has been updated to include a response from Impossible Foods about when references to genetic engineering first appeared in its FAQ, and to add information about the FDAs food safety review process.

More here:
The Impossible Burger wouldn't be possible without genetic engineering - Salon

Enlarge / Scanning electron micrograph of a human T cell.

For the first time, the Food and Drug Administration has approved a therapy that involves genetically engineering a patients own cells, the agency announced Wednesday.

The therapy, called Kymriah (tisagenlecleucel) by Novartis, will be used to reprogram the immune cells of pediatric and young adult patients with a certain type of leukemia, called B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia. During a 22-day out-of-body retraining, patients immune cellsspecifically T cells that patrol the body and destroy enemiesget a new gene that allows them to identify and attack the leukemia cells.

Such therapies, called CAR-T therapies, have shown potential for effectively knocking back cancers in several trials, raising hopes of researchers and patients alike. But they come with severe safety concernsplus potentially hefty price tags.

Nevertheless, the FDA announced its approval with fanfare and optimism, calling it a historic action. In the announcement, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said:

Were entering a new frontier in medical innovation with the ability to reprogram a patients own cells to attack a deadly cancer. New technologies such as gene and cell therapies hold out the potential to transform medicine and create an inflection point in our ability to treat and even cure many intractable illnesses. At the FDA, were committed to helping expedite the development and review of groundbreaking treatments that have the potential to be life-saving.

Like all CAR-T therapies, Kymriah involves reprograming body-guard T cells to contain a gene that codes for a protein called chimeric antigen receptor or CAR. This protein allows the T cells to recognize and attack cells that have a protein called CD19 hanging off themwhich leukemia cells do.

In the Kymriah procedure, researchers first harvest T cells from a patient and then send them to a manufacturing center. There, researchers insert the CAR gene into the immune cells using a virus. The process takes 22 days, Nature reported.

In an earlier trial, 52 of 63 participants (82.5 percent) achieved overall remission after undergoing the therapy. The trial is unpublished and lacked controls, so its not possible to determine Kymriahs influence. But trials of other CAR-T therapies have shown similarly high rates of remission. And the early results were enough to sway an external panel of FDA scientific advisors in July. In a unanimous vote on July 12, the panel recommended that the FDA approve Kymriah.

This is a major advance and is ushering in a new era, panel member Malcolm Smith, a pediatric oncologist at the US National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, told Nature at the time.

But, the story isnt all rosy. CAR-T therapies are known to cause life-threatening immune responses called cytokine storms or cytokine release syndrome (CRS). This can lead to systemic full body inflammation, with organ failure, seizures, delirium, and brain swelling. Several trials of therapies similar to Kymriah have reported deaths.

In the Kymriah trial, 47 percent of patients experienced some level of CRS, but none died. Novartis reported that it was able to manage all the cases of CRS.

The FDA noted the risk in todays announcement and also revealed that it had expanded the approved use of a drug called Actemra, which treats CRS, so it can be used in patients who receive CAR-T therapy. The FDA also approved Kymriah with a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy or (REMS). This involves additional safeguards such as extra training and protocols for healthcare providers.

For now, though, Kymriah is only approved for use in patients aged 25 or younger who have failed conventional therapies or relapsed since undergoing those therapies. Of the roughly 3,100 patients aged 20 or younger who are diagnosed each year with acute lymphoblastic leukemia, about 15 to 20 percent will fail treatment. For these patients, Kymriah may be a literal life-saver, as there are few alternatives.

But along with the frightening side effects, gene therapy may also come with a hefty price tag. UK experts have appraised one round of therapy at $649,000. Its still unclear what the actual cost will be and what patients will end up having to pay.

In a press release, Novartis announced that its working with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to come up with outcomes-based pricing. Also in the release, Bruno Strigini, CEO of Novartis Oncology, added:

We are so proud to be part of this historic moment in cancer treatment and are deeply grateful to our researchers, collaborators, and the patients and families who participated in the Kymriah clinical program. As a breakthrough immunocellular therapy for children and young adults who desperately need new options, Kymriah truly embodies our mission to discover new ways to improve patient outcomes and the way cancer is treated.

See the rest here:
First genetic engineering therapy approved by the FDA for leukemia - Ars Technica