Team:Concordia/Practices

• 
• OUR TEAM
  • Team Members
  • Attributions
  • Contact Us
• PROJECT
  • Description
  • Lactococcus Lactis
  • Scaffold
  • Food Intolerances
  • Prototype Pathway
• RESULTS
  • Results of Cloning
  • Results of Testing
  • Future Work
• WET LAB
  • Notebook
• PARTS
  • Team Parts
• POLICIES
  • Human Practices
  • Outreach
  • Collaborations
  • Safety

Human Practices: Ethical Considerations

Synthetic biology is currently one of the most exciting and active areas of research within the life sciences. With applications ranging from biosensors to natural product synthesis to information storage, there is no shortage of research and development to be done in this field. However, as with any relatively new field of research, it is important to fully consider the impact of new synthetic biology projects.

One of the main considerations that occurred to our team was the public perception of GMOs, and their connection to synthetic biology. Historically, people have often been apprehensive of the idea of genetically modified organisms, particularly when destined for human use or consumption. As our project is ultimately envisioned as a consumable product, it is extremely important to properly manage public perception of the safety of GMOs.

In light of the differing opinions surrounding genetically modified food, it is important to be aware of Canada’s current policies regarding the issue. A genetically modified organism, or GMO, is defined as any organism that has had its genes altered by humans through genetic engineering (Health Canada, 2012). At present, GMOs can legally be developed, grown, and sold within this country (Health Canada, 2012). In fact, it is important to note that Canada is currently “the third largest producer of genetically modified organisms in the world”, according to Environment Canada (2011). Additionally, Canada currently has regulations in place, stating that any genetically modified organism destined for human consumption must undergo rigorous testing for a period of 7 to 10 years before being allowed on the market (Health Canada, 2012). Additionally, the Canadian government requires labeling “if there is a health or safety issue with a food” such as the presence of an allergen, whether or not the food was genetically engineered (Health Canada, 2012). Based on this, it can be said that Canada has maintained a sensible policy regarding GMOs, one which must be maintained in the face of present controversy.

As with virtually any new technology, the driving force behind the development and introduction of GMOs has been their potential benefits, economic and environmental. One of the main arguments raised in defense of genetically engineered crops has, in recent years, been the possibility of creating grains with higher levels of vitamins and minerals, to help curb nutritional deficiencies in a population. The example of “Golden Rice” in China and Southeast Asia is often used to support this reasoning (Fumanto, 2003, p.194). However, this argument is less relevant within Canada. Aside from crops designated for export to regions where nutritional deficiencies are common, there would appear to be little reason for Canada to pursue the cultivation of rice engineered to contain more vitamin A, as Canadians usually have access to diets providing the necessary nutrients.

In spite of this, there are still good reasons to cultivate GMOs in this country. The most apparent of these is the existence of the often-discussed glyphosate-resistant, or “Roundup Ready”, crops (Tunniliffe, 2011, p.27). Although these crops are rarely mentioned in a positive light, they are ultimately economically viable crops. They have also been thoroughly tested and deemed safe through the process dictated by Environment Canada. Research released by the American EPA has also shown that glyphosate, the herbicide used on such crops, is non-toxic to humans, even in doses equivalent to a lifetime of eating exclusively from sources sprayed with the herbicide ("Glyphosate," 1993). Finally, there is another type of GMO that could be beneficial, especially given certain characteristics of this country’s climate. One of the most well-known genetically modified organisms is the variety of strawberry that contains a gene for resistance to sub-zero temperatures (Fumanto, 2003, p.197). Given the frequency of such freezing temperatures in Canada, investing in the creation of other organisms with this gene could be a significant boon to the economy.

Probably the most important thing to keep in mind when considering the public’s perception of GMOs and synthetic biology, is that any ethical concerns regarding the behaviour of corporations that manufacture and sell genetically modified crops ought to be viewed as separate from unfounded fears of unnatural genes. This form of criticism, while not specifically directed at the science of synthetic biology, often casts a broad net, associating anything involved with genetic modification with the unethical behaviour of corporations. This criticism, unlike direct criticisms of GMOs, will often come from a more scientifically literate background, and is often valid.

Specifically, companies such as Monsanto have often been criticized for their attempt to patent the genes that they introduce into their crops. This raises concerns over the concept of intellectual property, and whether it should extend to something as fundamental as the base-pair sequences composing a gene. Additionally, Monsanto has come under fire for excessively litigious behaviour, with the oft-cited example of filing lawsuits against farmers whose fields have been cross-pollinated by GMO crops without the intentions of anyone involved. While these are certainly examples of unethical corporate behaviour, when used to criticize the science of synthetic biology, they primarily serve to distract from the real issues by pointing fingers at an obvious target.

Perhaps the greatest obstacle to the development and cultivation of genetically modified crops has been the fear that they are unsafe. Many of these fears are based solely on the fact that GMOs have had their DNA altered by humans, and are therefore “unnatural Frankenfoods” (Smith, 2003). Such critics also argue that GMOs are not akin to an extension of plant breeding, as genes are often borrowed from unrelated species, sometimes with unpredictable effects, such as the creation of deformed pigs (Smith, 2003). This is not, however, a reason to entirely dismiss the field of genetic engineering. It is true that the results of genetic engineering can sometimes be unexpected, but the same is true of any field of science. Also, such experiments are far removed from GMOs actually destined for human consumption. Although it is possible that genetically modifying a crop could produce an unintended effect, such a problem would become evident during the aforementioned 7 to 10 year testing period (Health Canada, 2012). It is also interesting to note that altering an organism’s DNA without the use of breeding had occurred long before the advent of genetic engineering. For example, in the 1950s, a strain of barley was intentional subjected to radiation in order to mutate its genome (Tunniliffe, 2011, p. 27). This was done, the barley was cultivated and sold, and there was no public outcry. In fact, the genes from this barley are still present in the environment, having caused no great harm to other species. As such, it is important to judge the safety of a product rationally, based on facts, rather than preconceived notions regarding whether or not it is “natural”.

Based on the present state of the issue, it is important for the Canadian government to continue to support sensible and evidence-based policy making. In part, this involves maintaining the current legal status of GMOs. Additionally, it is without a doubt important to continue to enforce stringent testing protocols, in order to verify that each genetically modified crop is entirely safe, on a case-by-case basis. However, there are other issues to consider. For example, there was recently an effort in California to introduce mandatory labeling for all GMOs sold in stores (Dahl, 2012). On the surface, this would appear to be reasonable, as it would simply indicate which food items contained genetically engineered ingredients. However, in practice, such a policy could be very problematic. Given the sometimes negative public perception, a company would be unlikely to want to announce that their food is genetically modified, and would likely take steps to source their crops differently, or avoid selling their product in the area which mandated labeling. Either measure would be very costly, and would ultimately be more expensive for manufacturers and consumers alike, in order to recoup the expenses (Dahl, 2012). As such, it is important to continue to be sensible when instituting new policies, or risk unexpected problems.

Based on this, it would appear that the best course of action is to maintain current GMO–related policies, and to continue to enact policies based on evidence, when necessary. Genetically modified foods are likely to become more common as time progresses, and it is important not to fear them irrationally. Likewise, it is important to continue to enforce rigorous testing requirements for any genetically engineered food destined for consumption. Although there is nothing inherently unsafe about GMOs, it is important to judge each product on an individual, case-by-case basis. This is the key to GMO policies.

References

Dahl, R. (2012). To label or not to label. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(9), A358-A361

Edge, T., Gagné, F., & Lawrence, J. Environment Canada, (2011). Genetically modified organisms. Retrieved from website: http://www.ec.gc.ca/inre-nwri/default.asp?lang=En&n=E8A9C49D-1

Fumanto, M. (2003). Bio evolution: How technology is changing our world. San Francisco: Encounter Books, 191-197.

Health Canada, (2012). The regulation of genetically modified food. Retrieved from website: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/biotech/reg_gen_mod-eng.php

Smith, J. (2003). Seeds of deception: Exposing industry and government lies about the safety of genetically engineered foods you're eating. Fairfirld: Yes! Books.

Tunniliffe, H. (2012). GM: dangerous meddling or a high-tech solution?. TCE: The Chemical Engineer, (852), 26-27.