Biotech Ethics

If you want a quick overview of the main points for-and-against GM foods, you could do worse than to check out this recent debate hosted by the NY Times: Can Biotech Food Cure World Hunger?

With food prices remaining high in developing countries, the United Nations estimates that the number of hungry people around the world could increase by 100 million in 2009 and pass the one billion mark. A summit of world leaders in Rome scheduled for November will set an agenda for ways to reduce hunger and increase investment in agriculture development in poor countries.

What will drive the next Green Revolution? Is genetically modified food an answer to world hunger? Are there other factors that will make a difference in food production?

And the piece includes short commentaries from:

Paul Collier, economist, Oxford Univ.
Vandana Shiva, activist and author
Per Pinstrup-Andersen, prof. of nutrition and public policy, Cornell
Raj Patel, Institute for Food and Development Policy
Jonathan Foley, U of Minnesota
Michael J. Roberts, economist, North Carolina State U.

The biggest problem with the NYT debate here is the starting point: curing world hunger? Please. No technology is going to do that, and to put that forward as a possibility is to set oneself up for a disappointment of tragic proportions. The right question is more like, “Can biotech — as it could be used, rather than as it has been used thus far — provide sufficient gains in productivity, in the right parts of the world, to have a meaningful effect on overall levels of hunger?”

This is a reminder that our research survey on Personal Genomics, Privacy & Consent is still open, and we still need input from people with a wide range of points of view. This is an innovative, interactive survey that lets you see the answers other people have given while you take the survey, as well as letting you respond.

You can visit the page hosting the survey here: yourviews.ubc.ca

For a fuller explanation, see my previous blog entry on this.

As I’ve blogged before, the usefulness of the whole-genome scans offered by personal genomics companies is very much subject to debate. It’s not clear just what one is supposed to be able to do with the test results, beyond being fascinated and entertained. But at very least, consumers are bound to expect the tests to be scientifically credible.

Well, the biggest name in genomics has just hurled a bit of a challenge in the direction of 2 personal genomics companies, in that regard.

Here’s the story, from the Genetic Future blog: Scientists call for changes to personal genomics based on comparison of test results

Four scientists – including the omnipresent J. Craig Venter (left) – have penned an opinion piece in the latest issue of Nature based results from five individuals genotyped by two separate personal genomics companies. The article highlights some deficiencies in the way that genetic data are currently used by direct-to-consumer companies to generate risk predictions and to present them to customers.

Here’s the story as reported by the LA Times:Warning: DNA test results may not be as reliable as they appear.

Interestingly, no comment has appeared on 23andMe’s blog or Navigenics’ blog.

On Navigenics Fan Page on Facebook, however, the company has posted links to a couple of news items on this topic…but hasn’t added any comments of its own.

Of all the interested parties you expect to be boosting biotech…well, environmental charities haven’t exactly been high on that list. Here’s an exception.

From Business Wire: WWF report: Industrial biotech can save the world up to 2.5 billion tons of CO2 per year

The WWF report Industrial biotechnology – more than green fuel in a dirty economy?,which has been published today, concludes that industrial biotechnology can provide dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and provide strong
progress toward a green and sustainable economy. WWF calls for increased political backing for the industry to leverage the positive environmental effects. The findings are based on peer-reviewed research from Novozymes, the world leader in bioinnovation, as well as contributions from experts and WWF.

Make of it what you will. But it’s worth noting that, like information technology, biotechnology is a cluster of technologies that’s bound to have its upsides and downsides, environmentally. I’ve blogged before about how some folks see way too eager to hop on the bio-enviro bandwagon, even going so far as to equate the terms “industrial biotechnology” and “green chemistry.” But it’s interesting here to see a major, reputable environmental NGO touting the green side of biotech.

Announcing a new Online Survey: Personal Genomics, Privacy & Consent

Our research group (at University of British Columbia, Saint Mary’s University, & Ryerson University) has created an online, interactive survey to better understand values & attitudes related to Personal Genomics. We’d like to include input from readers of this blog because they represent important perspectives on ethical issues related to Personal Genomics.

The survey will take about 10-20 minutes.

To take the survey you will need to register. This requires entering your email address. This is so that we can make the survey safe from spammers & hackers. We will not be able to link your e-mail address with your answers, & we won’t give your details to any third party.

If you have questions or concerns, email us at chris.macdonald@smu.ca or nwalton@ryerson.ca.

You can access the ‘Personal Genomics & Privacy’ survey via this link: http://www.yourviews.ubc.ca.

Thank you. We value your input.

Chris MacDonald PhD. & Nancy Walton, Ph.D.

This is the kind of story that could turn someone who is generally accepting of GM crops (like me) into a skeptic — if not a skeptic about the crops themselves, at very least a skeptic about the companies that produce them.

Here’s an important editorial from Scientific American: Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research?

(Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end)

Advances in agricultural technology—including, but not limited to, the genetic modification of food crops—have made fields more productive than ever. Farmers grow more crops and feed more people using less land. They are able to use fewer pesticides and to reduce the amount of tilling that leads to erosion. And within the next two years, agritech com panies plan to introduce advanced crops that are designed to survive heat waves and droughts, resilient characteristics that will become increasingly important in a world marked by a changing climate.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.

The Editorial’s key point is hard to argue with:

Although we appreciate the need to protect the intellectual property rights that have spurred the investments into research and development that have led to agritech’s successes, we also believe food safety and environmental protection depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny. Agricultural technology companies should therefore immediately remove the restriction on research from their end-user agreements. Going forward, the EPA should also require, as a condition of approving the sale of new seeds, that independent researchers have unfettered access to all products currently on the market.

The whole editorial is worth reading, and sharing. Intellectual property is an important set of principles and protections; but the rationale for protection reaches its limits when it frustrates, without clear necessity, the conduct of honest, non-commercial scientific research aimed at the public good.

By John Lorinc, for the NY Times: The Food, Energy and Environment ‘Trilemma’

At the 2009 Bio World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology, held in Montreal last week, industry players and scientists found themselves pondering two seemingly contradictory concerns.

One focused on how rapid advances in genetic engineering and biotechnology can expand the market for cellulosic ethanol and other “second-generation biofuels,” which are touted as low-emission substitutes for corn ethanol (itself a partial substitute for gasoline).

The other involved the problem of ensuring that exponential growth in the global biofuel market — which is projected to grow 12.3 percent a year through 2017, according to one recent study of the industry — will not hurt the environment and divert vast tracks of arable land needed for food or grain production….

Of course, use of the word “trilemma” implies that there’s a choice to make — which implies, in turn, that someone has a choice to make. Just who is that? Can consumers exercise anything like effective choice in this this domain? Should governments?

GM food crops raise 2 distinct set of ethical issues: 1) is the food safe to consume? and 2) do the crops themselves pose ecological hazards? This story is primarily about the latter. (For better or for worse, in Canada a single agency & The Canadian Food Inspection Agency & is in charge of both questions.)

Via the Regina Leader-Post: Quick, quiet genetic corn approval questioned

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency has quietly approved a new genetically engineered corn with eight different insect- and weed-fighting traits, but farmer and environmental groups in Canada say the approval was rushed and environmental risks ignored.

Developed through a research agreement between Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences, SmartStax corn is unique in that it “stacks” eight different genetically engineered traits that will allow corn to tolerate certain weed- and insect-killing products made by the two companies.

Each of the eight traits has been individually approved by the CFIA, but opponents are concerned there might be unintended consequences when the traits are combined….

Quick notes:
1) There’s no good evidence that GM foods pose any risk to human health, but informed opinion (to the best of my ability to read the relevant literature) is that we do need to know more about the potential environmental impacts of GM crops. So, even for those of us who are generally optimistic about genetic modification, the concerns expressed about SmartStax are not silly.
2) The Greenpeace statement to the effect that expecting Monsanto and Dow to report on environmental impact is “like putting the wolf in charge of the sheep’s welfare” suggests an unrealistic expectation that government would participate actively in gathering such information. There are too many products out there (food, drugs, consumer goods, and so on) for government to do the testing itself. Like it or not, government for the most part has to rely on industry to submit data.
3) Stories that cast doubt, as this one seems to, on the rigour of the regulatory process are probably going to do damage to the prospects of GM food crops in general.
—
Here’s Monsanto’s page about SmartStax Corn.
Here’s the website for the CFIA. Here’s CFIA’s approval of SmartStax corn.
And here’s the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.

From The Guardian: Bug brings hope for fight against Japanese knotweed

It arrived quietly nearly 200 years ago and now threatens numerous British plants, allotments, gardens, pavements, buildings, railways and water courses.

Japanese knotweed – capable of growing 3 metres in as many months – costs a fortune to control and has so far resisted attempts to stem its relentless progress.

Now researchers are sending for help to Japan, the knotweed’s homeland, for a tiny bug that depends on the plant for its lifecycle. They work for Cabi, an international agricultural research body, which has been studying how Aphalara itadori, named after its host plant, might provide a solution….

According to the Guardian, “Authorities in England and Wales are consulting the public” on whether the plan should go ahead. Clearly, introducing an alien species of bug is not a trivial matter…no one can say for sure just what the net ecological impact would be, though presumably the relevant scientists would have some idea, for example, whether there are other local plants that are likely to fall prey to this new bug. But still, caution is warranted.

Question: would it make a difference if this bug, rather than being introduced from Japan, were instead a genetically modified bug introduced from a British laboratory? That is, what if the solution were a biotech solution. Now, by some definitions, this already is a biotech solution. According to the Convention on Biological Diversity:

“Biotechnology” means any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use.

That’s pretty broad, but it’s not exactly a loony definition either. So this project could easily count as biotech. But what if this were more, shall we say, hardcore biotech? Would there be more, or less, reason to be worried about a GM version of a native British bug, than a “natural” version of a Japanese bug?

From the Calgary Herald: Canadian discovery raises questions about gene studies

Scientists in Montreal have discovered that not all human cells are identical, a surprising observation that could turn genetic research upside down.

For years, scientists have worked on the assumption that, when it comes to DNA, every cell in the body is essentially similar to every other cell.

But the results of a study published in the July issue of the journal Human Mutation show there are major genetic differences between blood and tissue cells….

My question: how will Personal Genomics companies like 23andMe, Navigenics, etc., respond to this news? This new discover seems to imply that the standard methods those companies use to gather genetic samples may be fundamentally flawed.

So, will they suspend service until they understand the issue better? Should they? Of course, I’m not a geneticist — so maybe I’m over-stating the significance of this new bit of science. But then the question is, will Personal Genomics companies (who do, after all, employ geneticists) explain to the purchasing public the extent to which this new finding is-or-isn’t relevant to their services?