Debates In Biotechnology

Debates In Biotechnology How can of biofuels lead us to energy independenec?

Do stem cells have the potential to save millions of lives?

How much of our diet consist of genertically modified foods?

Minh Phan

1

Biofuels

sffdsfsdfsdfdsfsdfsdf

The main debate regarding biofuels centers around whether they are a good means to reversing global climate change and helping replace oil, or at least reduce oil prices. Biofuels have become increasingly attractive in recent years because they offer the possibility of both reducing greenhouse gas emissions and helping replace oil. This possibility exists primarily in the use of biofuels in vehicles and other forms of transportation that utilize petroleum products. Biofuels, therefore, are potentially helpful in so far as they can replace the use of petroleum in transportation.

Background

Biofuel is defined as solid, liquid or gas fuel derived from recently-dead biological ma terial, whereas fossil fuels are derived from long-dead biological material. Theoretically, biofuels can be produced from any (biological) carbon source; although, the most common sources are photosynthetic plants. Globally, biofuels are most commonly used to power vehicles and cooking stoves. Biofuel industries are expanding in Europe, Asia and the Americas.

Can biofuels help combat global warming ? Biofuels produce less greenhouse gases. Traditional petroleum-based gasoline and diesel fuels emit substantial amounts of greenhouse gases. Biofuels, by contrast, burn much more cleanly, emitting far fewer greenhouse gases from the tail-pipe. Any such reduction in emissions is valuable in the face of global warming, and should be embraced. Carbon neutral biofuels only emit CO2 they draw from atmosphere. Biofuels are less polluting than fossil fuels because CO2 is absorbed in the process of photosynthesis by the very plants that are being used to produce biofuel. Another way to think of this is that, in the cycle of this process, plants are grown which absorb C02 from the atmosphere to photosynthesize and grow. When these plants are converted into biofuel and then burned, t h e C02 that is released i n t o the atmosphere is equivalent to the C02 t h a t was absorbed by the plant in the process of photosynthesis. This means that the amount of C02 released is equivalent to the amount absorbed,

Biofuels production and use may increase greenhouse gas emissions. Almost all biofuels used today cause more greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels if the full emissions costs of producing these “green” fuels are taken into account. Plant-based fuels were originally billed as better than fossil fuels because the carbon released when they were burned was balanced by the carbon absorbed when the plants grew. But even that equation proved overly simplistic because the process of turning plants into fuels causes its own emissions— such as refining and transport. Developing new land for biofuels can release greenhouse gases. Separate studies released by Princeton University and the Nature Conservancy show that ethanol may be even more dangerous for the environment than fossil fuels are. As a Princeton study points out, clearing previously untouched land to grow biofuel crops releases long-sequestered carbon into the atmosphere. While planting corn and sugar cane in already tilled land is fine, a problem aris

2

Biofuels and that biofuels are, thus, carbon neutral.

-ses when farmers churn up new land to grow more fuel or the food and feed displaced by biofuel crops. In addition The destruction of natural ecosystems — whether rain forest in the tropics or grasslands in South America — not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when they are burned and plowed, but also deprives the planet of natural sponges to absorb carbon emissions. Cropland also absorbs far less carbon than the rain forests or even scrubland that it replaces.

What are the economic pros and cons of biofuels? Biofuels are essential to replacing waning and high-priced petroleum. Robert Zubrin wrote in the Spring 2008 edition of The New Atlantis, “On the world markets, the cost of a barrel of oil is, at this writing, over $120. In the United States, a gallon of gasoline now costs, on average, roughly $3.50. Even when adjusted for inflation, both of those figures are now higher than they have ever been—higher than during the 1973 oil embargo, higher than during any subsequent peak. And yet, bizarrely, instead of focusing their attention on the staggering cost of oil and its ruinous implications for global growth and economic wellbeing, American policymakers and energy analysts have begun to decry a different fuel—one that holds the key to ending our dependency on expensive oil purchased from countries with interests inimical to our own. Biofuels can play a central part in weaning the United States from oil.”

Developing a biofuel economy is more expensive than alternatives. An Oregon State University study done by Dr. Bill Jaeger looked at the energy (BTU’s) contained in certain fossil fuels and biofuels and compared to the fossil fuel energy required to produce, process, and transport them. Replacing a BTU of gasoline with a BTU of biofuel will contribute to energy independence if fewer fossil fuel inputs are required for biofuel than petroleum based fuels. For this to be the case, a biofuel’s net energy balance ratio (NEB) must be greater than that of gasoline or pertroleum diesel. If a biofuel represents a small improvement in NEB ratio, but a big increase in cost then it is not a viable means of achieving energy independence. For all of the biofuels studied by Jaeger, energy independence is achieved at costs that are 6 to 28 times higher than other policy options Sourcee: OSU report on biofuel

3

Biofuels Biofuel will help developing countries improve their economy. Researchers at the Overseas Development Institute have argued that biofuels could help to reduce poverty in the developing world, through increased employment, wider economic growth multipliers and energy price effects. With regards to the potential for poverty reduction or exacerbation, biofuels rely on many of the same policy, regulatory or investment shortcomings that impede agriculture as a route to poverty reduction. Since many of these shortcomings require policy improvements at a country level rather than a global one, they argue for a country-by-country analysis of the potential poverty impacts of biofuels

Biofuel has made economies of developing countries more unstable. In 2008 the British anti-poverty charity War on Want released a report linking the demand for biofuels and other ‘green’ alternatives to petroleum to violent land seizures taking place in Colombia. The report outlines how the production of biofuels, specifically palm oil, has led to the forced displacement of thousands of Afro-Colombians from the southwest region of Colombia. In addition, biofuel development increases demand for scarce water resources in certain parts of South East Asia.

Does the production of biofuels harm food prices? Food sources are not required to produce biofuel. Many forms of biofuel do not use food sources. While corn, grains, and sugar are common biomass sources of biofuel, non-edible sources include switchgrass and trees (cellulosic) as well as algae. It is wrong, therefore, to pin biofuels as always a threat to food-sources. In the case of algea. 10 million gallons of biodiesal could be created by only a 100-acre field of algea. Biofuel crops do not harm food production and can actually help. The United States, which produced 3 billion gallons of ethanol in 2002, grew its production to 8 billion gallons in 2007, replacing some 5 percent of our gasoline supply. In the last five years, despite the nearly threefold growth of the corn ethanol industry the amount of corn grown in the United States has vastly increased. The U.S. corn crop grew by 45 percent, the production of distillers grain quadrupled,

Biofuel production can increase the price of many foods. A World Bank policy research paper published on July 2008 found that the increase in food commodities prices was led by grains, with sharp price increases in 2005 despite record crops worldwide. From January 2005 until June 2008, maize prices almost tripled, wheat increased 127 percent, and rice rose 170 percent. The increase in grain prices was followed by increases in fats and oil prices in mid-2006. On the other hand, the study found that sugar cane production has increased rapidly, and it was large enough to keep sugar price increases small except for 2005 and early 2006. The paper concluded that biofuels produced from grains have raised food prices in combination with other related factors between 70 to 75 percent, but ethanol produced from sugar cane has not contributed significantly to the recent increase in food commodities prices. Biofuel consume crops that could be used to feed people. Demand for fuel in rich countries is now competing against demand for food in poor countries. Cars, not people, used much of the increase

4

Biofuels and the net U.S. corn production of food for humans and feed for animals increased 34 percent. Contrary to claims that farmers have cut other crops to grow more corn, U.S. soybean plantings this year are expected to be up 18 percent and wheat plantings up 6 percent. U.S. farm exports are up 23 percent over last year. So while it is true that there is now much more corn being used for ethanol than ever before, there is also much more total corn than ever before, including much more for food and feed than ever before, and still plenty of land, and room for implementation of improved methods to grow yet more.

in world grain consumption in 2006. Over 450 pounds of corn are needed to fill a 25-gallon tank with ethanol—enough calories to feed a person for a year. Poor people spend a higher portion of their income on food, so higher food prices hurt them more. If a person in a developi n g country spends 6 0 % of their money o n food and then t h e food prices doub l e , they will experience immediate hardship. According to the U N , aid organizations that buy food and send it to poor countries are only able to send half as much food on the same budget if prices double. But the higher prices mean there are more people in need of aid.

References Ethanol: A Convenient Solution to an Inconvenient Truth. Better Environmental Solutions. Dec. 2007. http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt/Ethanol_a_Convnient_Solution_to_the_Inconvenient_Truth_ report.pdf Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land Use Change Timothy Searchinger, Ralph Heimlich. Feb. 7, 2008 Science. Elizabeth Rosenthal. Biofuels Deemed a Greenhouse Threat. New York Times. Feb. 2008. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/science/earth/08wbiofuels.html The Problem With Biofuels. Washington Post. Feb. 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022602827.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_relating_to_biofuels#Issues Robert Zubrin. In Defense of Biofuels. The New Atlantis. Spring 2008. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/ publications/in-defense-of-biofuels Biofuels, Agriculture and Poverty Reduction. Overseas Development Institute. 2007. http://www.odi.org. uk/resources/specialist/natural-resource-perspectives/resources/specialist/natural-resource-perspectives107.pdf

Human Embryonic Stem Cells

sffdsfsdfsdfdsfsdfsdf

Background

Ultimately, every cell in the human body can be traced back to a fertilized egg that came into existence from the union of egg and sperm. But the body is made up of over 200 different types of cells, not just one. All of these cell types come from a pool of stem cells in the early embryo. During early development, as well as later in life, various types of stem cells give rise to the specialized or differentiated cells that carry out the specific functions of the body, such as skin, blood, muscle, and nerve cells. Over the past two decades, scientists have been gradually deciphering the processes by which unspecialized stem cells become the many specialized cell types in the body. Embryonic stem cells, which can be derived from a very early stage in human development, have the potential to produce all of the body’s cell types. This property makes stem cells appealing for scientists seeking to create medical treatments that replace lost or damaged cells. The debate over stem-cell research incorporates a number of social, ethical, and religious considerations. The detailed arguments, studies, and facts of this debate are laid out below.

5

Does ES cells research have substantial promise for advancing public health? Embryonic stem cells have extraordinary potential in treatments of all kinds of diseases. According to Wikipedia, stem cells could potentially cure a variety of diseases including brain damage, cancer, spinal cord injury, muscle damage, heart damage, low blood supply, baldness, missing teeth, deafness, blindness and vision impairment, and ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease). There are several recent scientific break-throughs including Hans Kierstead’s (UC Irvine) experiment that repairs a rat’s damaged spine with stem cell injections. In the American Journal of Physiology, team from the Mayo Clinic shows the potency of embryonic stem cells in rebuilding an infracted heart. Potential social impact through a cure for chronic diseases such as Alzheimer’s or diabetes. A study from the ADA pointed out the potential impact a cure to diabetes would have noti n g that there are 20.8 million Americ a n children and adults with diabetes (roughly 6% of the population). The estim a t e d total financial cost for diabetes in the U.S., in

Some scientist may be “over-promising” the benefits of embryonic stem cells research. Researchers such as Princeton developmental biologist Shirley Tilghman warns that the idea that it was unreasonable to think that it was just a matter of a few years before we would be able to transplant stem cells and cure a lot of neurological disorders, like Alzheimer’s disease. She says, “some of the public pronouncements in the field of stem-cell research come close to over-promising at best and delusional fantasizing at worst” Embryonic stem cells treatments will be expensive since they have to be individualized. According to Christopher Scott, director of Stanford’s Program on Stem Cells in Society, customized treatments that can’t rely on economies of scale are likely to be very expensive. For a stem cell regimen, the tissue in which the stem cells reside must be biopsied—perhaps more than once. For any cell therapy the methods for isolating, growing, and expanding the cultures must be perfected—complications not yet perfected for embryonic stem cells. Like any transplant, the cells must be free of contamination with unwanted viral, bacterial, or chemical agents. To avoid “homegrown” rotocols and to ensure quality, companies

Human Embryonic Stem Cells -cluding costs of medical care, disability, and premature death, was $132 billion in 2002. This all makes the potential health and social benefits of stem cell research substantial, if it were to lead to something of a cure for diabetes. Approximately 4.5 million Americans currently have AD, with annual costs for the disease estimated to exceed $100 billion. Moreover, the rapid aging of the American population threatens to increase this burden significantly in the coming decades.

6

and hospitals will need to standardize laboratory, manufacturing, and clinical practices. Health professionals will need training to provide proper informed consent and oversight of the procedures. Some researchers assert that for each patient, between 10 and 20 technicians will need to work fulltime in specialized laboratories. The costs for such individualized treatments would be astronomical.

How does ES cells research compare to adult stem cells research? Adult stem cell and embryonic stem cell research should be pursued equally aggressively because they both have unique characteristics and applications. “Scientists who are having surprising success with adult stem cells find their progress being used by activists to argue that embryo research is not just immoral but also unnecessary. But to those in the field, the only answer is to press ahead on all fronts. ‘There are camps for adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells,’ says Douglas Melton, a co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. ‘But these camps only exist in the political arena. There is no disagreement among scientists over the need to aggressively pursue both in order to solve important medical problems.’” Embryonic stem cells are more versatile. Embryonic stem cells make up a significant proportion of a developing embryo, while adult stem cells exist as minor populations within a mature individual (e.g. in every 1,000 cells of the bone marrow, only 1 will be a usable stem cell). Thus, embryonic stem cells are likely to be easier to isolate and grow ex vivo than adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells divide more rapidly than adult stem cells, potentially making it easier to generate large numbers of cells for therapeutic means. In contrast, adult stem cell might not divide fast enough to offer immediate treatment.

Adult stem cells have already produced therapies, while embryonic stem cells have not. Moreover, there have been many advances in adult stem cell research. In late 2007, Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University succeeded in performing an experiment where pluripotent adult stem cells were manufactured from differentiated fibroblast by the addition of specific transcription factors. The newly created stem cells were developed into an embryo and were integrated into newborn mouse tissues, analogous to the properties of embryonic stem cells. In specific cases, a d u l t stem cells can be better because they are easier to control and t a r g e t to create desired tissues. Adult stem cells taken from patients themselves avoid immune rejection better than embryonic stem cells. When asked about whether making customized organs and tissues [from stem cell implantation] patient-by-patient will be cost effective, Anthony Atala, a Researcher and Physician at Wake Forest University who in 1999 created the first human organ, replies, “you can’t argue with autologous.” Atala and other researchers argue that making organs from a patient’s own cells is the best way to go, regardless of cost.

Human Embryonic Stem Cells

7

Are embryos human? When should “life” begin? Embryos are not equivalent to human life while they are still incapable of surviving outside the womb. Blastocysts are a cluster of human cells that have not differentiated into distinct organ tissue; making cells of the inner cell mass no more “human” than a skin cell. Others define that the life of Homo sapiens only begins when the heartbeat develops, which is during the 5th week of pregnancy, or when the brain begins developing activity, which has been detected at 54 days after conception. In addition, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine has more than 1/3 of zygotes do not implant after fertilization which means that more embryos are lost to chance than embryonic stem cells research.

Human “life” begins at “conception” when a sperm fertilizes an egg cell. The destruction of an embryo at any point beyond “conception” the destruction of “human life”. From the perspective of Christians, replication of specific tissue requires cells to receive an enormous number of specific signals. What defines a human life is the cellular mass that is able to produce and integrate this enormous number of sequences—this occurs shortly after fertilization.

References http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_treatments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryonic_stem_cell Scott, Christopher. Stem Cell Now: From the Experiment That Shook the World to the New Politics of Life. New York: New York. P.I Press, 2007 Gibbs, Nancy. Stem Cells: The Hope and The Hype. Time. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1220538,00.html Cyranoski, David. Simple switch turns cells embryonic. Nature 6 June 2007. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7145/full/447618a.html Biologists Make Skin Cells Work Like Stem Cells. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/06/ science/06cnd-cell.html?_r=1&oref=slogin http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/aug2000/od-23.htm “Deriving Stem Cells Without Killing Embryo”. Medical News Today. 2006. http://www.medicalnewstoday. com/healthnews.php?newsid=50329

Genetically Modified Foods

sffdsfsdfsdfdsfsdfsdf

Genetic engineering begins with the identification and isolation of a gene which expresses a desirable trait, with the aid of restriction enzymes. Then a recipient plant is selected, and the gene is inserted and incorporated into its genome through a vector such as agrobacterium, through a gene gun shooting an elemental particle covered in plasmid DNA, electroporation, or a virus. Once part of the recipient, the newly inserted gene becomes part of the genome of the recipient and is regulated in the same way as its other genes.

Background

Genetically modified (GM) foods are derived from organisms whose DNA has been modified through genetic engineering, unlike similar food organisms developed through the conventional genetic modification of selective breeding (plant breeding and animal breeding) or mutation breeding. GM foods were first put on the market in the early 1990s. Typically, genetically modified foods are plant products: soybean, corn, canola, and cotton seed oil, but animal products have been developed.

8

Are GM foods safe/healthy for consumers? Research literature says that GM foods are as safe as their organic counterparts. In 2001, the research directorate of the EU commission released a summary of 81 scientific studies financed by the EU conducted over a 15-year period, to determine whether genetically modified products were unsafe or insufficiently tested: none found evidence of harm to humans or to the environment. A 2004 review of feeding trials found no differences among animals eating genetically modified plants. A 2005 review by the Italian Journal of Animal Science concluded that first-generation genetically modified foods had been found to be similar in nutrition and safety to nonGM foods, but noted that second-generation foods with “significant changes in constituents” would be more difficult to test, and would require animal studies. Two 2009 papers from Nutrition Reviews and the Food Science Journal found that although most studies concluded that GM foods do not differ in nutrition or cause toxic effects in animals. Genetic modification is considered safe in medicine; why not in foods? The human insulin

There are instances when GM foods were unsafe. A large media event occured in 1998 when scientist Árpád Pusztai, who works on plant lectins, reported that he had found that rats fed potatoes genetically modified to contain lectin developed immune system damage and other serious health problems. Even though the lectin itself caused no adverse effects his conclusion was that the GM process had somehow made the potatoes less nutritious. Pusztai later reviewed the industry-sponsored study and found that seven of the forty rats in the study that were fed the GM crop died within two weeks while several others developed stomach lesions. An independently funded researcher, Professor Bela Darvas of Debrecen University was refused more Mon 810 corn to use in his studies after informing Monsanto that the variety was lethal to two Hungarian protected insect species and an insect classified as a rare. GM food safety tests by biotech companies can be trusted. The only requirement for approval of genetically engineered food products is that it should be grossly similar to its natural counterpart. This is called the principle of “substantial equivalence”. To decide if a modified product is substantially equivalent, only a limi

Genetically Modified Foods used to treat diabetes, for example, is genetically engineered: the human gene that codes for insulin has been transferred into bacteria and yeast, a process that involves crossing the species barrier. By what rationale can the technology be safe and ethical when saving lives in medical treatment, but not when used to make plants resistant to pests in order to save people from hunger?

9

ited set of characteristics selected and tested by the manufacturer are compared. If this procedure reveals no significant difference between the genetically engineered product and its natural counterpart, then no further food safety testing is required. Critics argue that regulators should use independent studies, not industry studies for substantial equivalence, to prevent manipulation of data.

Are GM foods good for the environment? GM foods are environmentally friendly. Studies showed that using herbicide resistant GM crops allowed better weed control and that under such conditions there were fewer weeds and fewer weed seeds. In addition, GM crops are important in sustainable food security and environmental management. On our planet, 18% of the land mass is used for agricultural production. This fraction cannot be increased substantially. It is absolutely essential that the yield per unit of land increases beyond current levels given that: The human population is still growing, and will reach about nine billion by 2040;70,000 km² of agricultural land are lost annually to growth of cities and other nonagricultural uses; Consumer diets in developing countries are increasingly changing from plantbased proteins to animal protein, a trend that requires a greater amount of crop-based feeds.

GM crops are environmentally unfriendly because they affect natural processes/wildlife. Genetically modified foods threaten plant biodiversity. Planting GM crops is not a question of choice: once they are planted somewhere, crops elsewhere become contaminated by them. This could be especially disastrous for organic farmers. GM crops that contain their own pesticides often kill more than their targeted insects, producing a chain reaction of unintended consequences, among them pesticide resistant “super-pests”; GM crops designed to be herbicide resistant (so that large amounts of strong weed killer can be safely used on them) have already spread to related weed species, which then also pick up the resistance to the herbicides and become “super-weeds” that are difficult to control. Finally, in November 2008, a report by Greenpeace published results of a report linking a Monsanto produced strain of transgenic maize to lower levels of fertility in mice

References http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_foods Genetic Engineering: The Future of Foods. http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/603_food.html Can Organic Farming “Feed the World”?. http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_ farming.html