Biotech Ethics

From the Daily Mail (Nov. 3, ’08) The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops

When Prince Charles claimed thousands of Indian farmers were killing themselves after using GM crops, he was branded a scaremonger. In fact, as this chilling dispatch reveals, it’s even WORSE than he feared.

The children were inconsolable. Mute with shock and fighting back tears, they huddled beside their mother as friends and neighbours prepared their father’s body for cremation on a blazing bonfire built on the cracked, barren fields near their home.

As flames consumed the corpse, Ganjanan, 12, and Kalpana, 14, faced a grim future. While Shankara Mandaukar had hoped his son and daughter would have a better life under India’s economic boom, they now face working as slave labour for a few pence a day. Landless and homeless, they will be the lowest of the low.

From the Guardian (Nov. 5, ’08) Indian farmer suicides not GM related, says study

Suicides among Indian farmers have not increased as a result of the introduction of GM crops, according to a large scientific study.

The finding runs counter to arguments often cited by NGOs in the country such as Gene Campaign that oppose GM crops. They say that the supposed hike in suicides is a tragic social consequence of farmers being forced into debt as a result of growing the crops.

If anyone knows of good updates, please post them in the comments section below.
—–
Thanks to Apesphere for first pointing me to this issue.

2 more articles to recommend re the ACLU v. Myriad case I mentioned a few days ago.

They are:

Rebecca Skloot, writing for Double X, provides this very good overview of the issues & an explanation of what’s at stake: Enough with Patenting the Breast Cancer Gene

…
Now the Myriad suit has come along with a strategy that’s bigger than any before it. The ACLU’s suit is the first to claim that gene patenting violates the no-products-of-nature rule. It’s also the first to evoke the First Amendment and challenge biological patents for inhibiting freedom of thought. Through its patent, Myriad owns the fact that mutations in the normal BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes make them cancerous. So it’s technically a patent violation to make that connection, even in your head. “Freedom of speech means nothing if you don’t have freedom of thought,” an ACLU spokesman said.
…

and…

And from Deborah Kotz, writing for U.S. News & World Report: Patenting Breast Cancer Genes: Good for Patients? (…which includes a number of quotations from Duke University’s Robert Cook-Deegan, who knows lots about these issues.)

The gene tests, which sequence a portion of a cell’s DNA, are extremely complicated to perform, and there is room for error, says Cook-Deegan. But, he adds, no one knows whether women will benefit from having more companies doing the gene testing. Breast cancer patients quoted in news articles, like this one from the New York Times, say they would like to be able to have the option to have their test repeated by another lab if, say, the result comes back negative for a mutation even though several immediate family members have the disease.

From BusinessGreen.com: Mandelson: Biotech to plant seeds for low-carbon chemicals industry

Industrial biotechnology – the use of plants in producing materials and chemicals – has the potential to cut greenhouse gas emissions across the EU chemicals industry by five per cent by 2020, according to a government report released today.

The study, which also estimated that the sector could reduce its energy bill by more than two per cent through wider use of biotechnology, found that engineered biochemicals made from organic matter such as funghi and algae could replace many of the fossil fuels widely used by the chemicals sector.
…
Industrial biotechnology uses knowledge about genomes and complex cell functions to develop new processes for making products such as industrial enzymes that can replace fossil fuels in the manufacture of chemicals. It can also be used to reduce the toxicity of waste produced by the manufacture of chemicals.

Is industrial biotech now going to get the public attention it deserves, now that it’s being tied to the ‘green’ movement?

From CNN: ACLU sues over patents on breast cancer genes

Patents on two human genes linked to breast and ovarian cancers are being challenged in court by the American Civil Liberties Union, which argues that patenting pure genes is unconstitutional and hinders research for a cancer cure.

“Knowledge about our own bodies and the ability to make decisions about our health care are some of our most personal and fundamental rights,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “The government should not be granting private entities control over something as personal and basic to who we are as our genes.”

The ACLU, joined by Yeshiva University’s law school, filed the lawsuit Tuesday in U.S. District Court in southern New York against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Utah-based Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation.

The ACLU contends that patenting the genes limits research and the free flow of information, and as a result violates the First Amendment. The lawsuit also challenges genetic patenting in general, noting that about 20 percent of all human genes are patented — including genes associated with Alzheimer’s disease, muscular dystrophy and asthma….

Of course, hindering the free flow of information is not always unconstitutional (though I’m not a lawyer), or unethical. Sometimes the flow of information, and the conduct of commerce, are limited in order to protect rights (e.g., privacy rights) and to promote human wellbeing. So this case presumably hinges on whether the ACLU & its co-plaintiffs can convince the court that, in the case of gene patents, what we typically see is information-hindering that doesn’t produce a net social benefit.

Art Caplan has a useful commentary, at MSNBC: Do DNA patents spur science or stifle it? Both.

As Caplan points out, it’s a hugely important case, even if it’s unlikely to succeed.

Hacking is fun. Most people think of hacking as involving breaking into computer systems. But in its broadest sense, hacking means roughly taking an existing system and fiddling with its parts to make it do something it wasn’t designed to do. It’s fun. And it can be a good way to learn. It’s also sometimes illegal, and sometimes dangerous. Bah, humbug!

From the Wall Street Journal: In Attics and Closets, ‘Biohackers’ Discover Their Inner Frankenstein

In Massachusetts, a young woman makes genetically modified E. coli in a closet she converted into a home lab. A part-time DJ in Berkeley, Calif., works in his attic to cultivate viruses extracted from sewage. In Seattle, a grad-school dropout wants to breed algae in a personal biology lab.

These hobbyists represent a growing strain of geekdom known as biohacking, in which do-it-yourselfers tinker with the building blocks of life in the comfort of their own homes. Some of them buy DNA online, then fiddle with it in hopes of curing diseases or finding new biofuels.

But are biohackers a threat to national security?…

Dunno about that last question. But I do know that amateur biohackers aren’t going to easily fall under the auspices of regulatory agencies. And they’re typically not going to be members of professional associations with formal codes of ethics. So let’s hope that organizations/websites like DIY Bio (“…an organization that aims to help make biology a worthwhile pursuit for citizen scientists, amateur biologists, and DIY biological engineers who value openness and safety”) help to foster, among their members, discussions not just of the science and technology of genetic engineering, but of the ethical issues too.

From the Guardian: First genome transplant turns one species into another

Scientists have converted an organism into an entirely different species by performing the world’s first genome transplant, a breakthrough that paves the way for the creation of synthetic forms of life.

The team, led by Craig Venter, the man who raced to sequence the human genome, wants to build new microbes to produce environmentally friendly fuels.

The group’s study, details of which were revealed in the US journal Science yesterday, proves it is possible to transplant a complete set of genetic instructions into an organism, in effect turning it into the same species the DNA was taken from.

OK. But why? Well, this is 2009. Only one answer seems likely: energy! Getting biofuels from bacteria is the modern equivalent of turning lead into gold:

The team is focusing on creating micro-organisms which produce green fuels as natural waste products. “One of the goals we have is trying to see if we could design cells to manufacture new types of fuel to break our dependency on oil and coal and try to do something about carbon dioxide,” Dr Venter said. “We look forward to trying to have the first fuels from genetically modified and even synthetic organisms, certainly within the decade.”

Controversial stuff, for sure. Luckily, ethicists were on the scene….

Dr Venter’s team commissioned an 18-month study into the bioethics of their research, which gave strong approval but echoed concerns about the dangers.

Ah, cautious, hand-wringing approval. What else is an ethicist for, after all?

Here’s a good example to demonstrate that, contrary to popular opinion, business does not always hate regulation. Good, clear, consistent regulation is good for business.

L.A. Times: Genetic testing system is badly flawed, experts say

Genetic tests that predict a person’s risk of disease or suggest which types of treatments may succeed or fail are taking center stage in medicine. However, the lack of consistent government oversight of the testing industry poses enormous concerns for consumers and health professionals, experts said in a letter to Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The letter, signed by a diverse coalition of groups representing genetic testing laboratories, patient advocates, investors and health policy researchers, called for a new framework to oversee genetic testing that is consistent for all tests….

P.s., about the headline. “System?” What system? There is no system. And that’s not a criticism, it’s just a fact.

Most people have never heard of “industrial biotechnology.” They’ve heard of the kind of biotech that is going to “revolutionize” health-care, and they’ve heard of agricultural biotech (via the debate over GM foods). But aside from a few vague references to “biofuels,” most people aren’t aware of the notion of using the tools of biotech to improve industrial processes, clean up oil-spills, leach valuable minerals out of rocks, and so on. So it’s nice to see industrial biotech getting some press.

Check out this story, from the Star Tribune: Biotech’s third wave

On a day when Minnesota said it lost 13,000 jobs, pushing Minnesota’s unemployment rate to a 25-year high, Segetis’ new pilot production plant was pumping out “green” chemicals used in plastics, nylon, and foam — bio-based materials that experts say could become the state’s next growth industry.

Green chemistry, also known as industrial biotechnology, is often called the “third wave of biotechnology,” following genetically modified crops and biofuels such as ethanol. Through chemical reactions, scientists can create new molecules that form the building blocks of non-petroleum-based materials used in everyday products such as sneakers, car seats and shampoo bottles.

So what exactly is “green chemistry?” The Environmental Protection Agency has an entire website to explain it. One small problem: the EPA’s main page explaining green chemistry doesn’t mention biotechnology at all.

Green chemistry consists of chemicals and chemical processes designed to reduce or eliminate negative environmental impacts. The use and production of these chemicals may involve reduced waste products, non-toxic components, and improved efficiency….

Nor, for that matter, does the Wikipedia page for green chemistry mention biotech at all.

So, what gives? Did the Star Tribune reporter get it wrong? Or did the biotech researchers and entrepreneurs he interviewed mislead him? Or is the term “green chemistry” really up for grabs, such that the biotech industry wants to wrestle the term away from those who use it the way the EPA does? I suspect that industrial biotech has a big contribution to make, and part of that contribution probably is in the area of improved environmental performance. But blurring the concepts doesn’t seem particularly helpful, or particularly honest.

From the Associated Press: SKorean experts claim to have cloned glowing dogs

South Korean scientists say they have engineered four beagles that glow red using cloning techniques that could help develop cures for human diseases. The four dogs, all named “Ruppy” — a combination of the words “ruby” and “puppy” — look like typical beagles by daylight.
But they glow red under ultraviolet light, and the dogs’ nails and abdomens, which have thin skins, look red even to the naked eye.
Seoul National University professor Lee Byeong-chun, head of the research team, called them the world’s first transgenic dogs carrying fluorescent genes, an achievement that goes beyond just the glowing novelty.
“What’s significant in this work is not the dogs expressing red colors but that we planted genes into them,” Lee told The Associated Press on Tuesday.

Now if they could only do this to reindeer. And get the gene to express itself mainly in the nose area.

OK, but seriously: it really is crucial to see that this achievement is not about making puppies (or any other animals) that glow in the dark. The fact that the dogs glow is just a convenient way to determine that the inserted gene (which happens to be a gene for flourescence in this case) is showing up everywhere in the dog’s body, which is what you would normally want when you’re doing genetic engineering. So, the technique works. Next step (as the scientists in the story note) is to insert a more useful gene.

—–
p.s. The photo accompanying the AP story is great evidence of the limits of genetics. Notice the dogs are not identical in appearance. (Look at the vertical white stripes on their respective foreheads.)

From Discover: New Biotech Corn Gives Triple Vitamin Boost; Protestors Unmoved

A new genetically modified (GM) corn that produces beta carotene and precursors of vitamin C and folic acid is the first crop to be engineered to make more than one vitamin. Says lead researcher Paul Christou: “The major message of the paper is that it’s possible to engineer crops with multiple nutrients…. If you look at other nutritionally enhanced GM crops, up until now people have only been able to increase levels of one nutrient or vitamin” [Wired]. But anti-GM campaigners have not been won over by the scientific feat, even though the research behind it was not funded by agricultural corporations….

I’m generally optimistic about this sort of technology. However…
But key questions include:
1) Are the increases in vitamin levels enough to make a significant difference in the health of people who consume this corn? (And how much corn do they need to eat?)
2) Theoretical benefits aside, will such corn make it into the hands of the malnourished folks who need it the most? Why or why not?
3) A key market for most new technologies is made up by the affluent folks who can most easily afford nifty new products. Will affluent North Americans and Europeans be keen on this new corn? If so, it’s much easier to see the product getting off the ground.