DNA manipulation
DNA REVOLUTION is the title of an interesting update on the topic by
Michael Specter in the December 2016 issue of National Geographic, pages 30-55.
The prospects of using CRISPER, for genetically modifying organisms such
as mosquitoes, was discussed along with the need for understanding the benefits
and dangers of such genetic manipulation.
The article following, Science vs.
Mosquitoes, by Cynthia Gorney, on pages 56-59 of the same issue helps
demonstrate the positive value such genetic manipulation could have.
GMO’s,
or genetically modified organisms, are often assumed to be dangerous when they
occur in the food chain. Although they
could be made so, they also can be harmless as food. A high level of safety as food can be
achieved if goals and procedures are appropriate. The speed of developing beneficial traits can
be much greater than with conventional breeding programs. Waiting for natural selection to produce
useful natural variants through evolution is not an assured way of getting new
useful variants in our lifetime.
Some
possible benefits of genetic engineering of food organisms.
Greater
yield and/or better adaptation to agricultural processes and environmental
conditions may be expedited by finding useful genes for transfer from other
organisms unlikely to interbreed naturally.
More success may be found by transferring genes from different strains
of the same species. Examples of expected
benefits include drought resistance, stronger stems to resist breakage due to
wind or heavy rain, resistance to disease organisms and insects, higher ratio
of edible parts versus other structural parts, higher nutrient content, and
improved flavor or other attributes.
The
uniformity achieved by planting hybrid seed for crops might possibly be
accomplished by genetic engineering. The
reduced variation in size and shape of plants makes it much easier to
effectively harvest them by machines.
Some
possible hazards of genetic engineering of organisms.
Every
engineered organism released into the environment has the potential to disrupt
the ecological balance achieved by natural populations in much the same way an
invasive species or introduced organism may disrupt the balance. Just as with introduced species, sometimes we
like the result. But the potential for
disaster is what we fear. There is
usually no reset button we can push to start over without the disastrous
introduced organism.
The
relative simplicity and/or ease with which genetic manipulation can be done
makes it possible for laboratory errors or contamination to result in release
of dangerous GMO’s into the environment.
One
of the greatest fears that made pioneers of genetic engineering pause and help
put safety procedures in place with strict containment and decontamination
procedures was the inadvertent release of normally benign organisms containing
toxins of disease organisms.
A
fear that terrorists might inadvertently destroy the world, with release of
lethal organisms that do not recognize boundaries separating friends from foes,
could be disastrous for civilization as we know it. The suicidal mentality projected to that
scale seems unlikely, but we seem to get a foretaste of it in past terrorism
events.
Molecular biologists initiated standards for recombinant DNA research beginning over 40 years ago. Containment and other standards were a feature incorporated in federal research grants as a consequence. But the tremendous progress in the field has simplified the process so that it is feasible for individuals to undertake projects outside of grant supported research programs and regulated facilities.
Ecological
considerations.
The
success of engineered species could make their use so prevalent that related
native ones might not survive. The
diversified gene pool of native species is conducive to some surviving both new and old strains of fungi, bacteria, and viruses.
If a new insect pest or a disease develops for the engineered species it
could spread very rapidly through all the closely adjacent populations of it.
Diversity
of species is high in most undisturbed natural communities. As the area of a natural community is
reduced, diversity is usually reduced as well.
The interdependence of species is shown by the loss of one species
causing the demise of species dependent on that species. Even predators can help preserve their prey
species by keeping their numbers at reasonable levels. Reasonable levels include population levels
that do not destroy their own food supply and make infectious disease
transmission more of a certainty.
The
web of life encompasses more than many appreciate, but it should not be
ignored.
Ethical
considerations.
Genetic
engineering is here. We should insist
that benefits clearly outweigh the penalties and risks of each project and that no
victims are trampled in our blind enthusiasm.
Are there some things that should not be attempted?
Consider
the pesky mosquitoes. Yes, they have
killed millions by their role in transmitting malaria, yellow fever, and other
diseases. Does their value in the food
chain, for bats and swallows, fish and many other aquatic organisms as well as
possible role in plant pollination, mean they should not be eliminated? They probably do not play an essential role
in survival of most, or perhaps all, of those organisms; that makes the
targeting of particular mosquito species easier to advocate, especially using
CRISPER if it leaves no toxic residues.
Presumably, CRISPER includes improved techniques for controlling mosquitoes by targeting only the species that are vectors of importance in disease transmission. A few decades ago targeted DNA adjustments of male mosquitoes, producing only males in their offspring which would then only produce males also, was demonstrated as a way of eliminating a species in a limited study. Since only females feed on blood needed to produce viable eggs, blood feeding and disease transmission ends. The result would seem to be one of the least disruptive control mechanisms possible.
Because engineered species may affect other nations directly or indirectly,
international agreement should be obtained if they have not already done so.
The United Nations would be a proper entity to provide oversight by
establishment of an appropriate commission or process. Genetic engineering of one's own cells for cancer treatment would be an example of an exempt activity if viral vectors are not part of the process.
I
would suggest praying for divine guidance be a personal matter in our
philosophical pluralistic society, although it is much needed. Fortunately, all major elements of our
society share most values in their moral codes; peace, personal freedom for
all, save our environment, and help those in need seem to be givens.
Joseph Engemann Kalamazoo, Michigan August 25, 2016