Category: Genetics

Whether food made from genetically modified organisms should be labeled or not has been a debate for a long time now. The food industry has divided over the identifying and labeling issue. The food industry that produces natural products feels like the industry using GMO should strictly label their food for the consumers to be aware of what they are buying. On the other hand, the targeted industry presumes that this will lead to stigmatization, hence fewer customers. Regardless of the reasoning behind the labeling issue, it is ethical and good to label the food as obtained from genetically modified ingredients for the sake of the consumers.

The labeling proves too hard because most people do not understand the science behind GMOs. Therefore, all companies that use this type of ingredients should educate their consumers since it leads to confusion and distrust (Lamb, 2020). Consumers of these products always feel misled, and the scientists behind GMO engineering feel misunderstood most of the time. Some companies take advantage of the situation by playing two sides without consumers knowledge. The companies mix the GMO ingredients and nongenetically modified ingredients to escape the need for labeling (Lamb, 2020). Educating the consumers will be the only option to move past the limited condition companies find themselves in.

Genetically modified ingredients are everywhere, and they are being used daily to produce certain foods. Most of the foods made using GMO plants or livestock do not bear labels, and people unconsciously eat these foods. Labeling the food might be challenging since the companies will have to explain the science behind the production. Although this does not have to be the reason for not doing it; on the contrary, food producers should offer education to consumers explaining the science behind GMO, hence transparency, which will ensure that people consume the foods knowingly.

Reference

Lamb, S. (2020). Why we need mandatory labeling of GMO products. STAT. Web.

Introduction

Genetically modified (GM) crops are increasingly shaping the agricultural sector. However, in the past few years, much attention has been on understanding the importance and the side effects of GM crops. In fact, majority of the consumers, are worried about the long-term effects of consuming foods such as GM soybeans. In essence, this paper holds that although GM has led to the introduction of new products in the market, these crops should be tested thoroughly to ensure it is safe for human consumptions. Therefore, the aim of this discussion is to provide some background information about GM crops as well as highlight the negative impacts of genetically modified soybeans on human health.

Background

Genetic modification can simply be described as a type of genetic technology used exclusively to alter or transform the genetic makeup of living things. According to Eckerstorfer et al. (2019), the process of GM entails the integration of genes obtained from plants or organisms. For example, a DNA can be placed within the cells of a plant in order to produce new plant with enhanced or desired traits. Initial GM trials followed the two processes of artificial selection and selective breeding (SB). Different crops such as apples, broccoli and corns have been modified using SB for human consumption. However, today, researchers use more advanced technologies in order to produce high quality products.

The GM process starts with DNA being transferred into the plant cell. There are several methods that are often utilized in the transfer process. One such method, according to Deckers et al. (2020, p. 330) involves coating the surface of small metal particles with the relevant DNA fragment Another method that is also used is a bacterium or virus with Agrobacterium tumefaciens being cited as a major example of bacterium used in plants. The process here is two-fold: the gene gets attached to the bacterium which in turn transfers it to new DNA of the targeted plant. (Dalla Costa et al., 2020). Once the DNA attaches itself to the plant cell, the crop is left to grow and develop into a desired plant. This happens because the plant cells have the ability to grow and generate other plants. In rare instances, DNA transfer process can occur without human intervention. An example here is the Agrobacterium bacteria which was used to generating the sweet potatoes that are still consumed up today.

Overall, GM soybeans remain to be one of the most modified crops that are commercially available in the United States. The country produces approximately 35 percent of the worlds total soybeans (Turnbull et al., 2021). The crop contains high protein levels and isoflavones which comes with significant health benefits such as protection against age-related diseases. As explicated in Turnbull et al.s (2021) study, genetically modified soybean is present in over 70 percent of all food products sold in supermarkets. This is a clear indication that majority of American citizens consume a lot of GM soybeans on a daily basis. With that said, the process modifying soybeans is similar to the one described above. It is modified through transgenics: the process of transferring genes from one plant or organism to another. This process, according to Turnbull et al. (2021), has been found to produce plants with high yields and desirable traits. In other words, transgenics provides a way of increasing beneficial traits.

Health Impacts of GM Crops

Health impacts of GMO crops revolve around toxins, allergens or genetic hazards. According to Daubenmire (2019), there are three main categories used to determine the mechanisms of food hazards. They include inserted genes and their expression products, secondary and pleiotropic effects of gene expression and the insertional mutagenesis resulting from gene integration (Daubenmire, 2019, p. 203). Regarding the first category, the expression of the gene is considered as the ultimate cause of any health hazards. This is the case because there is a possibility of new proteins getting synthesized and, in the process, causing undetermined allergic effects. For instance, some genetically modified crops have been found to contain cysteine and methionine contents which are believed to be highly allergenic. Badgley et al. (2020) explicated the need to pay close attention to foods such as milk, eggs, nuts, and wheat before they are genetically engineered. The authors further noted that since the products used in genetic modification are already known, the main focus should be to assess the amount and effects of the new products.

A large percentage of consumers argue that most GM foods contain harmful side effects. Majority of them maintain that the consumptions of these types of food can spur the development of diseases which are resistant to antibiotics. Others maintain that since these foods are results of scientific inventions, little is known about their long-term impacts on the human body. This explains why most of them prefer to stay away from them because the specific health effects are unknown. In a study by Badgley et al. (2020), the authors observed that manufacturers rarely indicate on the label that the foods are developed genetically because they believe that doing so will affect their business. The same extents to religious and cultural groups who find GM unnatural process of producing food. Overall, majority of the people do not support the idea inserting animal genes into the plant cells.

Several studies have been carried out by different scholars to determine the health impacts of GM crops, specifically soybeans. In the study by Bøhn and Millstone (2019), the authors focused on the elements used in making soybeans herbicide resistant. These elements, obtained from Agrobacterium, are the gene of 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (Bøhn and Millstone, 2019). After conducting several safety tests, the Bøhn and Millstone concluded that GM variety was substantially equivalent to the traditional soybeans (p. 88). The same findings were made with GTS, glyphosate-resistant soybeans, washed with the same herbicide. However, the authors further noted a few differences between the GM and traditional soybeans: there were changes in contents of genistein which is important for health.

Researchers have undertaken several experiments to determine how safe GM soybean oil is. A good example of such experiments involved four groups of mice placed on different diets for a period of 24 weeks (Deol et al., 2017). The first group, the control group was placed on a diet containing low fat content: the mice consumed less than ten percent of calories every day. The second group was given a diet rich in fat acquired from coconut oil whilethe third group consumed traditional soybeans. The fourth and last group was placed on a diet consisting exclusively of GM soybean oil. The four different groups were given these different diets for a period of 24 weeks. The authors kept a close record of different elements such as insulin sensitivity, glucose tolerance and total food instance.

From the above research, Deol et al. (2017) found that mice that were on diets containing soybean oils had worse glucose intolerance. However, the group that was on a diet with coconut oil were healthy. The findings further indicated that the group whose diet included GM soybean oil had low levels of fat tissues compared to the one on traditional soybean oil. According to the authors, the mice in group four weighed about 30 percent more than the group one (control group) that was fed on a diet with low fat (Deol et al., 2017). Similarly, group four which was given GM soybean did not show any signs of insulin resistance compared to those in group three. This saw Deol et al. (2017) conclude that although GM soybeans has less negative metabolic side effects when compared to traditional soybeans, it does not mean that it is completely safe for human consumption. In fact, it is less healthy compared to olive and coconut oil.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emphasizes the need to ensure genetically modified food meet the same safety standards as traditional plants. The process of evaluating GM crops including soybeans follows a multi-step process which aim of ensuring it is free from toxins. This process has proven effective in comparing the phenotypic and compositional characteristics of the traditional and GM crop. FDA further encourages manufactures to examine the nutritional content such as carbohydrates and fats and minerals of GM foods. In fact, experts in toxicology should be called upon to conduct safety tests before releasing GM soybeans to the market (Bøhn and Millstone, 2019). Some of the tests performed on GM soybeans have found several incidents of allergic reaction. An example here is the GM soybeans rich in methionine, an amino acid originally from Brazil, which have been found to cause allergic reactions in individuals with nut allergy.

Finally, a large percentage of the soybean crop consumed across the U.S is grown using GM seeds sold by Monsanto. According to Peschard and Randeria (2020), these seeds are engineered to withstand repeated dousing with the herbicide, glyphosate which is sold by Monsanto as RoundUp (p. 792). Majority of the farmers use RoundUp to repeatedly spray their farms to kill all weeds. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as possible carcinogen for humans. However, in the year 2020, Environmental Protection Agency stated that if used accordingly, glyphosate does not pose risk to humans. They further clarified that it is less likely to cause cancer in humans. However, it is clear that, glyphosate, if used excessively, can have negative effects to people.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while genetic modification of crops brings with it numerous beneficial traits to the traditional crops, much focus should be to test the resulting products to determine their long-term health effects. This is necessary because health impacts of GM crops revolve around toxins, allergens or genetic hazards. Additionally, GM foods manufactures should strive to ensure their products comply with the set safety standards, similarly to those utilized in traditional plants.

References

Badgley, M. A., Kremer, D. M., Maurer, H. C., DelGiorno, K. E., Lee, H. J., Purohit, V., & Olive, K. P. (2020). Cysteine depletion induces pancreatic tumor ferroptosis in mice. Science, 36(15), 85-89.

Bøhn, T., & Millstone, E. (2019). The introduction of thousands of tonnes of glyphosate in the food chainan evaluation of glyphosate tolerant soybeans. Foods, 8(12), 669.

Dalla Costa, L., Piazza, S., Pompili, V., Salvagnin, U., Cestaro, A., Moffa, L, &Malnoy, M. (2020). Strategies to produce T-DNA free CRISPRed fruit trees via Agrobacterium tumefaciens stable gene transfer. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1-14.

Daubenmire, P. L. (2019). Genetically modified organisms as a food source: History, controversy, and hope. In Chemistrys role in food production and sustainability: past and present, 12(2), 203-209. American Chemical Society.

Deckers, M., Deforce, D., Fraiture, M. A., &Roosens, N. H. (2020). Genetically modified micro-organisms for industrial food enzyme production: an overview. Foods, 9(3), 326-350

Deol, P., Fahrmann, J., Yang, J., Evans, J. R., Rizo, A., Grapov, D., &Sladek, F. M. (2017). Omega-6 and omega-3 oxylipins are implicated in soybean oil-induced obesity in mice. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1-13.

Eckerstorfer, M. F., Engelhard, M., Heissenberger, A., Simon, S., &Teichmann, H. (2019). Plants developed by new genetic modification techniquescomparison of existing regulatory frameworks in the EU and non-EU countries. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 7(2), 26-78

Peschard, K., &Randeria, S. (2020). Taking Monsanto to court: Legal activism around intellectual property in Brazil and India. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 47(4), 792-819.

Turnbull, C., Lillemo, M., &Hvoslef-Eide, T. A. (2021). Global regulation of genetically modified crops amid the gene edited crop booma review. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12(3), 258-300.

Formal Analysis

• P1: Hunger persists in the 21st century.
• P2: Traditional farming models are not bringing out solutions.
• P3: The world must embrace technology to produce sufficient food.
• C: Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are the solution to persistent hunger.

Global Hunger is Persistent

First, I would like to retaliate that there is sufficient food produced around the world to feed the population; however, many people are still hungry. Statistics show that after a steady decline for a decade now, global hunger rates are increasing, and they are affecting millions of people across the nation. In the last three years, the number of undernourished people has grown, whereby most of the affected are children under five years of age. This crisis was made worse by the current COVID-19 pandemic since most households lost their livelihood. Producing more food in the form of tubers or staple grains is not adequate, as better nutrition and ending the hunger menace need populations to obtain a suitable diet (Webb et al. n.p). Indeed, hunger is connected with poor production of food and embracing new technology such as GMOs to alleviate the problem altogether.

Traditional farming does not bring a solution

As earlier indicated, the worlds hunger problems are mainly attributed to poor farming practices. Traditional farming methods contribute to the wastage of resources and time; thereby, less is produced and it takes considerable time to grow crops. Due to climate change, drought affects farming, particularly in low and middle-income nations where agriculture relies on rainfall rather than irrigation. Anthropogenic activities cause mounting environmental challenges such as natural resource dilapidation, biodiversity loss and soil degradation (Singh, and Singh pp. 296-316). Conversely, climate change and agriculture are interrelated as both impacts each other critically, especially in sustainable food production. In most instances, traditional agriculture systems lead to the wastage of scarce water resources, as water used is not adequately absorbed by crops but evaporates into the atmosphere. Most conventional farms try to adapt and find a way of reducing water wastage without success, as the measures are ineffective.

Embracing Technology in Food Production

Currently, no industry can fail to embrace technology and survive. Every day-to-day activity relies on technology. Moreover, the present-day generation has also become tech-savvy as we are in a technological revolution moment. It is time for the nations to work together and solve the great challenge of feeding the population by producing sufficient food and using fewer inputs. The worlds population is projected to reach the 9.8 billion mark by 2050; therefore, feeding that population will be challenging if modern technologies such as GMOs are disregarded. Seemingly, farmers need to be supported through innovative agricultural approaches that can produce high-quality, safe and affordable food products. It is only through implementing transformative technology that goals of producing enough food to feed the population.

Genetically Modified Organisms Relation with Food Security

Can genetically modified food products be a solution to persistent hunger? I can answer in the affirmative. Organisms in which the genome has been modified in the laboratory to develop a desired physiological trait or biological products are referred to us as GMOs. In genetic modification, recombinant genetic technology is utilized to produce an organism whose genome is precisely changed. GMOs offer a range of opportunities for increased yields, resistance to diseases and pests, enhanced nutrient conformation and food quality. There has been low acceptance of GMO food products globally due to misconceptions, as people argue about the benefits and safety concerns.

With the reality of persistent hunger due to food insecurity, the adoption of GMOs is the only way to mitigate the problem. Studies show that GMOs have made critical strides in addressing the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly goals number 1 (reducing poverty) and number 2 (reducing hunger) (Smyth pp. 887-888). Besides, increased yield leads to higher household incomes, declining poverty and enhanced food security for the population. There are other numerous benefits of embracing GMO food, as Biofortified crops have an enhanced micronutrient value that improves recommended daily nutrients for individuals. In addition to nutrients, fortified food products prevent and treat some chronic diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, some types of cancers and hypertension.

Undoubtedly, decreased pesticide poisoning rates are vital statistics defining the advantages of genetically modified crops. The benefits are also crucial to the fishery industry as most of the pesticide used in farms ends up in rivers and lakes after being washed by the rain. Genetic engineering is also benefiting higher education institutions and universities as a scientist conducts various research by moving desired genes from animals and plants into another. I will conclude by ascertaining that GMOs are the solution to the persistent food shortages and can alleviate the global hunger problem. Furthermore, traditional farming models will not solve food insecurity as the worlds population balloons. Producing food products through genetic modification technology has various benefits, such as higher yields, being economically viable and less environmental degradation.

Works Cited

Smyth, Stuart J. The Human Health Benefits From GM Crops. Plant Biotechnology Journal, vol 18, no. 4, 2019, pp. 887-888. Wiley

Singh, Rinku, and G. S. Singh. Traditional Agriculture: A Climate-Smart Approach for Sustainable Food Production. Energy, Ecology and Environment, vol 2, no. 5, 2017, pp. 296-316. Springer Science and Business Media LLC.

Webb, Patrick et al. Hunger and Malnutrition in the 21St Century. BMJ, 2018, p. k2238. BMJ.

Today, people are becoming more concerned about the need to protect themselves from the effects of harmful factors and to buy quality food. The U.S. government has decided to expand expenditures on food quality and safety control programs significantly. Therefore, a federal law was passed to label GMO products in stores (Greiner, 2017). In this way, one can use the phone and scan QR codes to determine if a product in the store contains GMOs. Although I visually searched for products in the store that had GMOs, I could not detect them. When I used the application and scanned the codes, though, I found many goods. Hence, I can say that there are products in stores that contain GMOs, but they are not clearly labeled, which prevents them from being immediately identifiable. This made it challenging to detect such foods and required more time to recognize them.

It is significant to mention that the population has an opinion about the negative consequences of consuming GMO products. Similar surveys were also conducted in the USA, France, and Germany; in these countries, about 90% of the population also have an adverse reaction to artificial genome modification (Dietz-Pfeilstetter et al., 2021). One of the primary arguments of GMO opponents is that any interference with DNA is unnatural.

This implies that eating GMO plants and products can cause dangerous mutations in humans and, as a result, diseases. While many research studies prove that GM foods are safe, a 2016 report from the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine suggests that such foods are not harmful but are even suitable for humans (Dietz-Pfeilstetter et al., 2021). The authors examined studies concerned with two types of GM plants: insect-resistant and chemical fertilizer-resistant. Data from the past 20 years demonstrated that these crops did not affect the people and animals that consumed them. Scientists conduct years of testing before putting a GM product on the market. They observe how transgenes and gene expression products behave and whether they cause allergies or poisoning (Dietz-Pfeilstetter et al., 2021). International legislation requires that every such product pass rigorous human, animal, and environmental safety tests.

Researchers opinions concerning the labeling of GM-containing products are divided. Some argue that such information renders the product unsafe or harmful to the environment in the eyes of consumers. Others maintain that labeling gives consumers a sense of control and inspires trust in the manufacturer (Dietz-Pfeilstetter et al., 2021, p. 974). The papers authors interviewed residents of Vermont and other U.S. states by phone and online before and after the legislation was enacted. It appeared that among the state residents after the introduction of the labeling, the number of people who have a negative attitude toward GM food decreased by 19 percent (Dietz-Pfeilstetter et al., 2021). Thus, product labeling is essential to inform the consumer, and they will decide how to consume it.

I believe that the products I find in the supermarket have undergone quality control, which is why they are safe for humans, even if they contain GMOs. At the same time, I support that GMO foods should be labeled in grocery stores; it will enable a person to make an informed choice. There are laws in the US governing the production and labeling of GMO products. If a product unintentionally contains at least 5% bio-engineered material, it needs to be marked (Greiner, 2017). I consider they should be strengthened; at least any product that contains bioengineered ingredients is required to have a label on the product, not just QR codes.

References

Dietz-Pfeilstetter, A., Mendelsohn, M., Gathmann, A., & Klinkenbuß, D. (2021). Considerations and regulatory approaches in the USA and in the EU for dsRNA-based externally applied pesticides for plant protection. Frontiers in Plant Science, 12, 974.

Greiner, A. L. (2017). Visualizing human geography: At home in a diverse world. (3^nd ed.). Wiley.

Introduction

Genetically modified organisms are also known as GMOs, genetically engineered, or genetically modified food and have been discussed for several decades. Some people stress that genetically engineered crops can help humanity to address famines or the lack of food in some regions. Others argue that GMOs can negatively affect peoples health. Both opponents and proponents agree that the issue is still under-researched (Robinson, Antoniou, & Fagan, 2015). These foods have been in place for only a few decades, which makes it difficult to explore their long-term effects. This paper provides a definition of GMOs as well as some health outcomes associated with their use.

Analysis

Several definitions of the term exist. It is possible to focus on the major peculiarities of GMOs to develop a comprehensive definition. Genetically modified food can be defined as the food that has been produced via the insertion of a foreign gene (or several genes) into its genetic code (Nodoushani, Sintay, & Stewart, 2015). The inserted genes can be taken from plants or animals. The major goal of the creation of these foods is the development of species that are resistant to negative environments and are highly productive. This objective seems to be sufficient to make the practice universally accepted. Nevertheless, GMOs are still regarded as dangerous and suspicious.

One of the reasons for such views is related to various studies that reveal the negative effects of GMOs on peoples health. Opponents of the use of genetically modified foods emphasize that their genetic codes are transformed, so it can be hard to predict the way these genetic modifications will affect peoples health (Robinson et al., 2015). Many studies involving animals show that the consumption of GMOs can cause significant changes at different levels including genetic mutations. For example, Robinson et al. (2015) mention the research that focused on sheep consuming GMOs. These animals developed some liver disorders while their lambs had a transformed composition of liver genetic codes. Such information is quite alarming as people can also have various disorders or even new patterns in the development of digestive and other systems.

Some researchers associate the consumption of GMOs with the growing health issue associated with increased body weight. Obesity is often regarded as a pandemic as many or even the majority of people living in the western world suffer from this disease. Another health concern is the development of allergies that are regarded as the plague of the 21st century (Robinson et al., 2015). Peoples systems are not accustomed to such foods, which results in allergic reactions. Finally, it is also stressed that genetically engineered food often has a decreased nutritional value, which contributes to the increase in the number of overweight people.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is possible to state that genetically modified organisms are created through the insertion of genes of other species into their genetic codes. Although genetically engineered organisms are associated with an increased amount of food, many people stress that they can have negative effects on peoples health. Obesity, allergies, and even genetic transformations can be a result of the consumption of GMOs. At that, all people agree that further research is needed to understand whether genetically modified foods can be used. Perhaps, in the near future, researchers will be able to answer numerous questions that are still left without answers. Until then, people are likely to consume GMOs as the production of these foods is growing rapidly.

References

Nodoushani, O., Sintay, J., & Stewart, C. (2015). Genetically engineered food and genetically modified organisms. Competition Forum, 13(1), 136-141.

Robinson, C., Antoniou, M., & Fagan, J. (2015). GMO myths and truths: A citizens guide to the evidence on the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops and foods (3rd ed.). London, England: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Genetic modifications of fruits and vegetables played an important role in the improvement process of crops. The enhancements were made in regard to disease resistance, yields, eating quality, shelf life, and nutritional composition. Genetic engineering is used where a crop had its genetic material (DNA) changed using technology that generally involves the specific modification of DNA, including the transfer of specific DNA from one organism to another (FDA, 2022, para. 1). Genetically modified crops, or GMO crops, primarily result in resistance to plant viruses, tolerance to herbicides, and resistance to insect damage (FDA, 2022). The latter is useful to minimize the use of pesticides, which is an external means of protection and can carry toxicity. These features lead to the production of safer products, which are unharmed by many crop threats. Yields and shelf life can also be improved through genetic engineering and modification. These alterations make fruits and vegetables more accessible and affordable for consumers as well as satisfy the needs of farmers (FDA, 2022, para. 6). Such changes make fruits and vegetables take longer to become spoiled through the introduction of genes resistant to causal microorganisms.

When it comes to nutritional composition and eating quality, the given genetic modifications are specifically beneficial for consumers. For instance, a GMO soybean that is used to create a healthier oil is commercially grown and available (FDA, 2022, para. 6). It can be done by introducing and inserting genes, which either upregulate the plants original gene expression for specific nutrients or add a novel gene to induce the production. Therefore, genetic engineering is effective at improving fruits and vegetables with higher precision, whereas traditional selective breeding is always done on a group of traits.

Reference

FDA. (2022). How GMO crops impact our world. 

Introduction

As the world entered the 21^st century, humanity faced issues that were deemed of utmost importance since thy concerned future survival of the race. Overpopulation and availability of food formed the greatest percentage of the issues in the millennium goals. Food systems particularly what humans have to eat and produce need to be addressed specifically because they could stem into crises (food insecurity) if not attended to in time.

A very crucial measure suggested was the introduction of biotechnology in the production of food especially for the developing nations, which faced the greatest problems of food shortage due to poverty, unfavourable climatic conditions and poor farming methods. Many nations embraced the idea while other brought up counterarguments concerning genetically modified foodstuffs. Brazil is one of the nations in which the technology has been experimented and is finding increasing use to produce food. There a lot of opposition from concerned groups. With this in mind, its very important that an analysis of the benefits and demerits of the foods be analysed.

Defining GMOs

GMO is an acronym that denotes genetically Modifies Organisms. This means that the crops or animals that are produced by this technology have had genes or transgenes from other species totally not related through processes of genetic engineering (Singh et al, 2006, p 597). Over the few years this technology has been in play, different methods have been employed to produce genetically modified crops and animals. These products have been able to attain approval for use in nations like the US, Canada and Argentina among other nations (Capalbo et al, 2006, p 103).

Current situation with GMOs in Brazil

In the recent years, Brazil has shown tremendous results in genetic engineering and genomics research. Success in this research area was brought about by different factors. It started from the enactment of the new Law of Bio-safety (Law 2401) by the Brazilian Congress and its sanction by the President of the Republic in March 2005 that overcame a major obstruction to the conduction of activities related to modern biotechnology in Brazil. (Silveria & Borges, 2005, P.3). It was followed by huge support from both public and private sectors in terms of investment to foster research and improve conduction of agricultural activities. These together with significant natural advantages of the country have made Brazil one of the current major players on the worlds agricultural field. (Silveria & Borges, 2005, P.3)

Two main areas of research Brazil concentrates on are genomic studies and transgenic research. Both studies are primarily conducted under the governmental institutions but the whole R&D network comprises many other players including universities, multinational corporations, local firms and others. Despite noticeable success in research, Brazils production of GMOs accounts only to 4% of the world production. (Silveria & Borges, 2005, P.5) Furthermore, RR soybean was the only transgenic crop produced in the country, although Brazil is also a major player in maize and cotton.

The RR soybean production is forecasted to increase in the next years as in 2004 the area sown with transgenic soybeans already accounted to 1/3 of the area with conventional soybeans (Singh et al 2006, p. 607). Very importantly to highlight is that the recent approval and sanction of a Law of Bio safety, No 11.105, March of 2005, has created great expectations in several sectors involved in activities related to the field of biotechnology: public research institutions, universities, domestic and foreign private companies and risk capital investment funds. (Silveria & Borges, 2005, P.5)

It is interesting how Brazil was able to reach a consensus considering the great difference that existed between different stakeholders and problems concerning regulation (Capalbo et al, 2006, p.105). As Monsanto asked for authorization from the government to commercialise the resistant soybean in 1998, there were series of opposing conflicts from regulation organizations, activists and farmers concerning the safety of the products and biodiversity problems that could emerge once the crops are released into the environment (Fontes, 2003, p. 44). Its very evident that the GM soya was a very big opportunity for Brazil and therefore the economy of the nation. At the same time, there was extreme pressure by Multinationals on the government. The courts in Brazil still opposed the request by Monsanto.

Regulation of the genetically modified products was very critical and the Biosafety law was invented to regulate the release of genetically engineered materials into the environment. This law (Oda & Soares, 2000, p.189) controls activities of biotechnology. Consequently, there was introduction of a biosafety committee that was mandated with the responsibility of making sure that the biotechnology activities were safe for the environment. They were to make final judgement and decisions concerning the effects of GM products. This power became conflicting with other bodies like the environment ministry departments (Oda & Soares, 2000, p. 191).

For the departments of the nations opposing the use of biotechnology to produce food, this was considered as weakening the ministry of environment. This conflict was a huddle in the implementation of the Biosafety law (Bajaj, 2001, p. 45). As a result, Monsanto obtained cleanse to market GM soya. A lot of opposition erupted once again and injunction was issued regarding GM soya in Brazil. However, farmers secretly imported the same from Argentina reaching threshold that the government was forced to allow its use but with some considerate restrictions (Oda & Soares, 2000, p. 194).

Key Characteristics of the Innovation System and Key Players

Major research institutions principally because of their technological and organizational competence that permit them to develop favourable atmosphere for cross-interactions between innovation agents guide the innovation system of genetically modified crops in Brazil. Both private and state-owned institutes conduct agricultural biotechnology research. The key institutes are EMBRAPA (Brazilian Corporation for Farming and Livestock Research) and IAC (Campinas Agronomic Institutes). EMBRAPA is the major centre for tropical agriculture and livestock technology in the world. (Silveria & Borges, 2005, P.9)

It manages different research programmes as well as leading Brazilian Science &Technology and Research & Development institution in formalizing and implementing technology transfer instruments, contracting of cooperation agreements, legalization of technology licenses, as well as issues related to intellectual property. (Silveria & Borges, 2005, P.12) (For more information about EMBRAPA, its activities and research projects please see Appendix A). Because of its activities that are of crucial importance for the inter-relations between companies and institutes EMBRAPA takes a key position in the innovation system.

EMBRAPA was established in 1973 to aid research and developments in agricultural production and disseminating technologies obtained from their research. This organisation has been very significant in Brazil and has seen the increase in crop yields particularly soya (Bajaj, 2001, p 48). This research has 40 units in operation and its success is attributed to consistency, which assures the country of minimal strategic capacity to tackle bigger challenges. Other institutions include Agronomic institute of Campinas, ministry of Science and technological developments; national council of science; universities and private firms (Evenson et al, 2002, p. 123).

The Impact of GMOs in Brazil

The impact that eh GMOs have had in Brazil is very important since it could be the only tangible evidence of what GMOs are capable of. From previous researches in Brazil and the US, its evident that the increase in yield from the soybeans was not significant enough to show statistical difference between the traditional beans and the GM beans (Fontes 2003, p. 44). The savings from the use of GM was not big enough to offset the cost of ensuring that the products are biosafety compliant.

There was also increased use of herbicides and that farmers liked soya because it was easy to cultivate and manage. Studies show that farmers in Brazil got disappointed since their high expectations were not met and are still contemplating on the economic feasibility of the project (Fontes, 2003, p. 44). The major negative outcome was reduction of seed acquisition, which is a very crucial aspect of maintaining plant health (Traxler, 2000).

Regulation of GM Technology

The Biosafety technical commission was created to control Biotechnology exploitation. The commission is compassed of experts in the GM sector, government administrators and other private sector representatives.

Its important to note that small farmers and environmentalists and civil activists are not part of the commission (Jepson, 2002, p. 906). The commission is charged with responsibility of supervising and regulating the experimentation, use, storage, dumping, registration and transporting the genetically modified materials. This is particularly for the food GM products, which must also be investigated by the food safety regulating body. There were problems of backcrossing as many multinationals developed their own seed in parent countries only for them to go and try them out in Brazil (Bajaj, 2001, p. 48). The government is now firm on its policy that allows regulated biotechnology research and prohibits commercial production of GMOs.

Brazils Policy Concerning GM crops

The special thing about the case of GM food production in Brazil is that the government is responsible for setting the main target to combine the national scientific competitiveness and the farming proficiency over the powerful multinational firms like Novartis and Monsanto (Andow, 2006, p. 78). The government instituted legal provisions through which national biotechnology institutions and local firms from Brazil can carry out GM experiments. The public and private firms in Brazil have potential to race against existing GM technologies and offer their own products.

Seed companies in Brazil and EMBRAPA still needed more time to be able to develop their own seed, which would be as viable as those from multinational would so that the market is not dominated and controlled by larger multinationals (Hilbeck et al, 2006, p. 23). Additionally, the government put in places controls that would see soya farmers leverage transnational firms into cooperative accords that transfer the technology to the local companies, farmers and researchers (Jepson, 2002, p. 917). Brazil is really struggling to be self-governing from multinationals and promote national scientific accomplishments.

Insufficient about GMOs

Due to the limited research advances in Brazil, the confusion of inadequate knowledge about GMO is noticeable. This is evident among farmers, employees of the firms and other institutions as well. Due to this, the members of the biosafety commission have to be educated about the principles that Brazil upholds in its biosafety structure and the scientific information, which supports these restrictions (Jepson 2002, p 907; Evenson et al, 2002, p. 123). Increased interactions will ensure that they are able to attain a very strong background which is exactly needed for carrying out risk assessments and risk management. Despite these efforts, still farmers from remote regions lack adequate information to explicitly exploit the potential benefits of genetically modified foodstuffs (Andow 2006, p. 78).

Challenges against GMOs

Several non-governmental organisations have come up strongly to question the safety of the regulatory policies that govern the experimentation of the GM products (Hall et al, 2007, p. 46). The scientific authority of the bio safety commission is questionable with its exclusive jurisdiction concerning the issues of food safety and environment. The issuance of licence to Monsanto to produce RR soy has been criticized of being inefficient since the company did not even issue an environmental impact statement (Hall et al, 2007, p. 46). However, in its own defence, Monsanto claimed that its product were similar to the conventional soya.

The Brazilian constitution requires that there have to be a statement released before any organisation is allowed to release potentially harmful substance to the environment (Brainard, 2009, P.76). Then commission did not maintain the legal right by ignoring that crucial statement.

Due to the continued conflicts over the regulation of the GMO production in Brazil, its use presents an uncertain future in the country as the civil society remain strongly opposed to the experimentations (Brainard, 2009, P.76). So far regulating the GM technology has proved to be very difficult due to the differing interests of majority stakeholders in the industry. In order to be able to overcome these problems, its essential to establish a platform on which regulatory organisations and administration will work and interact without more disagreements (Hilbeck et al, 2006, p. 23).

Some Key Concepts

Technology Trajectories

Technology Trajectories are the descriptions of which the paths advances in technology are taking. The advancement of the GMO technology has at some point been controversies with people raising concerns like who is benefitting from the technology and what conditions, who decided their use and who will be accountable when harm emerges. The public seem to be confused whether to or not to support the technology (Capalbo, et al 2006, p 103).

Technology trajectories in the GMO use is becoming very tricky affair. However since this has been regarded as an economic oriented technology, this technology then in itself becomes the key force behind achieving economic development. From here, a multidimensional approach is assessed to see the paths.

The following paths are very critical in this case; social, economic, environmental and technological. Regardless of the trajectories, there are some conclusions that can still be drawn. For instance, technology use indicates positive impact on the economy since it can establish productivity and wealth creation (Capalbo et al, 2006, p 103). Again, technology use signifies negative impact like vanishing of economic sectors, increased investments in new ventures, excluding existing channels in business and difficulties in generating employment and distribution of wealth.

Technological lock-in

GMOs have been assessed to be potential causes of technological lock in. This major forces cause systematic obstructions to the diffusion and acceptance of the effective and sustainable technologies. Essentially, its important to understand that in this civilized world, its very crucial that greater environmental quality is achieved without restraining the productive activities need efforts to encourage innovation clean and green technology (Brainard, 2009, P 76).

The major concern now is; what is restricting this diffusion? Currently there are debates in Brazil about the cost transition to enable investing in these new technologies. Two approaches can be used to give explanations to these. They are the engineering investigation and aggregate economic models. Both dimensions can successful based on the simplicity of the assumptions concerning the dynamic substitution of energy and technology change process. Technology lock in is made possible by the fact that there are no standards or the ones available are very inferior as far as environment sustainability is concerned (Brainard, 2009, P 76).

Path Dependency

The acceptance of GMOs technology in Brazil and its spread to other parts is influenced by the social, cultural and economic set up that they develop in. In this regard, its evident that the successful innovation and diffusion of technology will rely so much on the paths that they take- what is called the path-dependency. When there are increased returns to take up, that is positive response implying that there is more technology being adopted or is likely to be adopted; lock in of incumbent technologies can result. There are different factors that can drive technology to take a certain path of advancement (Brainard, 2009, P 76). For instance, when technology indicated very large set up or fixed cost due to indivisibility, then the unit production expenses turn down as they are applied to increased production volume.

Social Shaping of Technology

Core to the idea of Social Shaping of Technology is the perception that there exist many choices that may at times not be essentially cognisant ones but are intrinsic in both design course and trajectory of innovativeness. If there is no emergence of technology from the unfolding or a prearranged logic or a solitary determinant, then innovation is diverse and likened to a garden of forking paths. Different directions can result in different technology results (Brainard, 2009, P 76).

Importantly is the fact that these technologies can have useful outcomes on the society and specific social groups. Of great concern, here is how compatible GM technology and science is with social commitment. There should be so much compatibility especially in the context of the requirements of the third world countries like Brazil. They have to support the social contracts that exist between the society and technology.

The Role of Regulation

The Major Problem that cane together with the introduction of the GM crops was the question of safety of those foods. The environmental consequences was not to much of a threat since the seeds of these crops seem not to be viable in subsequent generations hence is not likely to be persistent. Considering the possible dangers and safety uncertainty its very important for the sake of future survival that the use of and production of GMOs be regulated and monitored. However, of all the legal and social concerns in any administration, regulation of business has been very controversial topic (Oda & Soares, 2000, p. 191). Brazil has very strict measures in place to ensure that GMO production complies with the regulation set by the government.

The biosafety commission present stringent scrutiny of any multinational before it can be licensed to start experimenting in GMOs. The role of regulatory bodies is to ensure that the consumers can get safety products for consumption and that their health is not compromised because of their need for food. This also ensures advancement of good technology that is sustainable. Regulation also ensures that the technologies comply with government polices regarding environment and business in general (Oda & Soares, 2000, p. 191).

Market Failure

There some reports that GMOs have not been self-sustainable and hence could not survive the work market against organic crops. The question of safety also scared consumers and the product was not so popular. Bearing in mind that the word was attaining free market at the time GMOs were being introduced, it was evident that it would be very difficult to achieve economically effective as well as socially unbiased solutions to the problems.

Some GM products were removed from the market. To some point, even the production was cut right from the beginning due to the perception that the crops would damage the status of the increasing organic farmers since there would be no means of preventing cross-contamination. Once this occurred, then there would be not organic farmers (Evenson, et al 2002, p. 123). The GMOs are likely to lead to emergence of superior weeds and pests due to resistance and would hence require chemicals that are more powerful.

Open Innovation

When free and unrestricted experimentation of the GMOs, there is very high probability that new technology will develop and this will automatically have an impact on the way farming will be done. Since new technologies like nanotechnology, deal with plants at an integral part handling the molecular aspect, then a completely new range of crops can be developed (Evenson et al, 2002, p. 123). The capacity of the research and development will attain new heights and produce new products al together

Conclusion

The use of GMO seems to offer the third world countries like Brazil a solution to food insecurity. As a result, they are finding increased acceptance and increased use in the country. The people the can use any means to make sure that they get the food for survival rather that turn down the use of GMO and suffer with hunger and malnutrition due to problems of lack of sufficient food supply. Considering that food insecurity problems could only be solved by investing in genetically modified food products, its very important to find a lasting solution tom the problems or rather the conflict in the GM experimentation projects in Brazil.

Since most of the differencing parties argue from perspectives that are equipped with insufficient information, it would be in order for the government in conjunction with other developed governments to consider creating an international group of experts at the innovative knowledge of GM from all over the world to be chief consultants. These end up developing energetic and progressive guiding principles that would stress on exchange of knowledge and skills between researchers and policy makers. The GMO technology increasingly being used because of the reason that those nations which begun using it earlier on do not have problems of food supply but rather deal with issues of obesity and other problems that come with unhealthy eating.

Reference List

Andow D.A (2006). Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms: Volume 2: Methodologies for Assessing BT Cotton in Brazil Volume 2 of Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms. CABI.

Bajaj Y. P. S., (2001). Transgenic crops. Springer.

Brainard L., (2009). Brazil as an economic superpower: understanding Brazils Changing role in the global. Brookings Institution Press.

Capalbo D.M., Hilbeck A. & Andow D (2006). Brazil and development of the International Biosafety Experimenting Guidelines for Transgenic Plants. Journal Of Interbate Pathology. Vol 83: 103  107 science direct.

Evenson R.E., santaniello V & Zilberman D., (2002). Economic and social issues in Agricultural biotechnology. CABI Publishing Series EMBRAPA. Nota Informativa: Pesquisa Biotecnológica na Embrapa. Web.

Fontes E.G (2003). Land and Regulation Concerns concerning Transgenic Plants in Brazil: EMBRATA Recursos Genetics e Biotecnolgia CP Brasilia.

Hall J., Matos S & Langford C.H (2007). Social Exclusion and Transgenic Technology; The Case of Brazilian Agriculture. Journal of Business Ethics Vol 78: 46  64.

Hilbeck A., Andow D.A & Fontres., (2006). Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Modified Organisms: Volume 2: Methodologies for Assessing BT Cotton in Brazil. CABI.

Jepson W.E (2002). Global and Brazilian Biosafety: The Politics of Scale over Biotechnology. Political Geography. Vol 22: 906  927.

Oda L.M & Soares B.E (2000). Genetically Modified Foods: economic Aspects and Public Acceptance in Brazil. Titbtech. Vol 18: 189  191.

Silveria F.J & Borges, I.C (2005). An Overview of the Current State of Agricultural Biotechnology in Brazil, University of Campinas, Institute of Economics.

Singh O.V Ghai S., Paul D & Jain R.K (2006). Genetically Modified Crops: Success safety Assessment and Public Concern. Appl Microbial Biotrechnol: vol 70; 597  608. Springer-verlag.

Traxler G., (2000). Assessing the benefits of Plant Biotechnology in Latin America. Conferência apresentada no BID.

Case Analysis

The case studies several important aspects of genetically-modified pineapple cultivation. The research is motivated by the fact that GMO technologies are becoming increasingly common in agriculture. The paper covers the existing benefits of GM pineapples, as well as examples of what could be achieved with this technology. It also addresses the health concerns connected with consuming and farming GM pineapples, and the environmental consequences that could result from it. Finally, the authors describe the biological principles behind genetic modification and outline the financials of the GM pineapple business.

Answering a Case Study Question

The case study offers four discussion questions, and this paper will focus on the second one. The question of whether GM pineapple causes too many environmental and health concerns to be a viable crop to grow or consume is something that warrants the most careful consideration. First, the question will be viewed from the point of view of a farmer, and then of a consumer.

Pineapple farming can be a risky endeavor, as the crops can take up to two years to fully mature and are susceptible to various diseases and pathogens. Genetic modification can alleviate some of those problems, resulting in a higher yield, which lowers the cost of each pineapple (Chistyakova et al., 2020). However, genetically modified pineapples can have an adverse effect on other crops through natural processes such as cross-pollination (Chistyakova et al., 2020). This could have unforeseen ecological consequences, and such crops should be assessed by the government to determine if they are safe to plant, and what procedures should be followed. In some regions, such as Costa Rica, GM pineapple farmers also employ chemicals that could have a detrimental effect both on the environment and on the health of the people who are exposed to them (Chistyakova et al., 2020). Overall, the health and environmental concerns of GM pineapple farming do not outweigh its benefits if the crop is grown in accordance with approved safe practices.

For the consumer, the primary tangible advantage of GM pineapples over natural ones is the price. The study does claim that GM pineapples have some health benefits, as they contain more iron, but there is also evidence that they could carry noticeable amounts of toxic residues that may be harmful to humans (Chistyakova et al., 2020). Depending on chemicals that the supplier uses when growing their pineapples, the health concerns may be severe enough to outweigh the benefits of a lower price for the consumer.

Case Evaluation and Feedback

The case study provides a sufficient amount of information to introduce the reader to GM pineapples, without overwhelming them with technical details. It covers the areas that are likely to attract the most interest from farmers and consumers of GMO products and mentions some problematic areas. However, the structure of the article could use some improvement. The authors outline some questions that the study addresses; however, the subsequent sections of the paper do not correspond to these questions. This is most prominent with the question about health concerns, as the paper instead contains a page talking about medical benefits, and negative consequences to the human body are only mentioned briefly at the end of the report. If the case studys contents were more representative of the questions that the authors initially aimed to address, it would be significantly more useful for readers searching for concrete answers.

References

Chistyakova, A., Rodrigues, M., & Lattari, M. (2020). GM Pineapple. Agricultural Biotechnology, 13.

For a long time now, man has invented and modified various things using technology. This technology ranges from technical, physical, to biological technology. Biotechnology is therefore a discipline that encompasses several other disciplines such as biology, mathematics, engineering, chemistry, and physics just to mention a few (Shmaefsky, 2006, p.57).

A biotechnology laboratory will not be new to a person who has worked in any other scientific laboratory given their similarity (Shmaefsky, 2006, p.57). As such, in biotechnology scientific instruments from other disciplines of science are borrowed and integrated to come up with new products. For instance, biotechnology is the reason behind new varieties of crops such as transgenic cotton, potatoes, and different tomato breeds as well as new breed animals such as the dolly sheep and many others.

It is therefore agreeable that in biotechnology new products are made and the existing products modified to be of better value. Biotechnology therefore has wide application in the fields of agriculture, environment, industry, and medicine just to mention a few. This paper seeks to examine the importance of biotechnology in genetic modification.

Biotechnology is of novel importance in the field of genetic modification of food. Genetic modification of food entails the alteration of different crops and animals through gene transfer and engineering as a way of improving food productivity. Given the low supply of food and the increasing global population there have been an increased demand for food.

Therefore, to meet the increasing food demand, biotechnologists looked for ways through which the production and supply of food could be increased using the existing resources such as land. This led to the invention of gene modification whereby a gene is altered in order to make more productive under the same conditions.

Genetic modified crops are as a result of a change in the genetic modification of plants by altering or introduction of a better gene in a low producing crop (Atherton, 2002). For instance, a gene that will make a plant disease resistant and stronger could be introduced in disease prone crops thus making them free from disease hence producing more yields.

Biotechnology is also useful in animal production by enabling transfer of good genes such as those free from disease, high milk producing and weather conducive genes which when inserted in an animal lacking the aforementioned features will produce a high yielding animal. It can thus be said that biotechnology through genetic modification has had significant contribution in the food industry.

Nevertheless, genetic modified organisms have led to a lot of controversy regarding the foods produced through genetic engineering. There have been claims that genetic modified foods have health impacts on those who consume them. For instance, it has been noted that genetically modified foods lead to allergic reactions given the production of a bacterium called Bacillus Thuringiensis (BT), which inhabits in the soil (Atherton, 2002).

It is argued that the BT toxin produced is very concentrated and could have health impacts of overworking the kidney. The BT gene causes flu-like symptoms, nausea and skin rashes. In addition to this, genetic modification has the long-term effect of the possibility of out-crossing foreign genes in organism that had been introduced in other organism hence leading to resistance (Atherton, 2002). This resistance has the danger of affecting food security and safety since the plants or animals will not be manageable.

Reference List

Atherton, K. (2002). Genetically Modified Crops: Assessing Safety. London. Taylor & Francis.

Shmaefsky, B. (2006). Biotechnology 101. London: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Genetic algorithms use Darwin’s theory of evolution to optimize. Darwin’s theory of natural selection proposes that the most adapted population members will survive and reproduce, leading to an even more adapted next generation. Crossing and mutation change the structure of chromosomes, which store genetic information. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, published in 1975, is considered the first genetic algorithm book [9]. Holland invented crossover and recombination operators. This presented adaptive digital systems using mutation, selection, and crossover to solve problems systematically and rigorously. It was built on earlier research and papers by Holland and his University of Michigan colleagues. It is widely used in optimization-related contexts. This research paper discusses the genetic algorithm principle, its advantages and disadvantage, and its real-life applications.

Genetic Algorithm (GA) Principle

The GA (genetic algorithm) is a Darwinian-inspired evolutionary algorithm created by Holland. It combines survival of the fittest with structured chance information exchange. When no solution is known, random solutions are generated. The initial population is this set. The traits are then incorporated into gene sequences that form chromosomes and individuals. Each key corresponds to a person, who is then ranked by how closely they resemble the best. This approach will converge to an ideal outcome via Darwinian natural selection. Like constrained biological systems, the best population members reproduce and pass on their genes to the next generation. Combining the original individuals’ genes creates a new population (parents). Some people of the new generation may have the best attributes of both parents, making them the best solution. The next generation has children using the same criteria. After this, everyone will have the same genetic makeup. Recent generations are distinct from their ancestors because their genetic information matches the best option. The figure below shows the procedure of the genetic algorithm.

Presentation

Every genetic algorithm component has a dual representation: a presentation of genotype and phenotype. Genotype is how the population is displayed in the computational environment. In comprehending and manipulating a person, a digital instrument must be encoded or represented in binary, integer, or another complicated form [4]. Phenotype, on the other hand, represents the population in the search space corresponding to reality or a representation of the solutions through corresponding absolute values.

Encoding each parameter as a series of bits is the conventional way of transforming a genetic algorithm with several parameters, from phenotypic presentation to genotype presentation. This conversion process takes place when moving from phenotype presentation to genotype presentation. After that, the sequences are joined into a single, extensive sequence called the chromosome. This sequence acts as a representation of the vector that the parameters belong. Therefore, the sequences on the vector represent genes, and each gene’s value

Evaluation of Individual

Evaluation is required to assist in applying for the role that (natural) selection plays in evolution [4]. Each person in a population is assigned a value that helps them distinguish themselves from the other people in the population. This value is referred to as fitness, which determines if the solution represented by the individual is viable or optimal. It is the one that is calculated by the objective function. It is computed using the values that each individual possesses for their parameters. As a result, the accurate function shifts from problem to the problem due to its variability. It also differs depending on whether one wants to maximize or lessen the severity of a situation. As a result, this can determine an objective function value for each individual in the population.

Population

The characteristics of a population include its size, the number of individuals who composes it, its dimension, the number of individual genes, and how they may interact with one another through mating and the production of progeny. Throughout evolution, the size hardly ever changes. It can be as small as one or as large as several thousand. On the other hand, population diversity is measured by the variety of people who make up the group.

Selection Mechanism

Several factors, including internal and external to the species, affect reproduction and survival rates, leading to generational shifts in natural populations. Individuals are chosen based on their predicted likelihood of producing the best outcomes. This process is similar to natural selection in that the strongest and healthiest people tend to increase while the weaker and less prosperous ones tend to die off [4]. However, the selection reduces diversity rather than increasing it because it does not produce new individuals.

Tournament Selection

The pool gene’s exploration (n) and exploitation (N) characteristics are established by the number of participants in each tournament. In matching the number of individuals to fish, there is a need to host an equal number of tournaments [4]. Poorly adapted individuals can be given a greater or lesser chance depending on the value of n. When many people participate, the weakest player is nearly guaranteed to lose. In addition, the population is segmented, and the individuals inside each segment compete with one another. Finally, each subgroup selects a single member to reproduce.

Roulette-wheel selection

Roulette-wheel selection is based on relative fitness, especially on an individual’s chances of getting picked increase or decrease depending on how much their fitness exceeds or falls below that of their contemporaries. This can be thought of as roulette, where each player receives a piece of the wheel, and those physically fit receive greater pieces than those who are not. Every time the wheel is spun, the person in whose area the ball lands is selected randomly.

Scaling selection

A more discriminatory fitness function results from an increase in the average fitness of a population, which in turn enhances the strength of selective pressure. When all people have relatively high fitness, and only tiny variances in fitness distinguish one from another, this strategy can help determine the optimal pick.

Rank-based Selection

At the outset of this selection method, the population is ranked in order of fitness. Then, based on that order, each person perceives himself as part of a specific social class. The worst person will be ranked 1, the next worst will be ranked 2, and so on, all the way up to the best person, who will be ranked N (N is the size of the population). Individual or chromosomal ranking selection is equivalent to random selection, with the difference being that the selection probabilities are proportional to the rank rather than the evaluation value [10].

Reproduction Operators

Crossing Operator

When two chromosomes exchange their characteristics, this is called a crossover. The crossing operator facilitates the mixing of genes within a population and the consequent application of Darwin’s principle of heredity [9]. The first step in creating a new generation is deciding on a mating couple. The people in each pair are randomly picked from the pool of candidates. The matched people used crossover techniques (P1 and P2).

One can use a one-point crossing, or they can use a two-point crossing. Since there are two types of coding, binary and real, the resulting crossing or reproduction can be either binary or real. One-point crossover involves randomly selecting a crossover level and then switching the tails of the parent individuals to produce offspring [7]. On the other hand, by changing around two sets of genes, or “points,” one can create new varieties, making double-point crossover a more generalized form of single-point crossover. The two crossover points are shown in the figure below;

Uniform crossing is sometimes used, leading to kids with an uneven genetic inheritance. Instead of relying on chromosomal (individual) subgroups, uniform crossover involves giving each gene extra attention [3]. Each chromosome’s inclusion in a child is based on tossing a coin, which is determined by this factor. Each bit in a uniform crossover usually has an equal chance of coming from either parent. The diagram below shows that the odds favor the parents who will have a son with more genetic material.

Mutation Operator

It is similar to crossover, which involves switching one gene on one chromosome with another. The crossover helps the algorithm converge on a high-quality solution, while the mutation allows for diversity and prevents the algorithm from being prematurely convergent. While searching for the best possible answer, the mutation is utilized to avoid the search from settling on a single optimality point [3]. In contrast to the crossover rate, the mutation rate must be set relatively low, usually between 0.001 and 0.01, to avoid a descent into random search and preserve the principle of natural selection and evolutionary change. There are many ways to apply mutation, as follows.

• Bit Flip Mutation: During a bit flip mutation, a random bit or bits are chosen and flipped. This type is employed when dealing with binary representations of GAs [11].
• Random resetting: This mutation is a refinement of the bit-flip mutation for the encoded integer. It consists of randomly picking a gene and giving it a value within the range of acceptable options.
• Swap mutation entails randomly picking any two chromosomal locations and swapping their respective numerical values. The most common mutation is swap mutation [11]
• Scramble mutation: It works because some genes are picked randomly from all the people (chromosomes), and their values are mixed up.
• Inversion mutation: To create an inversion mutation, one selects a group of genes, like in the scrambling mutation, but instead of shuffling the selection, one inverts the complete chain of those genes [11].

Stopping/Termination Conditions

In the genetic algorithm, a new generation of solutions is generated. This generation stops when certain conditions are met, such as when the optimal solution according to the fitness results is reached, when a specific number of iterations is reached or when the population’s characteristics remain constant and do not change [7]. The GA keeps creating new generations as long as specific requirements are not met. The maximum number of generations, the ideal solution, and the presence of particular qualities in the population are just a few examples of such circumstances.

Replacement

In each generation, a person should vanish from the population and be replaced by a new one. That decision is made through the replacement operation. The fitness value produced by the fitness function serves as the selection criterion in all cases. From the N + 1 individuals (N population members plus the newborn), this operation will select the N individuals most appropriate for the problem and have the highest similarity value to the target operation. The replacement technique allows for creating a new population and the maintenance of the ranking system based on the degree of individual adaption [5].

Advantages of Genetic Algorithm

Genetic algorithms are primarily parallel, which is a significant factor. Most algorithms are sequential, meaning they can only look in one direction for potential solutions to a problem at a time. If the solution they find is suboptimal, they must throw away their progress and start over. But since GAs can produce several offspring, they can simultaneously probe the solution space in different directions [3]. Each iteration improves the odds of discovering the best solution since they can quickly discard subpar options and focus on more promising ones.

Genetic algorithms find solutions when the space of all possible solutions is truly big, too vast to search exhaustively in an acceptable length, because of the parallelism that implicitly allows them to analyze multiple schemas. The term “nonlinear” is commonly used to describe the type of problems that fit within this group [6]. A linear problem is one in which each part’s fitness may be improved separately without affecting the wellness of the total system. This is not representative of most issues in the actual world. It is common for a single modification to have far-reaching consequences for the whole system and vice versa: increases in fitness may result from several improvements, some of which would be deleteriously taken alone [5].

Disadvantages of Genetic Algorithm

Despite their efficacy and strength, genetic algorithms are not a silver bullet for fixing all problems but have some disadvantages. The language used to express potential solutions must be strong because it must be able to withstand unpredictable changes without consistently producing fatal errors. Creating a representation for the problem is the first and most crucial step in developing a genetic algorithm.

The problem of writing the fitness function must be carefully considered so that higher fitness is attainable and does equate to a better solution for the given situation. According to Sivanandam & Deepa, the fitness function is chosen poorly or defined imprecisely [6]. In that case, the genetic algorithm may be unable to find a solution or may end up solving the wrong problem. However, this does not occur naturally. One fitness function in the evolutionary lab is the drive to survive and reproduce [8]. Biological populations that reproduce at a higher rate than their contemporaries are considered more fit, whereas those who fail to do so are considered less.

Lastly, numerous researchers caution against using genetic algorithms for issues that can be solved analytically. It is not that GAs cannot find good answers, but rather that traditional analytic methods take significantly less time and computational effort and, unlike GAs, are usually mathematically guaranteed to produce one perfect solution [3]. Naturally, this problem does not exist in nature because there is no such thing as a mathematically ideal solution to any issue of biological adaptation.

The Application of Genetic Algorithm

Optimizing an objective function within the constraints of a Constraint Satisfaction Problem (CSP) provides the overarching foundation for COPs. Artificial intelligence, combinatorial optimization, complex digital operations, image processing, schedule optimization, and learning neural networks are just a few areas where GA has been used. Since the timetabling problem is NP-hard, a highly abstract idea of heuristics has been introduced to establish a comprehensive mathematical framework to describe it [1]. Genetic algorithms attempt to optimize a function over a discrete structure with numerous independent variables.

The genetic algorithm used to evaluate success in finding optimal solutions and satisfying all constraints is entirely arbitrary. Although the complexity of assignment depends on the number of instances and conditions, genetic algorithms provide the best-case scenarios of reasonable schedule solutions via evolution processes once the objectives and constraints have been stated [1]. This is why a reduced version of the Hybrid Genetic algorithm for building exam schedules at the University of Nottingham is being explored for use in the proposed system. The idea can be extended to match the building of course schedules, even though it was initially devised for test timetabling [2]. This procedure is carried out until all exams can be scheduled without conflict, as shown in the following flowchart;

Like every other genetic algorithm, this algorithm can quickly produce large populations of random feasible exam timetables. Uniquely, the process takes each member of the course population and assigns it to the first period in which the exam may be placed without conflict. The mutation and crossover procedures are then applied to the population to satisfy constraints associated with each course in the assignment [7].

Conclusion

The research paper offered a foundational understanding of genetic algorithms and a class of heuristic search methods for tackling hard problems. The genetic algorithm’s many operators and parameters, such as mutation, crossover, selection, and choice of population size, prevent the development of a universal approach applicable to all situations; However, this does not prevent genetic algorithms from being very effective. There is a significant need for these algorithms due to speed and efficiency.

References

Abayomi-Alli, O., Abayomi-Alli, A., Misra, S., Damasevicius, R., & Maskeliunas, R. (2019). Automatic examination timetable scheduling using particle swarm optimization and local search algorithm. In Data, engineering, and applications (pp. 119-130). Springer, Singapore.

Ansari, R., & Saubari, N. (2020). Application of genetic algorithm concept on course scheduling.IOP conference series: materials science and engineering (Vol. 821, No. 1, p. 012043). IOP Publishing.

Guediri, A., & Touil, S. (2022). Optimization Using a Genetic algorithm based on DFIG Power Supply for the Electrical Grid. International Journal of Engineering, 35(1), 121-129.

Kılıç, H., & Yüzgeç, U. (2019). Tournament selection-based antlion optimization algorithm for solving quadratic assignment problem.Engineering science and technology, an international journal, 22(2), 673-691.

Mousa, H. M., & El-Sisi, A. B. (2013). Design and implementation of course timetabling system based on genetic algorithm. 2013 8th International Conference on Computer Engineering & Systems (ICCES) (pp. 167-171). IEEE. Web.

Sivanandam, S. N., & Deepa, S. N. (2008). Genetic algorithms. In Introduction to genetic algorithms (pp. 15-37). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Web.

Tan, J. S., Goh, S. L., Kendall, G., & Sabar, N. R. (2021). A survey of the state-of-the-art of optimization methodologies in school timetabling problems.Expert Systems with Applications, 165, 113943.

Alattas, R. J., Patel, S., & Sobh, T. M. (2019). Evolutionary modular robotics: Survey and analysis.Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 95(3), 815-828.

Kureichik, V. M., & Logunova, J. A. (2019). The Implementation of the Genetic Algorithm Using Cloud-Based Computing on the Internet. In 2019 IEEE East-West Design & Test Symposium (EWDTS) (pp. 1-4). IEEE.

Kramer, O. (2017). Genetic algorithms. In Genetic algorithm essentials (pp. 11-19). Springer, Cham. Web.

García, J. M., Acosta, C. A., & Mesa, M. J. (2020). Genetic algorithms for mathematical optimization. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1448, No. 1, p. 012020). IOP Publishing. Web.