DIY Synthetic Biology - More Than Building a Better Tomato

A few years in his book, A Many-Colored Glass, Freeman Dyson envisioned that the domestication of biotechnology would result in a new art form, as creative as painting or sculpture and would give rise to an explosion of new diverse creatures, few of which will be masterpieces, but “all will bring joy to their creators and variety to our flora and fauna.”  Now, college biology students are competing to see who can create new, living tools to address the planet's problems (e.g., bacteria that   The comments and reactions to the article range from go-get-'em to we-are-destroying-ourselves-and-the planet to philosophical:

Sample comment 1: 

Genetic engineering by experienced professionals is dangerous enough.

Genetic engineering by students is a spectacularly bad idea.

Sample comment 2:

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein remains a compelling story these many years later  because of its description of what it means to be human, and what happens when we overreach. We can't bury our heads in the sand, we can't put the genie back in the bottle, but perhaps we can ask the question, "Should we do it just because we can do it?"

Sample comment 3:


lots of pluses and minuses here - 
Plus: poor countries can home brew their own genetically engineered crops and not have to rely on multinationals and their morally odious "patenting" of genetic  sequences (many of which started as novel genetic strains they freely took from poor countries).

Minus: Al Qaeda can brew its own deadly flu strain. Possibly killing many poor Muslims would not be a problem for Al Qaeda.


Welcome to the age of genetic hacking. Just like computer hacking, except we're the vector, not our computer.

Sample comment 4:  [I suspect a bioethicist wrote this one]


Any technology can be used to accomplish useful things, or abused to accomplish evil things. The fault lies with personal ethics, not the technology itself. Our students are carefully versed in the implications of biotechnology as well as the applications and limitations.  It is important to expose students to ethical considerations in the use of technology. Our students are far more informed on these issues than the general public.

Regardless of your position on whether or DIY genetic engineering kits are a good idea, this article does provide evidence that the field of bioethics is not dying or irrelevant; if anything, it is now needed more than ever.

The latest on designer children...

From the Onion (no further comment needed :>) :


Disney Lab Unveils Its Latest Line Of Genetically Engineered Child Stars

Treacherous Kisses?

Our weekly guest post from Jonathan Javitt, author of Capitol Reflections:

Genetically modified (GM) beet sugar is generally used to make Hershey's Kisses – but that will no longer be the case in Brazil. The company recently announced it won't use GM beet sugar in its Brazilian-made products, but Hershey has not made any such promises for its US products.

In light of this, a number of consumer watch-dog groups in the US are urging people to take action; several years ago, Hershey told U.S. consumers it would not use genetically engineered sugar. But now genetically modified sugar beets are being planted commercially in the US and Hershey is utilizing sugar made from these plants for their hugely popular “Kisses” candy.

Additionally, the nation's largest sugar manufacturer, Crystal Sugar (from whom Hershey buys its sugar), said in the past that they would not be using GM sugar beets and indicated that herbicide-resistant varieties developed using biotechnology would not “be sold, given away, distributed, or planted.” But it doesn't look like that promise has been kept.

The New York Times reported last year in an article, “Round Two for Biotech Beets”that the sugar manufacturer abandoned its promise not to use genetically-modified sugar because public resistance to GM foods seems to have faded. Crystal Sugar and others now support the cultivation of GM beets because it will increase yields. According this article, beet sugar is unlike many GM foods in that the sugar molecule in GM beets is identical to the sugar molecule made by non-GM beets. Sugar, as a pure, crystalline substance contains no genetically modified strands of DNA or proteins.

GM beets are produced by Monsanto, which is a concern to many consumer groups – and agriculture activists - because of perceived dangers of Monsanto’s pesticide resistant technology and the aggressive marketing to farmers who don't use their products. The GM beets are called Roundup Ready Beets because their DNA has been altered to survive applications of Roundup weed-killer.

Consumer groups are concerned about the introduction of GM foods for human consumption in the US because there are no clear requirements for pre-market safety testing. The nation’s food safety laws were written before GM foods were conceived and although those laws focus on proving the safety of food additives and adulterated foods, genetic modification is considered neither an additive nor an adulterant.

While these issues are debated, still others are worried about Monsanto's central role in our food supply. As I mention in my book, altering the food supply could potentially play a big role – and cause big problems – in our society. In the “real world,” this is easy to see - increasing use of GM seed and food gives Monsanto – a GMO giant - a great deal of control over the production of food, and only a handful of corporations like Monsanto are involved in agricultural biotechnology.

This Little Piggy Went to Market (or Not?)

We're pleased to have a guest post today by Jonathan Javitt, author of Capitol Reflections, who wrote this for the Women's Bioethics Blog:

Imagine a cleaner pig. Thanks to researchers at the University of Guelph in Ontario, you don't have to imagine – they've engineered them. It has nothing to do with their appearance – the look just like any other pig – but the difference can be found in their genetic makeup, specifically in their “cleaner” manure.

Your typical pig doesn't have the capacity to break down phytate - found in much of the food that pigs eat – thus going undigested, ending up in their manure and subsequently, in other places as well. It can get into the water supply, leading to algae growth, and it can get into the air – especially when a large number of pigs live together on ranches. In short it can cause real environmental problems.

In hopes of ending these problems, study leader Cecil Forsberg and colleagues genetically engineered pigs, dubbed Enviropigs, that can digest more phosphorus.

So how is it done? According to the study, “by introducing a bacterial gene for the enzyme phytase into Enviropigs’ genome, the pigs secrete the enzyme in their saliva and expel up to 60 percent less phosphorus in their manure than their non-transgenic counterparts.” These cleaner, environmentally-friendly pigs are just one genetically engineered animal living in experimental labs in North America. Others include fast-growing salmon, disease-resistant cows, and goats that produce antibacterial milk. All of them, right now, are awaiting FDA approval.

In my novel, Capitol Reflections, I talk about the complexities of FDA approval for modified foods – or animals – and the problems that arise because sometimes there aren't enough checks and balances in place (since genetically modified foods is based on relatively new science.) Those opposed to genetically modified organisms (GMO) worry that there isn’t enough information about them yet to safely bring them to market.

It's easy to see both sides of the argument. Items that are genetically modified typically serve a purpose for the “greater good” - faster growing grains for countries afflicted with famine, fish that would help end over-fishing, and of course, pigs that don't pollute – but is that a reason to give them fast track approval and open them up for consumption? Do people really know what could unfold if this type of technology is mismanaged or mis-applied?

With a heated political season upon us, it's interesting to consider the role of policies and politicians in the GMO debate.

Jonathan Javitt (capitolreflections.com) is the author of Capitol Reflections and a Washington insider, physician and scientist who has served as a senior White House health advisor in the past three presidential administrations. His book is available on Amazon.com at this link.

Halloween Ready: Glow-in-the-dark Kitty

Meow.

Will Genetic Engineering Ruin Sports?

I will have to begin in mentioning that I am not a sports nut. I do like to watch the occasional baseball and football game. Despite this, the topic of sports is going to be may main topic. But not just sports in curiosity who will win the next Superbowl, but sports in concern with genetics. Where will the idea of sports go with the introduction (and advancement) of genetic engineering? Will such technology, which has high hopes in enhancing ourselves to be better humans, ruin the very idea of sports? With the playing field be fair? Or will it destroy the very structure of competition? If so, will the law forbid such technology, or forbid any altered child from entering sport?

I'm sure most of our readers have heard of the recent headlines of steroid use in the MLB. The uproar of the use of steroids only sparked more interesting questions when concerning with the future of genetic engineering. People were upset and felt cheated that such athletes took performance drugs to better their game. Can the upset of steroids ban any idea of future genetically altered athletes from entering sports? It is known that steroids have some major side effects that can harm the taker. For a better look, check the ESPN special of steroids: ESPN Special On Steroids


Genetic technology is ever progressing, and every year that passes brings us even closer to the technology of genetic engineering. We already have super mice!; Marathon Mice, Schwarzenegger Mice, and my favorite, Doogie Mice. For a side note, most of what I will be discussing will be in the hypothetical. In other words, there are some concerning issues as to what we will be able to alter in our children's genes. In addition, Im already assuming that such technology is "perfected" so to say. I believe most will agree that such technology in general should not be practiced until all the kinks are well, fixed. I also would like to add that I am assuming that this technology will be widely accessible.

So, if you have the option to choose certain traits for your children; (already taking the precautions to remove any defects and/or diseases), what will you choose? Every parent would want the best for their child. Either it be a trait that the parents believe to be beneficial, i.e. physical appearance, or a trait that is in general beneficial no matter what scenario, prolonged-memory. In addition, you can better befit your child with physical agility, such as strength, or the ability to run fast. This alterations and enhancements do not have to be linked with the parents desire to "create" an athlete, (though this can happen), but such alterations can lead a child to consider such a course. If so, what will the precautions be? At this moment I am going to drift into Lance Armstrong. My point will be seen, I assure you.


Lance Armstrong is a perfect example of a great athlete. He shares a lot of the same attributes that other bicyclist share, but one thing that he does have differently is his unique lactate levels. The average among bicyclists is between 12 and 20u L/Kg. Armstrong's level is maximum 6u L/Kg. (information found on Answers: Armstrong) This means he feels less physical fatigue, allowing him to continue long distances without losing strength. Is this fair to the other players? Or is it just part of the game? Granted, most would agree that though you might have the tools, its how you use it that shows your worth. In any who, would it be wrong of parents to genetically alter their child to have these attributes? Or is it fair for Armstrong only because he got it through chance (chance meaning it accrued with no interference or received it through his parents with no interference). Would you look at Armstrong differently if you knew he received this attribute deliberately through genetic technology? Would you feel that he should be stripped of his awards and banned from the sport if he did. In addition, would you believe that all altered individuals be banned from participating in any sport?

If genetic engineering is "perfected", and is seen as a due course of helping our children, what would happen to the legality of those enhanced. Would the law ban some individuals because they were altered prior to birth? In all honestly, I cant see the law banning this technology entirely (maybe some aspects of enhancement). Im at the moment curious as what will the law do? Will they ban altered athletes entirely, or have a separate league? Or will the law do nothing and allow such individuals to enter. Will this then require other non-enhanced athletes to comply? Athletes are already posthuman cyborgs and we celebrate this. It is likely that greater use of this technology will seep into other aspects of culture, as we begin to embrace more and more enhancements. Sports might soon become peculiar for resisting such developments and, in the meantime, will be placing athletes at greater risk by forcing them to enhance behind closed doors.�??¹ Either way, sports competition will take some dramatic hits and misses as genetic engineering progresses into the future.

There is a novel written by Kevin Joseph called The Champion Maker (2005). The story offers us a fictional look into what might occur if an exceptional athlete was found to be genetically altered. It deals with reaction and attention of the courts.

1: Andy Miah, Engineering Athletes, The Sun News (Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA), 18 May 2008.