Category: Biotechnology

In a bid to aid globalisation, the Australian Government established liberal trade policy agreements with low wage economies. However, according to a manufacturing report released in 2018 by the Department of Industry, Innovation and Science, it suggests liberal trade policies are hampering the growth of Australia’s manufacturing industry instead of fueling economic growth. Australia’s manufacturing industry contributes 6% to the Australian GDP, however the utilisation of manufacturing has declined considerably over recent years. The Australian manufacturing industry exports $96.1 billion worth of goods and employ 856,000 people, however this industry has fallen from a high in 1995, where it contributed 14% of GDP and employed more than 1,000,000 people (Australian Government 2018.). However, the downturn of the Australian manufacturing industry is certainly not a strong indicator of the Australian economy. The following Analytical Exposition investigates the impact of globalisation and the role that low wage economies play in the challenges of globalisation that face the Australian manufacturing industry in particular Agricultural Biotechnology.

Biotechnology is the process of applying science and technology to living organisms, parts, products and models, to alter living or non-living materials to produce knowledge and biotechnology products and services. “In its simplest form, biotechnology is type of technology based on biology, it’s job is to harness cellular and biomolecular processes to develop technologies and products that help improve our lives and the health of our planet” (Biotechnology Innovation Organisation n.d). “Australia is a major force of biotechnology and pharmaceutical innovation with excellent research facilities, world-class scientists and a strong regulatory regime” (AusTrade 2019). Australia provides opportunities in biomedical, diagnostics, medical devices and agri-biotech (Aus Trade 2019.) With statistics from the Scientific American Worldview report in May 2018, ranking Australia in the top five bio-economies globally, ahead of Germany and the United Kingdom, Australia’s biotechnology industry continues to show growth for the third consecutive year. Despite the challenges of the global economy, the biotechnology industry is expected to continue growing, reaching around $8 billion in revenue over the current year.

Australia’s Biotechnology industry holds a competitive position in the world regarding comparative advantage against low wage economies. These economies simply don’t possess the money to replicate biotechnology study and Australia have more skilled workers, where for example China employ workers based on quantity over quality, meaning Australia has a lower opportunity cost than China (Ross Gittins 2016.). The introduction of agricultural biotechnology has met with opposition, this is true in Europe, as people are viewing new agricultural methods and production as threats to existing production. However, the biotechnology industry is considered one of the most globalized, it is dominated by small and medium sized enterprises in most economies. (Juan Vieira 2005.) There is a trend identified by the EO 2008 global biotechnology report that many Western biotechnology companies use a method where the companies lay off workers whilst also hiring new workers due to their willingness to work for a lower wage without foregoing education or productivity levels. The report identifies this as a way to cut costs to increase opportunity to increase chances of expanding globally, eventually new workers will raise their salary as competition for their work continues. However, regarding the overall more sustainable approach to the globalization of biotechnology, it is important to say that the best way would be to enable western markets to see emerging markets as not a way to get cheaper labor but as potential consumer bases, having a wider variety of consumers which will bring in more revenue (Ernst & Young 2008.) However, it’s important to note that emerging consumer bases are yet to acquire enough funds to invest in western products, the report indicates that western companies should work in collaboration with innovative companies in the emerging markets to develop affordable products designed specifically to the local emerging markets conditions of life. (Ernst & Young 2008). The Australian Government wants local firms to be internationally competitive, this means that Australian firms can complete or sell their goods and services in markets around the world, without reliance on protection or special government assistance. The federal government uses policies to encourage trade and make local firms more competitive, for example the liberal trade policy to encourage international trade which fuels economic growth. Liberal trade policies are the actions by which a country reduces its tariffs and other trade barriers to improve competitiveness.

The industry of Biotechnology is an influential engineering technology that has the ability to radically transform many industries, including agriculture. Australia believes biotechnology can offer farmers and the community crops that are of higher quality and higher yield. These transgenic crops are able to be grown in non-ideal soil and in drought conditions and have been engineered to improve sustainability through reduced chemical applications. “In 2016 genetically altered crops were grown by more than 18 million farmers in 26 countries, including Argentina, Brazil and the United States” (Department of Agriculture and Water Resources 2018). The number of genetically altered crops planted increased more than 100 times from 1.7 million hectares in 1996 to over 185.1 million hectares in 2016 (ISAAA 2016), this increase made genetically altered crops the fastest crop technology in recent times (ISAAA 2016). Revolution has long supported agricultural productivity growth in Australia, in 1996 Australian cotton farmers first used plants that had been genetically altered for pest resistance, this innovation enabled the farmers to significantly reduce their use of pesticides. Since the 2000’s the total farm income generated from the use of genetically altered cotton has increased by around $78.6 million. (Brookes & Barfoot 2014).

Through the continued innovation of agricultural biotechnology farmers and the community can expect to see more seed yield per acre, plants that naturally resist diseases and farming techniques that improve soil conservation. We can enhance and improve human health through the continued innovations of plant therapies (Biotechnology Innovation Organisation n.d). Biotechnology has certainly produced a lot of positives for the world, however it is hard to ignore the disadvantages and potential negative impacts. ‘In agriculture, there are concerns that genetically altered crops could potentially transfer genetic material into natural, unmodified plants. For example, a crop that is herbicide resistant may transfer some of its traits to a weed, which would result in an herbicide resistant weed” (Joshua Suico 2018). Another concern centers around the uncertainty that “genetically modified food may produce new proteins and may act as new allergens and cause allergic reactions in humans. Scientists cannot regulate the site of insertion of genes in the plant genome and this will induce new allergens into the food chain”. (Joshua Suico 2018) The Biotechnology market demand is demonstrated by it’s industry growth from 2014 to 2019, with an average of 2.9 % industry growth rate. While this is the case now, it is important to mention the potential future of Biotechnology, the Industry is likely to grow in the next 5 years, this will be driven by a greater demand for the products that can be manufactured and a greater acceptance of Biotechnology products. Therefore, the industry is forecast to obtain revenue from a wide range of sources, such as Government and non-profit organisations as well as the private sector. (IBISWorld 2019.) “With focus on the agricultural side of biotechnology, the global market accounted for $20 billion in 2017, this number is expected to increase majorly, with an expected market value of $51.93 by 2026”. (Grand View Research 2017). An illustration of why market value is expected to increase is because of the demand for products in the agricultural biotechnology Industry. “Products that are on the demand are biofuels and growing transgenic crops owing to rising food demand”. (Dublin 2019).

The effectiveness of Biotechnology has been recorded for many decades with evidence suggesting farming based biotechnology adds to both environmental and economic sustainability (Biotechnology Innovation Organisation n.d.). Farmers choose biotech crops as they lower production costs and increase yield. It is important to note that farmers also receive a greater financial return using environmentally friendly farming practices through the use of agricultural biotechnology. “The decrease in field plowing has allowed farmers to use less fuel and store additional carbon on the soil. In 2007, this was equivalent to removing 31.2 billion pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or equal to removing nearly 6.3 million cars from the road for one year”. (Brookes, Graham, & Peter Barfoot. 2009.). With Australia implementing Liberal trade policies, making Australia more competitive in the international market there will be many advantages Australia can look forward to. With Australia being internationally competitive, Australian firms should compete more successfully against imports at home and be able to grow their export markets. In addition, being internationally competitive will not only improve Australia’s external stability by reducing our CAD, being more competitive will benefit us all by lifting the rate of economic growth in GDP, increasing national income, creating jobs and lowering inflation. Australia’s manufacturing industry is very capable to deal with the challenges of globalisation, this is because globalisation is able to increase exports which enables Australian companies better quality access to distribution channels across the international market. (Mark Vaile 2000.)

While the economic benefits of biotechnology for agriculture and the economy cannot always be readily quantified, it seems clear that the existing benefits are significant and future benefits could be large. A range of biotechnology techniques are being used to develop functional foods, which can produce economic benefits along the chain, although many of the benefits may accrue to industry players beyond the farm gate. However, in the long term an important benefit to the economy and society of functional foods is likely to be lower health costs and a healthier Australian community.

The ability of science to operate effectively within society is de- pendant on a number of factors. Science is totally reliant on the law for its regulation and control, while the boundaries in which science can operate are governed by legal constraints. These boundaries are strongly influenced by society which dictates acceptable levels of morals and ethics in which science can ope- rate. Economic factors must be considered as industry requires reward in order to recoup its research and development inve- stments and continue competing in a competitive and growing market place. Thus the law must reconcile the different tensions raised by science, economics, politics, society and the law itself. This paper looks how this may be achieved at the international, regional and national level.

How should law be used to regulate science? This question is currently the source of a fundamental and complex socio-legal debate. It is fundamental because of the increa- singly central role of science and technology in modem society, and because of the speed of progress in these areas. It is complex because the regulation of science presents many diverse challenges. Scientific technology invariably moves forward, making it difficult to create laws with lasting relevance. Scientific research and scientific advances often engage strongly held social values, making consensus on the objectives and forms of regulation difficult to obtain. In the face of such varied considerations, policy makers have struggled for years to design legislation to regulate existing technologies while trying to take into account the advent of new technologies. Terminology used in science is fluid, with meaning changing as new understandings develop or discoveries are made. Once a law has been enacted, the definitions upon which it is based are often fixed.

While many regard a new scientific advancement with optimism i.e. that it may have the potential to take the human race to new levels and have defended scientists’ rights to research almost any area, others treat the advancement with caution or even consider the research a ‘slippery slope’ from which society may never recover. Scientists often hold the view that research should be unfettered; that society should not choose to control that which is done in the research laboratory. It is only the development of discoveries (whether commercial or otherwise) that need be controlled by society. This view is not generally shared by those not deeply involved with research endeavour. The decision as to whether to regulate scientific research is one which has to be considered carefully by legislators, in order to ensure that our understanding of the world around us is not qualified by political considerations. Regulation of development and, in particular, commercialisation of new products may well be necessary to ensure that the values of the society in which this development occurs are maintained.

What should regulation hope to achieve? It should aim to protect human health, ideally human dignity and human rights, and the environment. According to the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) ‘Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature’. Regulations should also reflect public values in relation to such things as the use of animals, humans and embryos in research, and the sustainability of the environment and the society. It is not only those who are alive now that need or deserve protection from our actions. Regulation may increase public trust and thereby enable science to gain public support and a robust platform for scientists and industry to build upon.

There are three levels at which science may be regulated: international, regional and national. Regulation at the international level is perhaps the most desirable in some circumstances, because it removes some of the anomalies seen in regional and national legislation, yet the hardest to achieve. International regulation requires consensus from the majority of countries in order to make a multilateral agreement function. However, often the only way in which to reach a consensus is by a broad drafting in order to accommodate a wide range of perspectives resulting in an agreement which can be interpreted in many ways and frequently does not achieve its primary goal. There are few international agreements covering modem biotechnology. One area of biotechnology where there are international agreements is agro-biotechnology where protection of biological diversity is a primary goal that transcends national barriers. The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992) required that: ‘States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, and the respon- sibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction. ‘

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), addressed the need for countries to ensure that the use of modem biotechnology within their borders is achieved in a safe manner (Article 8(g)). The Cartagena Protocol to the CBD was agreed in 2000, after years of negotiation and argument, with many misgivings, but in an atmosphere which had changed from that which pertained at the time the negotiations started. Article 19(3) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (June 1992) had required parties to consider the possibility of a Protocol to the convention that addressed the use (and primarily transboundary movement) of living modified organisms that might have an adverse impact on biological diversity. Eight years later Europeans were no longer accepting modem biotechnology; products had disappeared from the shops, and there was distrust in many countries that was not observed in North America. Few, if any, products derived using modem biotechnology are now available in Europe (Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use and Human Health (2002). In North America, farmers adopted transgenic organisms with little opposition, and products derived from them have been in the shops for nearly 10 years. The Developing Countries had wanted far more in the Protocol than they were able to get, with many more safeguards. However, the producer countries fought hard to ensure that, insofar as it was possible, few if any controls were applied particularly to commodity goods. The size of the commodity market alone, they argued, made it difficult to contemplate a regime which required what amounted to ‘visas’ at country entry points.

Even though the final version of the Cartagena Protocol was a compromise made between many countries, the major producers of GMOs, the US, Argentina and Canada have yet to ratify the Protocol. The Protocol and Article 8(g) of the CBD are primarily concerned with adverse impacts that living modified organisms resulting from modem biotechnology may have on the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, taking also into account risks to human health.

There is little international regulation in relation to human genetics and health, although the UNESCO Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights, which was formulated in 1997, is a non-binding Declaration that has implications for the use of modem biotechnology in humans. The Declaration addresses the right to respect for individual’s human dignity irrespective of their genetic characteristics. It asserts that the human genome, in its natural state shall not give rise to financial gains, and addresses the rights of individuals in relation to their genetic heritage. Article 11 requires that: ‘Practices which are contrary to human dignity, such as reproductive cloning of human beings, shall not be permitted. States and competent international organizations are invited to co-operate in identifying such practices and in taking, at national or international level, the measures necessary to ensure that the principles set out in this Declaration are respected. ‘

Although this Declaration does not constitute regulation, it (at the very least) permi- ts states to institute regulation to protect human dignity where it might be compromised through the use of modem biotechnology. The UN has been trying to reach agreement on a stance on cloning for more than 2 years, during which time the 191 member states were split between two resolutions. The frrst, put forth by Costa Rica, proposed a total ban on all forms and purposes of cloning. The second submitted by Belgium, recommended a ban on human reproductive cloning but left the decision about therapeutic cloning up to individual states. The parties are as far apart as ever and no consensus has been reached

The EU achieves regulation at the regional level primarily via Directives (that need to be implemented by member states) and Regulations. The regulatory system for the use of transgenic microorganisms in containment and for the release and marketing, traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms are detailed and arguably, excessive. The use of animals is partially controlled; there is a protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam on the protection and welfare of animals, and Directive 86/609 addresses the protection of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. However, there are few if any, Directives or Regulations that directly cover many areas of modem biotechnology where they directly involve humans, such as stem cells, cloning or gene therapy. At the Council of Europe’s level, the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, signed in Oviedo in 1997, in Article 18 establishes that it is up to each country to decide whether or not to authorise embryo research with surplus embryos. Each country is only obliged to respect two conditions: ‘to ensure adequate protection of the embryo’, (that is to say to adopt a legislation fixing the conditions and limits of such research); and to prohibit ”the creation of human embryos for research purposes’. The Convention is binding only for the States which have ratified it. In the EU to date nineteen countries have completed the procedure and some are in the process of doing so. The UK has not signed.

However, the EU requires that the Convention is respected, when undertaking research fmanced through European Commission funds. At the same level, the Charter on Fundamental rights of the European Union approved by the European Council in Nice (France) on 14 October, 2000, prohibits different kinds of practices possibly related to embryo re- search, namely ‘eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at the selection of persons’ and ‘the reproductive cloning of human beings’. This Charter will form part of the new European Constitution (art 11-63). However, to date, only three EU member states have ratified the Convention.

GMOs appear to be one area where Directives and Regulations bring about a certain degree on harmony within the EU. Since the de facto moratorium on the commercialisation of GM crops in 1998, the EU has introduced a series of legislative measures which control GMOs from the laboratory to field trials to placing on the market to labelling and traceability. The three main pieces of legislation are: Directive 2001/18, on the deliberate release into the environment of GMOs, Regulation 1830/2003 concerning the traceability and labelling and Regulation 1829/2003 concerning genetically modified food and feed.

This legislation is generally viewed as being extremely comprehensive while others see it as over regulation. Every GMO is reviewed on a case-by-case (and step-by-step) basis. It must pass risk assessments of its impact on human health and the environment, food safety assessments whether for food or feed, labelling based on the origin of the GMO rather than the presence of any GM DNA or protein, traceability right through the food chain – from farm to fork, all aimed at allaying consumer fears and giving the consumer choice.

But why has so much legislation been introduced so quickly? The development of certain areas of modem biotechnology has huge economic implications. This is especially true of agro-biotechnology. The EU accounts for about 15% of the world’s agricultural exports and about 20% of the imports bringing in millions of Euro. It may be argued that much of the legislation has been implemented in response to public concerns over GMOs and their purpose is to insure low risk to human health and the environment. Alternatively, it may be argued that the speed and breadth of the regulations are actually to encourage innovation and economic development. In other words to promote trade. Although each member country retains some responsibility for decisions in relation to GMO products, much of the oversight of the use of living modified organism has now been taken over by the European Food Safety Authority.

In technologies which have less of an obvious impact on trade with or between the EU and the rest of the world, the policy on regulation appears to be one which moves from a harmonised position to taking a pluralist approach. The lack of any EU regional legislation in many areas of modem biotechnology has resulted in very different national legislation within the EU member States. This is particularly evident in the area of therapeutic cloning and stem cell research. In the UK, for example, where stem cell research is both legal and encouraged, there is a good regulatory framework for embryo research governed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act (1991). The HFE Act is administered by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) which has issued licenses for research projects relating to human embryonic stem cells and allow therapeutic cloning to produce embryonic stem cells. In contrast, The Federal Embryo Protection Law (1990), in Germany, prohibits both the procurement of embryonic stem cells from human embryos and the creation of human embryos for research purposes. However, in June 2002 a new law on stem cells allows for the import and use of human embryonic stem cell lines under certain conditions. The German stem cell law evolves from the widely held belief that human life begins at the moment of conception. This taken in conjunction with the recognition of the embryo as having human dignity, a concept enshrined in the German constitution, has resulted in a reasonably conservative approach. So why allow for the import of and research on stem cells under certain conditions? This suggests a conflict between scientific freedom and the legislative prohibition of scientific research. The partial prohibition of stem cell research may be viewed as a way of not violating scientific freedom. Thus allowing for some re- search, but under very limited conditions. Alternatively, it may be that the potential beneficial therapeutic applications that may arise from stem cell research for individuals and society outweigh the strong ethical arguments justifying an outright ban.

Some countries, particularly the USA, frequently take the view that decisions that address concerns associated with the application of biotechnology, must be purely science based – this applies especially to agro-biotechnology. Science must be the base by which regulatory officials can assure and build upon credibility, remain current, and assure a rational basis for decision-making. In this way, science and the legal processes are inextricably linked for regulations that evaluate biological products. However, this approach is severely limited and will not operate successfully in Europe where citizens are much more questioning of new technology.

So what do regulations in biotechnology hope to achieve? The central purpose of regulations should be to ensure safety, limit the risk to human health and the environment and limit potential product risks, while being efficient and encouraging innovation and economic development. In addition, regulations need to reflect societal values which dictate acceptable levels of morals and ethics in which science can operate. Lack of tran- sparency and accountability, which can be facilitated through public engagement, will result in science being wiable to gain the trust of the public. GM crops in Europe being a case in point.

References

1. Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and development (Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992). Annex I: Rio Declaration on Environment and Development; Principle 1.
2. The Royal Society (February 2002) Genetically Modified Plants for Food Use and human health – an update. Policy Document 4/02 ISBN 0 85403 576 1 paragraph 2.

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) are the result of modern food biotechnology, a process of genetic engineering. Since the world is mounted by overpopulation and scarcity, science has provided a solution: agricultural biotechnology. Genetically engineered crops are the future of agriculture. According to the World Health Organization, Genetically Modified (GM) foods are from organisms whose genetic material has been altered in an unnatural way by introducing a gene from a different organism. Seeds that are genetically modified are much more costly than regular seeds. However, since it can enable the producers to use pesticides efficiently, can demand less weeding and can produce higher yields, many farmers opt to use GMO seeds because it saves time and lessens the overall cost (“What are GMOs?” n.d., p. 3).

Currently, GMOs have become a topic of serious debate in Europe and North America. Arguments aside, most people are not even aware that they have been consuming genetically engineered (GE) foods since the mid-1990s and more than 60 percent of processed foods that can be seen in U.S. Supermarket shelves contain ingredients from engineered soybeans, corn or canola (Ackerman, 2019). In the Asian context, a recent study shows that Biotechnology or Biotech crops are the “fastest adopted crop technology in recent history, reflecting farmer satisfaction of their benefits due to bigger income and a promise of more stable food sources’ (Macatangay, 2018). GM crops also extend the opportunity for increasing the food and feed production in an efficient way by generating plants with higher yields and substantial advantages in reasonably short times (Devlin, 2016). In the long run, GM seeds can help farmers to produce more reliable and profitable crops. GMOs are healthier than non-GMO products when it comes to making food last longer, protecting crops from pests, and amplifying its nutrients.

Since GM crops stretch the time food stays edible, it seems that GM plants have become the main ingredient in our hungrier world. There is no faster shortcut for the world to produce plants and animals with a certain advantageous attribute (Diehl, 2018). That’s why genetically modified foods are being offered as a solution into how we may be able to have fresher foods for dinner, because it increases the efficiency of farms in terms of cutting down and/or minimizing the number of fruits and vegetables that get thrown away each year due to overripe and being excessively soft. A recent study by PG Economics, a specialist provider of consultancy services on agriculture and agricultural materials, showed that from 1996 to 2014, the global production of soybeans increased by almost 175 million tons, corn by almost 355 million tons, cotton by 27 million tons and canola by 10 million tons, which all made possible by crop biotechnology (Hall, 2016).

When the first shipments of GM food products arrived from the U.S. to Europe, it was welcomed by powerful protests from environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Farmers, on the other hand, embraced GM food products. The products quickly infiltrated the markets for feed and food (Lucht, 2015). The puree, for example, is a tomato sauce with a thicker consistency. The tomatoes in the puree were made to stay firmer for longer periods of time, leading to less waste in harvesting. Also, the tomatoes held less water. This means that less water was required to grow them, and less energy was used to remove water from them in the process of turning the tomatoes into a puree. And this has made the puree cheaper for the consumer (‘Genetically Modified Foods’ Young People’s Trust for the Environment, n.d.). The US Farmers and Ranchers Alliance (USFRA) conducted a survey about farmers’ perspectives on the use of biotech crops for their annual survey of producer-consumer perceptions. The data that was gathered from nearly 300 United States farmers age 18 and older showed that 92% have been growing GMO crops for 10 years or more. Farmers choose to plant and grow GMO crops because they help promote sustainability (Zaluckyj, 2016). Researchers from the National Institute of Plant-Genome Research in New Delhi discovered that by extinguishing two enzymes that assemble when food gets ripe, mainly A-Man and B-Hex, tomatoes can maintain firmness for over a month, compared to its average life span of 15 days (Chino, 2010).

While biotech supporters often argue that GM crops have been around since at least 1996 and that people have been consuming foods with ingredients that are genetically modified since then, the argument can be misleading. There is no data for the analysis of the long-term safety of GM foods, no independent research, and no post-marketing follow-up analysis (Gertsberg, 2010). Animals that were fed with GM crops showed mixed outcomes. A study published in the ‘International Journal of Biological Sciences’ in December 2009, notes that rats had a decline in liver, kidney, heart, adrenal gland and spleen health and function when they were fed with a GM corn. So far, there has been no research that has been conducted on the health and safety of people who eat GM foods (Kannall, n.d.) While we may be having fresher foods for dinner, how long can that last?

Although we cannot deny the fact that not only can genetically modify crops help farmers in sustainable and efficient agriculture, but it can also help consumers to maximize their consumption without them needing to worry about food for longer periods of time. If the method of extracting the two enzymes from tomatoes can be used in a wider scope like in other fruits and in other kinds of food, the procedure could reduce and perhaps even put an end to food waste, since fewer and fewer food could end up in landfills. Sustainable agriculture is attainable only if everyone has done their part in it including assessing both sides of the coin, because at the end of the day, in the development of the world, we all have a role to play.

In addition to prolonging the period, the food is edible, GMOs also play a role in protecting crops from pests. One of the boons of GMOs is that they reduce the need to spray harmful chemicals to the crops. For example, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a type of bacteria that has played a very standard part in the development of GMOs, making them a pest control that has been valuable for nearly a century (Niederhuber, 2015). GM crops that are pest-resistant have been genetically modified, so they are toxic to certain insects without causing harm to consumers if harvested.

Recently, plant geneticists Zhonglin Mou & Kevin Folta with their team of graduate students from the University of Florida, made use of a technique to test how plant genes might affect the progression in the Woodland Strawberry. Scientists discovered that traditional breeding efforts might produce GM crops that are more resistant to common crop diseases and even pests (English, 2018).

“Pests can really damage a crop. In rare cases, they can even ruin an entire field’s produce by eating the crop or killing the plant itself. To combat this, farmers have used a variety of approaches, including the use of pesticides. Pesticides have some negative consequences. They add chemicals to the field that can kill beneficial organisms, they’re costly to the farmer and they can be dangerous to certain animals as well as the workers who are applying them.” (Krupke, 2016). From an interview at Purdue University with Dr. Christian Krupke, he explained that although pesticides prevent pests from damaging the plants or crops, they have a lot of negative consequences. And these consequences are one of the reasons why scientists turned to genetic modification. This has eliminated the need for pesticide, thus making it easier for the farmers because GM crops that are pest-resistant do not harm them, and they certainly don’t harm the “good” insects like monarch butterflies or honeybees.

However, we also need to look at the issue that genetic migrations are known to occur because GM crops share the field with other plants, even weeds. What happens when the genes from an herbicide-resistant crop get into the weeds it is designed to kill? It could create unforeseen complications to crop growth in the future (Ayres, n.d.) Genetically modified crops are fertilized with chemical fertilizers that can contaminate the environment by traveling through the air. When they go back to the ground, there is a possibility that they can end up in freshwater sources. Weeds and other insects have already begun to develop resistance to some known species of Bt corn. Which means that we cannot be entirely sure that it will be an easier process in the future to get rid of pests and noxious plants (Kannall, n.d.)

Some believe that bioengineered crops will only cause mass destruction to the environment and some don’t. Although it is true that agricultural processes can damage the environment one way or another, GE crops are trying to ease the negative impacts. Farmers can worry less and also spend less time applying insecticides but still be confident in the protection and better quality of the grain (Hellmich, R.L. & Hellmich K.A., 2012). And now that the extensive advantages of GM crops are known, farmers can now plant GM crops not only to maximize resistance from pests but also to maximize the benefits as well. With that being said, this process of chemical engineering should be greatly considered and at the same time critiqued while knowing that we can achieve a better life including the farmers, because biotechnology could also keep the reliance of producers to a minimum on chemical fertilizers while maintaining the benefits of ‘Western’ agriculture high yields with reduced labor inputs (Johnson-Green, 2000). Biotech companies like Monsanto, Aventis, Novartis, etc., believe GMOs that are resistant to insect pests, to molds and dry conditions, could revolutionize agriculture (Pingali & Traxler, 2002).

A lot of farmers think of GM crops as investments because now, genetic modification can amplify the nutrients of the food. It may be the most efficient way of ensuring that the world keeps pace with the growing global population. Last June 2017, the United Nations estimated that our population of 7.6 billion is expected to reach 8.6 billion by the year 2030, 9.8 billion by 2050 and 11.2 billion by 2100. It is affirmative that one of our greatest ongoing development challenges is, and will continue to be, food security (Cornish, 2018). Perhaps, with GM crops, we may be able to provide a solution to global insecurity and perhaps, even address the effects of malnutrition. Food security depends not only on the availability of food but also its nutritional quality (Farre et al., 2011). Nutritionally enhanced crops were made to address improvements in livestock and poultry. Biofortified crops can contain bioactive compounds which can reduce the risk of chronic diseases and have improved health benefits (Hefferon, 2015).

The “designer crops” in Kathleen Hefferon’s review for the International Journal of Molecular Sciences have been tested for their ability to be beneficial to the health of humans. One example is a variety of “designer oilseed” transgenic plants that have been revolutionized to synthesize omega-3 fatty acids that have dietary benefits like improving eye health, brain health, and cardiovascular health. However, since Omega-3 comes from fish oils which can add to the threat on marine life if overfishing comes into view, scientists can stick with other substitutes to source out this nutrient. A more sustainable source to consider is to get it from plants (Hefferon, 2015). Genetically modifying plants is a complementary approach. By increasing the trace element content of traditionally grown crops, the trace element nutrition of the consumers of these crops may be improved (Lönnerdal, 2003). But according to research by Brown University, recent GM foods can pose significant allergy risks to people. It states that genetic modification often mixes proteins that are foreign to the animal or plant. It may cause allergic reactions to the human body, especially if not tested correctly. In some cases, proteins from organisms that one is allergic to can be added to organisms that you were not originally allergic to. It can lead to more limited food choices instead of a wider one. (Ayres, 2018). In the context of human health, the potential risks should be discussed. There should be a very careful safety testing of plants; a long and rigorous process before they are commercially grown and consumed (Schubert, 2008).

Plant biotechnology plays a major role in combating malnutrition. But it also plays a major role in posing a threat in humans who have to sever allergenic reactions to certain proteins. With GMOs, we can nutritionally enhance crops and improve our overall health. But that advantage might come with a cost. Improving the content and bioavailability of essential nutrients has now become attainable due to recent developments in agricultural biotechnology (Hefferon, 2015). And if these genetic modification processes would continue to evolve, it could be aimed at altering the nutritional properties of certain foods that are solely aimed to reduce its allergenic potential. Or hope that they are solely aimed to reduce its allergenic potential. Because if the legalization of GM foods will be met with open arms, then it should have undergone specific experimentations regarding particular allergies. GM crops are investments for the future if it can lead to the safety and stability of our health and wellness. With all of this information, it seems safe enough to declare that GMOs can help feed our starving world that is battling the issues in malnutrition and food insecurity, but only if GMO manufacturers are careful enough.

Most of the research on GM crops suggests their theoretical usefulness, but in order to understand the underlying principles of the use of GMOs, one must be able to look in a holistic perspective.

“Messing with nature is a very bad idea. Intervening in an intelligent, tested and proven way, as we do with vaccines, medicines, controlled burns, creating natural parks, domesticating animals and creating new species of fruits and vegetables, is what is required. Critics of GMO sometimes say we should not ‘play God.’ But it is not the God part of the objection that worries me. We are not close to being smart enough or creative enough or even peaceful enough to engage that role. What we cannot have is ‘playing’ or what you call ‘messing around.’ We need to closely regulate who can use GMO, when, where, why and with what penalties if they cause harms.” (Caplan, 2015).

Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., answered a question for gmoanswers.com (GMO Answers by the Community Manager, 2015). Being at one with nature is a popular opinion. It seems that people cling to the thought that by developing the world through genetically engineering our foods, we are messing with Mother Nature. Like all new technologies, they say, GMOs pose threats and risks. And apparently, the biggest threat caused by GM foods is that they are toxic and can have harmful effects on the human body and to the environment, which is the reason why many environmentalists and cultural groups do not approve of GMOs; they consider it as an “unnatural” way of producing food (Bawa & Anilakumar, 2012). The debate whether the cultivation of GM crops entails a greater risk to the environment than the production of non-GM crops can go on and on and on. Recently, opposition that was led by environmentalist groups insisted that genetically modified crops and foods would damage the environment, claiming GMOs were especially bad for the developing world, destroying “traditional agriculture” (Lynas, 2018). And that’s the major point why food activists and critics disagree. They believe the entire system of modern agriculture needs a makeover because tweaking a gene cannot solve everything (Ostrander, 2014).

While it may be true that GMOs can’t fix every environmental problem, the benefits of GM crops outweigh the health risks. It promotes sustainability, lowers the price of food and increases the safety of farmers by using less pesticide.

“We alter our environment not to destroy it, but to make our lives better in hundreds of ways. Let’s hope we continue to tamper and create a future that’s far more comfortable and kinder than anything nature intended.” (Stossel, 2001).

In David Warm flash’ article for Genetic Literacy Project entitled “Tampering with nature is how humans can avoid extinction”, he makes a point about how we are so dependent on technology and yet so scared of it. Others argue that nature is not negatively being tampered with but being revolutionized. Considering the pro-GMO perspective, they stand with GMOs because they side with science. It’s clear that genetically modifying our foods is the inevitable result of plant breeding and humanity has thrived because of it and will continue to do so. Although GMOs have a lot of disadvantages present, it is a fact that they hold potential to greatly increase the nutritional value of food as well as prolong the edibility of crops, while at the same time reduce the need for harmful pesticides. GM foods are developed because of their advantage over non-GM foods like GM foods having better taste, nutrition, and quality, increased profit for growers and increased food yield to alleviate world hunger (Andrews, n.d.)

At the end of the day, it is our choice if we will consume GM foods or not. But let us not be submissive to the advancement of genetic engineering and take a look at what we can do to improve it instead.

‘Biotechnology is no panacea for world hunger,’ says Channapatna Prakash, a native of India and an agricultural scientist at the Center for Plant Biotechnology Research at Tuskegee University. ‘but it’s a vital tool in a toolbox, one that includes soil and water conservation, pest management, and other methods of sustainable agriculture, as well as new technologies.’ (Ackerman, 2019)

Introduction

First product of biotechnology is cheese because chymosin was added to bitter milk exposed only by exposing milk to microbes. Yeast is another microbe which use manufacture fluently observing in production of bread, vinger, fermentation product.

Firstly in 1946 researcher become aware of that DNA can move across individuals. It is clear that there are many ways for transfer of DNA, found at a large scale. Most important way is antibiotic effect slowdown in disease causing bacteria. In 1983 firstly GM plant introduced by antibiotic-resistance tobacco plant. By introducing virus-resistant tobacco for very first time china commercialize/ introduce transgenic/ GM crop in market, in 1990. Biotechnology product ‘’ flavor saver tomato’’ in 1994 authorized for marketing by food and drug administration. This modification increase shelf-life of tomato.

Food derived from GM crops

Many transgenic crops used as source of food. No transgenic animal selected to use as a source of food transgene salome has FDA approval. Mostly crops which are transgenic sold as product that is further undergo processing to convert into food contents.

Fruits and vegetables

Papaya

conventionally was under the harm of ring spot virus. Now a days 80% Hawaiian papaya is genetically engineered and no conventional way to control this virus. This automatically controlled by GE/ help of biotechnology.

Potato

GM potato was resistant to late blight by addition of two gene blb1 and blb2 resistance gene from Mexican Wild potato solanum bulbo castanum. As in 2005 in Canada and USA Zucchini was grown genetically to resist 3 viruses.

Vegetable oil

Transgenic crops like vegetable oil have very low amount of protein or DNA vegetable oil case for cooking purposes in prepared food. Oil extracted from seed undergo the process of refining and then hydrogenation take place which convert liquid into solid and remove all non-triglycerides component.

Canola oil

This oil is 3rd most using cooking oil in world with genetic modification against herbs killer and for betterment of composition of oil. Oil is also used in cosmetics like lipsticks.

Maize

It is corn which was firstly grown in 1997. 86% of this crop was under biotechnology processes like genetic engineering/ genetic modification in 2010 in UDA. In 2011 about 32% maize was GM/ transgenic. Cotton about 93% is GM.

Sugar

USA imparts 10% sugar from other foreigner and 90% locally in USA sugar extracted from sugarbeet and sugarcane. About 95% of the sugarbeet acres planted grown with genetic modification. The GM sugar beets are same in their composition like non-GM as it contains no DNA, protein and contains only sucrose.

Qualification of GMO in food

Protocol for testing of GM food. Different molecular technique to quantity GMOs like DNA microarrays, qPCR. These based on testing genetic elements like p355, pat.

GM food merits and demerits

Whenever we want to use anything. Any product we at the same time think about its advantages and disadvantages

Benefits

In biotechnology, product we take gene from one specie and insert into DNA of other specie. GM food in some cases alleviating the disorder and in some cases by inserting or replacing the correct gene like GM

• Remains successful in elimination of allergy causing gene from food.
• Genetically engineered food is energy rich containing high minerals, nutrients other benefits as compared to traditions
• Food that can grow in any season while traditional in any season while traditional crops require specific season.
• These have good taste , long shelf life and less danger of spoiling good.

It increase the productivity of food and provides more source of food as compare to traditional. The places where the soil is not competent for production of food can grow GM.

Due to natural occurring capacity of herbicide and insecticide GM crops less costly than traditional crops. So this food is chemical free and environmental friendly.

Demerits

Biggest danger about GM food is that its not beneficial for human body, it can lead toward disease. These foods recently introduce at commercial level so we don’t know more about effect of these on human body.

• Many people do not prefer GM food due to know health effects.
• Many manufacturer of GM food do not label it because they think about loss of business which is ethically wrong.
• Many religious and cultural associations think that GM is unnatural way of producing food. So people remain away from this food.
• Many religious or cultural communities are not in favor of transferring gene of 1 specie into another like animal gene into plant or plant gene into animal.

Consumer attitude towards GM food

Consumer concern with health impacts they want food with less risky health issues. Therefore, manufacturers made policies about guarantee of GM food. Supervised a survey to detect those features which effect the consumer demand towards the GM free food elements. Pre-factures of Drama-Kavala-Xanthi in 2009.

People influenced by factors in GM free products are

• Product which are authorized as GM free
• Desire about the environment friendly & more nutritious value product
• Trade issues
• Cost and quality

Studies of above than 3 month in 2 year duration from 2-5 generations on consequences of diet include GM rice, maize. Many parameters for examining by Biochemical analysis, Histological examination of particular parts, detection of DNA. These overall study reviews gave outcome that there is no significant nutritional or any other parameters difference b/w GM and Non-GM.

Gene transfer studies in human volunteers

January 2009 human feeding study conducted on outcome of GM food. This review study involves volunteers who already had removed their large intestine for same medical issues.GM soy was provided to volunteers to see effect either DNA of GM soy move toward bacteria naturally occurring inside human gut 3 out of 7 volunteers have transgene. They didn’t survive passage across gastrointestinal tract .Alternative study found DNA from M-13 virus, GFP, and even ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase in blood and tissue of ingesting animal. These two studies of possible effect of GM food on animal no significant difference in nutritional value as compare to GM free. No novel DNA or protein identified in animal feeding GM food.

Agriculture biotechnology

It is backbone of Pak-economy major portion of our economy depend upon the agriculture product.it playing supporting role for mankind by providing variety of food with more nutrtious values with genetic modification .some of the agroeconomic strategies involve fertilization of soil,insect,pest resistance qualities due to their genetc modification .its best one example is Green revolution .these genetic modification rise crop productivity and efficiency .several techniques of biotechnology to modify crops

• Marker assisted selection
• Invitro propagation of plant
• Breeding strategies
• Micropropagation

Economic development assesses the influence of pest resisting GM crops including two types of trait i) insect resistance ii) herbicide resistance .it is estimated that output of GM crop is the product of potential output and loss due to damaging effect of pests.yeild impact of genetic changes is higher than alternative steps high pesticide effect than it will be ineffective yield effect its one trait which effect crop

GM has many healthy impacts on our body and beneficial for our environment slow down use of chemicals like herbicide , pesticide slow down the danger of death. Like Golden rice which has more nutritious value containing gene which is converted into Vitamin A. its deficiency lead toward blindness through genetic modification health impact rise. In 2008 & 2012 studies gave outcome there is no negative impact of GM on health GM crop has a lot of effect on biodiversity as example non-target effect of BT decrease diversity of insect. herbicide tolerance slow down the presence of weeds which decrease the food for seed eating birds

GM crops ,vegetables ,fruits have some safety issues .people mostly don’t want to purchase GM label food due to unhealthy impacts. Many people think about GMOs these are genetically modified these changes disturb the natural effects of food .They think people are playing with GOD they are going against the natural activities by inserting new gene artificially.

Contrary to Jeanine, Crake wants to liberate humanity as a whole via his biotechnological inventions. Being frustrated with the entire humanity and its unwillingness to think and act responsibly in using the resources, Crake thinks of the new and ‘improved’ human race. In order to pause the horrible end of the pillaged and polluted world, he structures the Paradice project. Atwood speculates about the possible outcome of interspecies splicing and reveals how the technological hybridity leads towards a posthuman condition. Crake’s pursuit of a delirious dream of creating ‘perfect’ human leads to monstrosity and violence. In the compound culture, Atwood imagines, biotechnological experiments has ushered in greater social injustice and widespread environmental destruction, heralding the bleakest of posthuman futures in which humanity eventually disappears.

Both Tris and Jimmy mourn for the irrevocable loss of human values and their unflagging attempts of upholding those values to restore human essence. Crucially, it is their human perspectives that remains dominant in their exploration of a posthuman world. Repressive state system and unscrupulous corporations successfully produce human-animal and human-machine hybrids because there was no one to monitor the scientific experiments. Biotechnology becomes a force for destruction of entire humanity in Oryx and Crake and a tool to enslave human beings in Divergent. By eroding human values such as morality, love, and empathy, the biotechnological inventions fortify social stratification and fragmentation, totalitarianism, surveillance and enclosure, ecological degradation, mind control and destruction. With their bodily movements precisely programmed by the simulation serum, the Dauntless army is reduced to tech-nobody.

They act as mere puppets in a play written and directed by Jeanine and the serum dictates every movement, thus, works as a bioweapon for the authoritative operation of power. Thoroughly instrumentalized by the authority, the Dauntless members ultimately become powerless and fail to resist the self-destructive plan. Jimmy’s identification of language and art as the antidote to the plague created by Crake ends up in reinscribing the centrality of human agency as well as values such as empathy and religious belief that are associated with human essence. Having created hostile bioforms and experimented with possible cures, the scientists remain carefree as they are protected inside the gated compounds. Their conscience is clear, as seen in Jimmy’s father (yours in guilty – not mine), because they treat it as ‘business,’ therefore, consider it right. Conclusion: The thesis shows how these two novels differ – both ideologically and aesthetically – in their treatment of biotechnology. It is the hubris, the overweening belief in the power of biotechnology to dominate the world and in the possibility of creating the ‘perfect’ human, that Atwood and Roth highlight in their novels. Roth exemplifies the critique of using biotechnology in forms of biopolitical control and intends to elevate what is essentially human in a posthuman world. The Dauntless members are manipulated by Jeanine’s close control of their deepest fears. She aims to distort everything quintessential human – freedom, ethics, morality, love, empathy, and the like – through the precision of a serum-driven life. The protagonists remain physically and ideologically separate from the sub/non-human creatures that surround them.

Atwood rejects a future in which humans will become ever more distinct from other living beings, instead she insists that there might be a possibility of having a world where all animals, human or not, would live in harmony, protecting and supporting each other – free from bad faith and without the aim of destroying ecological balance. In contrast, Roth neither prefers a technologically mediated form of existence nor exposes an optimistic view of distributing agency that would dissolve the boundary between human and sub/non-human. The interlacing between biotechnology and authoritative power establishes the bleakest of posthuman future where the definition of human is at stake. Roth reasserts that human values such as freewill and ethics should not be subject to biopower and biopolitics. Dependent upon and entwined inextricably with Bioethics Bioethics is commonly understood as the study of ethical issues concerning life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, law, and philosophy. Van Rensselater Potter, who coined the term, stressed that: “A science of survival must be more than a science alone, and I therefore propose the term Bioethics in order to emphasize the two most important ingredients in achieving the new wisdom that is so desperately needed: biological knowledge and human values.” (Bioethics: Bridge to the Future 2) According to Encyclopedia of Bioethics, bioethics is “the systematic study of human conduct in the area of the life sciences and health care, insofar as this conduct is examined in the light of moral values and principles” (xix).

As Adami points out, the “relevance of literature for bioethical reflection is also related to the fact that both literature and bioethics are interested in the future of humanity and call attention to the dangers of uncontrolled scientific progress” (40). Apart from speculating about issues open to debate, such as the dire consequences of scientific progress or the apparent (im)possibility of posthuman future, this paper offers a feasible insight into the negotiation of bioethics and post-identities in the near future portrayed in Divergent and Oryx and Crake. In the light of Foucault’s theories on discipline and surveillance, this paper undertakes an analysis of bioethics which comprises fields of consumerist interest, manipulative devices, and scientific motivations. Many aspects of these novels can be interpreted in light of the theories by Michel Foucault. I will focus on Discipline and Punish and History of Sexuality as these texts provide valuable commentary to decode the complicated power relationships evident in both Divergent and Oryx and Crake. However, it must be clarified that this thesis strictly limits itself within the discussion of bioethics, therefore, the allusion to Foucault will be restricted to only the chapters which are helpful to understand the negotiation between power and ethics. Thinking Post-identity I propose that the “post-” implies a departure from conventional ideas about identity and opens up new possibilities by questioning old formations. In the age of biotechnology, post-identity can provide fresh insights by overturning traditional assumptions (1).

Introduction

Biotechnology involves the use of living organisms. It is mainly used in agriculture, food science, and medicine. It is used all around the world, but mainly by the rich countries, like the United States, Spain, France and more. In medicine, biotechnology has many functions. From DNA sequencing, to healthcare biotechnology, to cell replacements. The main focus of this report is cloning. Cloning is the act of duplicating an organism through the use of biotechnology. Cloned subjects are known as clones. A clone is an organism that is an exact genetic copy. Every piece of their DNA is a copy of another organism. The first successful known case of cloning is Dolly The Sheep in 1997. Dolly was the first mammal to be cloned from an adult somatic cell however, she died in 2003 because she had a progressive lung disease. Because of this, the clone also turned out to have this progressive lung disease and quickly died a few days later. See appendix 1 for more information about the life of Dolly The Sheep.

There are three main types of cloning, gene cloning, reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. Gene cloning involves process in which a gene is chosen and duplicated out of the DNA that is removed from an individual. Reproductive cloning involves the creation of an animal that is genetically identical to a donor animal through the use of SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer). Therapeutic cloning is the production of stem cells with the same genetic composition as the patient. The type of cloning focused on for this report is reproductive cloning.

Reproductive cloning uses a method known as somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) in order to clone an animal. In somatic cell nuclear transfer, the nucleus, which contains the organism’s DNA, is removed using a glass needle under a microscope and the rest of the cell is discarded. At the same time, the nucleus of an egg is removed using a suction pipette to keep the egg still and a glass needle to extract the nucleus out. The nucleus of the somatic cell is then inserted into the enucleated cell using a smaller needle. After being inserted into the egg, the somatic cell nucleus is adjusted by the host cell. The egg, which now contains the nucleus of a somatic cell, is stimulated with shock and at the same time, will begin to divide. After many mitotic divisions, this single cell forms a blastocyst, which is an early stage embryo with about 100 cells, with almost identical DNA to the original organism. (James, 2014). See appendix 2 for a detailed picture outlining how somatic cell nuclear transfer works.

The purpose of this report is to investigate all the advantages and the disadvantages of cloning so that at the end, a justified decision is made on whether cloning should be or should not be allowed in the near future.

Past, Present and Future changes

Past

In the past, the main method that scientists used to clone was IVF (In Vitro Fertilisation). It starts by taking the proper medication in order to allow the eggs to mature and be ready for fertilisation. The doctor then takes the egg out of the body and mixes it with sperm cells in a lab. This is to help the sperm to fertilise the egg. After, they put one or more of the fertilised eggs directly into the uterus. Pregnancy will occur when any of the fertilised eggs implant in the lining of the uterus. (Paransingh, 2015). View appendix 3 for more detailed information about how IVF works. This method however began to decrease in usage rate over the years after the SCNT method has been discovered.

Present

The current preferred method of cloning that scientists use is SCNT (Somatic cell nuclear transfer). It is a strategy for making a usable embryo from body and egg cells. It involves taking an egg cell and implanting a body cell’s nucleus inside. Currently, this technique is used in most countries that look into cloning and how it can change the way we live. It has only been successfully conducted in one experiment involving the well-known sheep, Dolly. Almost all other experiments involving cloning have been regarded as failures as the clones either do not function properly, or die from organ failures. Not a lot of people, including scientists, agree with cloning. Dr. Wilmut, who is a famous embryologist opposed the idea of cloning and specifically said: “what are we doing? Playing God? It’s not up to us to create human beings in mechanical or scientific ways” (Rogers, 2015). However, many people do believe that given time, we will be able to master it and clone human beings.

Future

A handful of strategies are available in order to improve cloning in the near future. The main strategy that could be used to improve cloning in the future is the use of unsilenced genes. Gene silencing is the regulation of gene expression in a cell to prevent the expression of a certain gene. Scientists in Harvard Medical School found that the inactive genes in the SCNT-generated embryos were held by a silencing mark in the form of a methylation tag on histone H3, which is a protein that packages the DNA found inside the cell. When the scientists removed those tags, they were able to increase the SCNT efficiency from 1%-2% to 8%-9%. (Ulrich, 2014) Therefore, in the future, it is recommended that scientists remove the methylation tags before undergoing SCNT to get maximum efficiency.

Advantages of Reproductive Cloning

Reproductive cloning can have a positive impact on humanity as a whole. Many people believe that reproductive cloning is the beginning of a new era where many possibilities of improvement for the human race are introduced through cloning.

The first and most obvious benefit is that reproductive cloning can provide genetically related children for people who cannot be helped by other fertility treatments (i.e. who have difficulty producing egg cells or sperm cells). (Tenzin, 2006). This is the argument that most people use when arguing FOR cloning to be legalised because it allows people who cannot have children to finally be able to raise their own genetically related children. Although the population of people that have difficulty producing sperm/egg cells is very small, if cloning could be perfected and used for this small group, it only opens the door for more improvements in the future.

The second advantage that reproductive cloning has is that it could help cure life threatening diseases. If a child is cloned to produce matching tissues that can be used to treat particular health condition, it means that people around the world will never have to worry about being diagnosed with diseases that could lead to their death. Cancer for example, if reproductive cloning can indeed cure it, then it would be the next best thing to the discovery of technologies that has forever changed human life. (Regoli, 2015)

Another advantage that reproductive cloning has is that it allows for organ replacement. If a person is cloned but suffers from kidney failure after for example, then they can bring the clone and take its kidney instead of taking a non-cloned person’s kidney. Another advantage of this is that the people suffering from organ failures will not have to worry about rejection because the organ will be the exact same as the healthy one. Therefore, the people do not have to worry about antirejection medication Because of this, some doctors believe that cloning should be legalised as soon as possible in order to satisfy the needs of the people that are waiting for an organ replacement.

Disadvantages of Reproductive Cloning

Like everything in biotechnology, reproductive cloning has many disadvantages that could have a negative impact on the human race. People are very hesitant when thinking about legalising reproductive cloning because just as it has many advantages that could enhance the medical world, it also has many disadvantages that could result in the diminishment of the medical world.

The first disadvantage that reproductive cloning has is that it is inherently unsafe. At least 95% of mammalian cloning experiments have resulted in failures in the form of miscarriages, stillbirths, and life-threatening anomalies; (Robinson, 2017). Experts have found that none of the animals cloned so far are fully healthy and that the technique cannot be developed in human beings without ensuring the safety of the clones and the women who take care of them. This argument is used by most people when arguing AGAINST cloning because it is uncertain what could happen if a cloned human being has health problems, and how that could affect the original person. (Strams, 2002)

The second disadvantage of reproductive cloning is that reproductive cloning could create a division among people. If cloning becomes legalised and many people are indeed cloned in the future, they may not be viewed as humans by other people, and mainly viewed as “just clones”. This in turn, could create division and unrest among people. Many also fear that this could only result in further problems among the population. (Diep, 2013)

The third disadvantage that reproductive cloning has is that it can simply be abused. Many people fear that the cloning technology could be abused by people with sick or selfish interests. (e.g. money or fame purposes). Others might use it for criminal or unlawful purposes. Many other people are also afraid that if cloning becomes common around the world, then many people would get cloned unwillingly by unethical individuals. (Strong, 2005)

Another disadvantage that reproductive cloning has, is that it would foster an understanding of children, and people in general, as objects that can be designed and manufactured to possess specific characteristics. (Editor In Chief , 2018). This means that clones can be whatever we want them to be (e.g. sex slaves, working slaves, etc…). This in turn would give the understanding that clones are simply objects or our own amusement. This could result in people fighting to get their hands on a clone to be able to enjoy the ‘benefits’ that they bring. This is a dangerous thought and thus the idea of cloning humans should be carefully reconsidered.

Conclusion

Therefore, after carefully considering all the advantages and the disadvantages of reproductive cloning, it has been decided that cloning SHOULD NOT be allowed until it has been proven via multiple tests and examinations that it guarantees the safety of the clones and the women who would bear them. It is also advised that the opinions of all the major countries of the world have been taken into account when making a decision about cloning and whether it should be legalised. Until then however, it should not be legalised.

Biotechnology is defined as using living organisms or their elements to create useful products for human benefits or to solve a problem. Historical examples of biotechnology are: fermentation, selective breeding, and the use of antibiotics. Modern examples of biotechnology consist of: Recombinant DNA technology and the Human Genome Project. There are about seven different applications involving biotechnology, but the one that interest me the most is Agricultural Biotechnology. Agricultural Biotechnology involves: transgenic crops, DNA tracking of seeds, and transgenic animals. It just seems to amaze me with the things that are involved in it as well as what it can do!

However, Agricultural Biotechnology is a collection of scientific skills used to enhance plants, animals, and microorganisms. It is said to be a safe and valuable biotechnology application that contributes to both the environmental and economic sustainability. In today’s world, farmers choose agricultural biotech crops for many reasons. They expand yield and decreases production cost. Saturated fat and increased isoflavone content are also traits that are beneficial to agricultural biotechnology. Crops in this application have been reviewed constantly and declared as safe by expert panels of the world.

An article that caught my attention about agricultural biotechnology is titled, “Low-production of Proinsulin in Tobacco and Lettuce Chloroplasts for injectable or oral delivery of function insulin and C-peptide” done by researchers, Diane Boynan and Henry Daniell. The research objective of this article was to find something for patients with type 1 diabetes which included, delivery of insulin via injection or pump since it was so exceedingly invasive and costly. Therefore, they tried crops to see if they’ll reduce the price and ease oral delivery through the production of chloroplast to obtain proinsulin. Tobacco and lettuce were transformed with the cholera toxin B subunit blended with human proinsulin (A, B, C peptides) consisting of three cleavage sites.

Moreover, methodology was used all throughout this agricultural biotechnology article with results to go along with them also. It’s a method used to describe actions that need to be taken to analyze a research problem and the application of particular methods or strategies used to recognize a problem. Coomassie staining and immunoblotting were used to decide whether the transgenic plants were expressing CTB-PFx3. Transplastomic and mature old leaves were ground to a power in liquid nitrogen while protein was removed with the inclusion of 300-500 uL. Transgenic lettuce plants were prepared in the same way as tobacco and varying dilutions of the samples were loaded onto a 12% SDS-PAGE gel for spot densitometric examination of protein concentration. Stability was explored due to the high levels of expression noticed in old leaves, and senescent dried lettuce leaves. Another methodology used in this article was, solubilization and furin cleavage of proinsulin. It was practicable to separate the protein as insertion bodies and transform into a soluble form to arrange the CTB-PFx3 for purification and cleavage assays. Solubilized and dialysed plant withdraws holding CTB-PFx3 were moved over a Ni-NTA column to facilitation purification. Fractions were removed in this methodology and ran on an SDS-PAGE gel and contemplated by Coomassie staining. In functional evaluation of cleavable proinsulin, CTB-PFx3 produced purified insulin that was injected into female C57BL/6 mice along with PBS as a negative control.

Insulin injections comes with many disadvantages as well. Some of them are: pain, itching, allergy, and lipodystrophy found at the injection site. The substitution approaches to insulin delivery helps diabetic populations meet their needs, medically. Some of the things took to solve these different types of problems are: buccal spray insulin, inhalable insulin, oral anti-diabetic drugs, and oral delivery of insulin. Inhalable insulin was approved by the FDA but it was removed from the shelf out of stores because of the low amount of sales and also the different side affects which can have something to do with lung functioning as well.

Overall, treatments that are available for type 1 diabetes are very painful and expensive. The current accesible insulin does not contain the C-peptide. CTB-proinsulin have been expressed throughout this article with three furin cleavage sites in both tobacco and lettuce chloroplast. It’s function was to produce insulin that may be processed in most cells found in the body. This will decrease the cost of production, as well as facilitate the possibility of delivering the C-peptide, which should be able to aid in the treatment of diabetic complications.

Introduction

Biotechnology plays a key role in diagnosing infection, preventing infection and treating infected patients.

Electron microscopy was used to reveal the morphology of the coronavirus. Samples from infected patients where inoculated onto Vero cells. RNA was extracted from the virus replication cell culture medium, RNA amplified with primer for full–length gene analysis. Phylogenetic tree analysis reveals that SARS-COV2 is related to SAR-COV (2003) and bats coronavirus. Bioinformatics tool has played a vital role in the data publication online in short space of time to enable scientists to access around the world, mutation of the virus as its spread as well analysis of protein structure and function. Diagnostic tests used to diagnose COVID-19 are RT-PCR based on detecting the genetic material of the pathogen and antibody (serology) test is use to determine COVID-19 immunity. Existing antiviral drugs are being repurposed for covid-19 with biotechnology permits efficient computational modeling to determine which existing small molecular drugs could block SARS-COV2. New vaccine developments employ biotechnology innovation such as the development of mRNA and DNA vaccine. Biotechnology is accelerating the potential vaccine using strains of coronavirus DNA to express proteins to generate vaccine. DNA and RNA vaccine are scalable and cheap to mass produce.

Conclusion

Biotechnology has made it possible for quicker respond to the pandemic. Scientist around the world are working and sharing data to find solution with the application of bioinformatics tool. Diagnostic test are powerful tools to containment COVID-19. Drug development is a complex process and its outcome is uncertain, it takes long to produce vaccine. Therefore the approach of using existing drugs can yield results faster with the application of advancement in biotechnology.

Rationale

It has been claimed that “future medicine will only be based on synthetic DNA (XNA) technology”. Synthetic DNA are proteins that can duplicate synthetic genetic material. It could lead doctors to begin treating diseases by allowing the synthetic genetic material to interfere and prevent vital processes in the course of the disease. In theory, this method could function on all diseases (Sjorgen, 2012).

As a result of initial research, a broad research question “Can synthetic DNA treat diabetes?” was developed under the initial claim. The question was further improved to incorporate the specific treatment and the experimental models to treat diabetes.

Synthetic DNA comes under the broader aspect of synthetic biology. Synthetic biology refers to the construction and design of new standardised biological devices and parts which allows them to perform beneficial functions. Parts are encoded with the assistance of DNA and combined either in living cells or in a test tube. Synthetic DNA is then employed to provide a variety of unique outcomes. Synthetic biology allowed significant medical breakthroughs. For example, in 2017, an advanced immune cell engineering treatment resulted in complete remission rate of 50% in terminally ill blood cancer patients. Also, in 2016, a remission rate of 26% was achieved more. The same technique used for blood cancer patients was recently applied to cure complex breast cancer results (Vickers, 2018). Synthetic DNA chemistry is no longer an obscure discipline without clear practical applications.

On the contrary, synthetic DNA chemistry and its combination with recombinant DNA techniques and molecular cloning have already resulted in valuable products such as somatostatin and insulin (Riggs, 1979). Various studies have used rodents with humanised livers to see if gene therapy decreases blood glucose levels. Gene therapy refers to therapeutic genetic material being transferred to target cells to cure or prevent a certain disease. Thus, the following research question was proposed:

“Can gene therapy treat type 1 diabetes using humanised rodent models to reduce blood glucose levels?”

Background Information

Synthetic DNA can be used to create synthetic insulin, which can assist to better control blood glucose levels in diabetic patients. Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is an autoimmune illness whereby the cells in the pancreas are destroyed, which causes an increase in blood sugar in the body. cells are responsible for the production, storage and the release of insulin (Diabetes.co.uk, n.d). cells under physiological conditions synthesise and secrete insulin as a reply to fluctuations in blood glucose levels to achieve homeostasis. Insulin is a requirement for the body as without adequate numbers of working cells, the production of insulin becomes unsatisfactory, and it will be unable to re-establish normal blood glucose levels. As time passes, chronically high blood glucose levels known as hyperglycaemia will have numerous secondary complications. For example, hyperglycaemia would eventually lead to widespread organ and tissue damage as well as an increased chance of death (Handorf, 2016).

For our society, diabetes causes a significant financial burden as the full economic cost of diabetes is approximately $245 billion per year. For T1DM specifically, the expenses are estimated to be $8-14 billion per year, and there is currently no cure available. However, there are several therapies that exist to control blood glucose levels better. For example, synthetic insulin is the most common therapy which typically requires numerous injections per day (Handorf, 2016). Synthetic insulin is the direct result of recombinant DNA technology and was the first golden molecule of the biotechnology industry. It is referred to as a golden molecule as synthetic DNA was created under the golden age of biotechnology. However, synthetic insulin requires multiple administrations and monitoring per day. Millions of diabetics currently around the world use synthetic insulin to control their blood sugar levels. Synthetic insulin is made from both bacteria and yeast. Synthetic insulin is made from bacteria by inserting a -galactosidase on a plasmid. Plasmids are circular, small pieces of DNA that can replicate independently, and it allows investigators to obtain numerous copies of human-made DNA molecules (Gelprin, 2005). The plasmids used also have the tetracycline resistance gene whereby, the plasmids are transformed into bacteria and tetracycline used to kill off any untransformed bacteria. Once the transformed bacteria are grown, the -galactosidase and insulin fusion protein is purified and harvested. Finally, the protein chains are bonded together, and under the correct circumstances, the disulphide bonds form and usable human insulin have been made from bacteria.It was in the mid-1950s when scientists decided to utilise the human insulin gene and create insulin from yeast. Once the proinsulin gene is inserted into a plasmid, the recombinant plasmid is transformed into yeast, and the yeast can now create insulin (DNA Learning Center, n.d.) However, this method is tedious, and it is unable to restore normal glucose control. The current method for treating diabetes is by using gene therapy, which is a promising alternative using synthetic DNA to induce insulin production. As diabetes is caused by insulin deficiency, gene therapy is a viable method to correct insulin deficiency. Efficient gene therapy should have an effective gene transfer system, a supervisory system that is responsible for the expression and release of insulin as a reply to glucose (Yoon, 2002)

Evaluation

There were various limitations with the evidence that conducted gene therapy experiments. For instance, both Tronko et al. and Hashimoto et al. used either mice and rats to conduct their testings meaning that actual human testings have not occurred, thus, suggesting that this method needs to be refined for it to be received by humans. Moreover, both methods use injections meaning that the gene therapy needs to be inserted continually, which will be tedious. In addition, in Table 1, data is not given for every day, and blood glucose levels were only recorded before and after the experiments. As a result, the data is hindered as it is unknown when the gene therapy activated the insulin in the mice.

Even though there were limitations to the conducted experiments, the data and information presented were credible. Table 1 was from a medical journal called the Diabetologia and is credible source as it is a peer-reviewed journal which focuses on the study of biology. The source was written by M. D. Tronko, who is a professor and is an expert in gene regulation, insulin resistance and diabetes drug development. Figure 1 was from Elsevier, which is a famous publishing company that is a major world provider of technical, medical and scientific information. The lead author was Haruo Hashimoto, who is a credible author as he specialises in genetics and biotechnology. Even though human testing has not been conducted, Hashimoto et al. used humanised liver mice to replicate a liver in a human.

Possible extensions for synthetic DNA could be used to treat and cure the Zika virus. Various studies have researched a potential vaccine from synthetic DNA, which was tested in non-primates and mice. Moreover, synthetic DNA can be used to treat HIV by creating an anti-HIV drug.

Conclusion

It can be deduced that diabetes treatment could be based on only synthetic DNA (gene therapy) in future medicine. However, more research and experiments are required to justify this statement as only mice, and rat testing has proved that gene therapy works. Even if diabetes could be treated using synthetic DNA (gene therapy), this does not prove that all future medicine will only be based on synthetic DNA. Not all diseases are associated with DNA, and there are more reliable and cheaper methods of treating these diseases, unlike synthetic DNA treatment.

List of references

1. Biotechnolgy Innovation Organisation n.d., ‘Synthetic Biology Explained’, Biotechnolgy Innovation Organisation, viewed 1 August 2019, .
2. Diabetes.co.uk n.d., ‘Beta Cells – What They Do, Role in Insulin’, Diabetes.co.uk, United Kingdom, viewed 5 August 2019, .
3. Gelperin, DM, White, MA & Wilkinson, ML 2005, Biochemical and genetic analysis of the, Capricorn Publishing, n.p., pp. 94-100, viewed 4 August 2019, .
4. Handorf, A & Sollinger, H 2016, ‘Insulin Gene Therapy for Type 1 Diabetes’, IntechOpen, viewed 1 August 2019, .
5. Hashimoto, H 2016, ‘Study on AAV-mediated gene therapy for diabetes in humanized liver mouse to predict efficacy in humans’, ELSEVIER, viewed 5 August 2019, .
6. ‘How insulin is made using bacteria’ n.d., DNA Learning Center, viewed 1 August 2019, .
7. ‘How is insulin used made using yeast’ n.d., DNA Learning Center, viewed 1 August 2019, .
8. Riggs, A & Itakura, K 1979, ‘Synthetic DNA and Medicine’, viewed 1 August 2019, .
9. Tronko, M 2012, ‘Experimental gene therapy of type 1 diabetes mellitus: dose-dependent’, Diabetologia,
10. Vickers, C & Small, I 2018, ‘The synthetic biology revolution is now – here’s what that means’, COSMOS, viewed 1 August 2019, .
11. Yoon, J 2002, ‘Trends in Molecular Medicine’, ScienceDirect, vol. 8, viewed 6 August 2019, .

Virus-induced-gene-silencing is an approach of reverse genetics that has been successfully used for to study gene fucntion. It is employed at postranscriptional level by taking advantage of plant defence mechanism against parasite infection. Usually, after viral infection, plants produce double stranded RNA (dsRNA) to degrade RNA viruses. By simulating this approach, in VIGS , genes underlying pathogeneic effects on host plant in viral genome are removed. A sequence of the target gene is inserted into a VIGS vector such as Tobacco rattle virus, and delivered to the host plants thorugh Agrobacterium tumefaciens. After delivery of the recombinant viral genome into plant cells, the insert amplify and generate double stranded RNA (dsRNA). A Dicer like protein cleave the dsRNA into small interefrring RNA (siRNA) of about 21-24 nulceotides. The siRNA form a complex with RNA interfering silencing complex (RISC), which target homologues RNA for degradation(Lu, Peart, Malcuit, & Baulcombe, 2003; Ramegowda, Mysore, Senthil-kumar, & Willmann, 2014; Physiol, Bekele, Tesfaye, & Fikre, 2019)

Silencing of Phytoene desaturase (PDS) gene in Nicotiana benthamiana using Tobacco rattle virus (TRV) VIGS vector, and Agrobacterium tumefacien, stain GV2260. The main steps are involved in VIGS are agrobacterium preparation, infiltration, VIGS phenotyping, and silenced gene expression (Padmanabhan & Dinesh-kumar, 2009)

• a) Innocualtion of Agrobacterium tumefaciens GV2260 with TRV1 and TRV2, allow the grothe of the culture overnnight.
• b) Cells collection by centrifugation at approximtively 3000 rpm.

Incubation of the culture at rom temperature for an average of 4 hours

Make a mixture of Agrobacterium containing TRV1 and TRV2 at 1:1 ratio

Innoculation of plants leaves using either Syringe, Spray or Vacuum infiltration approach.

• c) Allow plant growth at 25C
• d) VIGS Phenotyping 9 days after infiltration
• e) Transcritpome profiling of the silenced genes using nother blot or qPCR

The VIGS is a powerfull method that have been employed to investigate genes funcctions. Genes involve in biotic related-stresses have been studied in many hosts plants. The Phytoene desaturase (PDS) gene in Nicotiana benthamiana was the first to be silenced using Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV). Later, meristem gene was silenced in N. benthamiana using tomato golden mosaic DNA virus (TGMV)-VIGS vector.The function of wheat starch regulator 1 (TARSR1) was characterized through VIGS-derived Barley Stripe mosaic virus (BSMV) vector. It was observed that down-regulation of infection of wheat with BSMV-VIGS led to down regulation of TARSR1. Similarly, genes in ripped tomato and strawberry after detachment from the parental plant were silenced using VIGS techniques. Through Pepper huastero yellow vein virus (PHYVV), Comt, pAmt, and kas genes have been silenced. These three genes are involved in biosynthesis of capsaicinoids, repsobsible for pugent taste in pepper fruit (Physiol, Bekele, Tesfaye, & Fikre, 2019)

Furthermore, VIGS have also been used to study genes involved in abiotic stress-related response in plant. The tobacco rattle virus (TRV) was used to silence lea4 gene, which code for embryogenesis protein (LEA), yeidling to tomato susceptibility to drought. Likewise, enhancmenet of drought tolerance in wheat was observed when Era1 and Sal1 are down regulated due to silencing of genes thanks to BSMV-VIGS. It was shown that the down regulation of Era1 and Sal1 genes led to the decrease of ABA sensitivity.

Besides using VIGS to investigate biotic and drought stresses in plant, this technique was also employed in investigating salt stress. The function of SIGRX1 gene in enhancing salt tolerance in tomato was found after this gene was silenced using satellite DNA mβ-VIGS vector. This resulted in yellowing of tomato leaves compared to control treatments.

VIGS has been globally used for charactwriyation of genee function in a wide range of plants. Howver, it has been reported that the introduction of virus vector in host plants interfere with host metabolism, thus affecting plant-microbe aossociation. Moreover, irus multiplication can be hindered by cloning of genes into VIGS, leading many viruses to delete the cloned genes during amplification and spread in host plants. Besides problems related to plant metabolism and gene delivery, off target silencing is another major concern about VIGS. In off target silencing, the similarity between the dsRNA and some host mRNA sequences may result in the degradation of these mRNA, this can affect host gene expression patern.

References

1. Lu, R., Peart, J. R., Malcuit, I., & Baulcombe, D. C. (2003). Virus-induced gene silencing in plants, 30, 296–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1046-2023(03)00037-9
2. Padmanabhan, M., & Dinesh-kumar, S. P. (2009). Virus-Induced Gene Silencing as a Tool for Delivery of dsRNA into Plants, 4(2), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1101/pdb.prot5139
3. Physiol, J. P. B., Bekele, D., Tesfaye, K., & Fikre, A. (2019). Journal of Plant Biochemistry & Applications of Virus Induced Gene Silencing ( VIGS ) in Plant Functional Genomics Studies, 7(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-9029.1000229
4. Ramegowda, V., Mysore, K. S., Senthil-kumar, M., & Willmann, M. R. (2014). Virus-induced gene silencing is a versatile tool for unraveling the functional relevance of multiple abiotic-stress-responsive genes in crop plants, 5(July), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00323