Genetics & Business

Genetics & Business

Contemporary Issues in Management Bhisham Padha 45 MBA 07 18 April 2009

The term "genetic engineering” was coined in Jack Williamson's science fiction novel Dragon's Island, published in 1951, two years before James Watson and Francis Crick showed that DNA could be the medium of transmission of genetic information.

Perspectives Biotechnology is a tremendous power. It represents the power to quickly, precisely and intentionally alter life. It could be used to achieve many benefits that would receive broad public support, it could also, potentially, be used to achieve goals that would inspire public fear. It is the intentional alteration of life that makes biotechnology a social issue.

Every living thing on the planet is built from the same types of molecules, and at the molecular level of life, every living thing functions in fundamentally the same way, whether a human, a goldfish, a maple tree, or an earthworm. Biotechnology operates at that molecular level of life. -

Eric Grace, 'Biotechnology Unzipped'

The very contemporary issue Most scientists involved in genetic research would argue that the ability to shortcut the evolutionary process is indeed sensational, but answering the second part of the question is not a matter for science alone to debate. People must be able to trust the food they eat, and that trust is based on human perceptions that are influenced by ethical values, economics and politics, as well as by scientific evidence.

The first genetically engineered medicine was synthetic human insulin, approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 1982. Another early application of genetic engineering was to create human growth hormone as replacement for a compound that was previously extracted from human cadavers. In 1987 the FDA approved the first genetically engineered vaccine for humans, for hepatitis B. Since these early uses of the technology in medicine, the use of GM has gradually expanded to supply a number of other drugs and vaccines. One of the best-known applications of genetic engineering is the creation of genetically

The big issue Rice is the world's most important staple food - with more than half of the global population eating it every day. It has been grown around the world for over 10,000 years and is cultivated in 113 countries. Rice is also a key ingredient in a wide variety of processed foods ranging from baby food to the more obvious rice noodles. But all this is under threat as genetic engineering (GE) continues to creep up on our most valuable food. Today, GE rice only exists in field trials. But all that could change tomorrow as agri-chemical companies and some governments around the globe are trying to commercialise it. Ecological farming is the safest solution to the food crisis and looming climate change

The German chemical giant Bayer is trying to sell a herbicide resistant variety of GE rice to countries - for commercial planting.Conventional and organic rice is at great risk from being contaminated by GE strains and controlled by multinational corporations and governments.  The rice made by Bayer (called LL62) has been genetically engineered to withstand high doses of glufosinate, a herbicide sprayed on rice fields to control a wide range of weeds. It's no surprise that Bayer also makes the glufosinate. Any use of the GE rice will boost their chemical sales as a consequence. While this is a nice set up for Bayer shareholders it places farmers, consumers and the environment at risk. Glufosinate is considered to be so dangerous to humans and the environment that it will soon be banned in Europe in accordance with recently-adopted EU legislation. The Bayer GE rice has been shown to have a different nutritional composition than its natural counterpart. It also has a high risk of producing superweeds by transferring its new gene to weedy relatives. Rice traders and producers worldwide reject the GE rice,

Its Real GMOs are in our: Food Clothes Medicines & The Next Kentucky Fried Chicken

‘We haven’t had a single catastrophe to engender such sweeping public apprehension over genetically modified organisms, and yet so many people remain opposed to them.’ Lomak Amrahs, Princeton University

history The general principle of producing a GMO is to add new genetic material into an organism's genome. This is called genetic engineering and was made possible through the discovery of DNA and the creation of the first recombinant bacteria in 1973, i.e., E .coli expressing a salmonella gene. This led to concerns in the scientific community about potential risks from genetic engineering, which were thoroughly discussed at the Asilomar Conference. One of the main recommendations from this meeting was that government oversight of recombinant DNA research should be established until the technology was deemed safe. Herbert Boyer then founded the first company to use recombinant DNA technology, Genentech, and in 1978 the company announced creation of an E. coli strain producing the human protein insulin.

A Brief History of Transgenics 1944 - Molecular nature of genetic material discovered 1953 – Double helix discovered 1960s – Geneticists begin researching how to use pure DNA to modify the genetic characteristics of organisms 1970s – Scientists find that eukaryotic cells can incorporate pure DNA fed to them and express the genes present in it 1983 – Transgenic plants become a reality 1994-Calgene's Favr Savr tomato is approved for commercial production by the US Department of Agriculture. 2005-Europe is resisting modified foods, and in the

GMO A genetically modified organism (GMO) or genetically engineered organism (GEO) is an organism whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques. These techniques, generally known as recombinant DNA technology, use DNA molecules from different sources, which are combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes. This DNA is then transferred

+ there is need to seriously consider the role biotechnology can play in unlock-ing the country's agricultural potential to ensure food security. Food insecurity will continue in Africa because of world population explosion. The rate of global population increase currently stands 3.5 percent against an increase in food production of 2.5 percent and it is expected that Africa will bear the brunt of the shortfall. Experts are of the opinion that biotechnology can make up for the difference since it assures higher yields, nutritionally rich varieties, reduced costs of production, less damage from pests and diseases and, more importantly for Africa, drought resistant varieties. Africa was bypassed by the green revolution, now benefitting countries like india and Pakistan, that were begging for food in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Consequently, Africa is not self reliant in terms of food and relies on food aid and food imports from these countries that were food insecure two decades ago. It beats logic that Kenya, whose 80 percent of the economy depends on agriculture, has been reduced to an importer of basic food like maize, wheat, rice, sugar, among others. The biotechnology wave, regarded as God's territory is now sweeping across the globe and it is upon African countries to decide on what aspects of the technology to adopt for their own good. Encompassing a broad spectrum ranging from tissue culture to genetic engineering, its potential is limitless and implications are both positive and negative, but what is clear is that it holds the potential of ensuring food security for the continent's millions facing starvation. Commending on the new technology, renowned scientist, Norman Borlaug, says "You need it to further improve yields so that you can produce the food that's needed on the soil that's well adapted to agricultural production. Or you will be pushed into cutting down more of our forests."

Monsanto is an agricultural company. We apply innovation and technology to help farmers around the world produce more while conserving more. We help farmers grow yield sustainably so they can be successful, produce healthier foods, better animal feeds and more fiber, while also reducing agriculture's impact on our environment.

Grasp tomorrow’s challenge. By 2050, say United Nations’ experts, our planet must double food production to feed an anticipated population of 9.3 billion people. (That figure is 40 percent higher than today’s 6.6 billion.) Then factor in a pressured water supply, an energy-supply crunch and climate change. How do we surmount these obstacles? Agricultural innovation holds a key solution – and Monsanto pledges to do our part. By 2030, Monsanto commits to help farmers produce more and conserve more by: Developing improved seeds that help farmers double yields from 2000 levels for corn, soybeans and cotton, with a $10 million grant pledged to improve wheat and rice yields. Conserving resources through developing seeds that use one-third fewer key resources per unit of output to grow crops while working to lessen habitat loss and improve water quality. Helping improve the lives of all farmers who use our products, including an additional five million people in resource-poor farm families by 2020.

++++ • Producing Human Insulin - help those with diabetes • Creating New Organs - save lives • Gene Therapy - fight diseases • Agricultural Biotechnology - increase productivity, make plants better

more independent studies are needed some tests have shown animals fed GM crops showed profound changes in their livers, kidneys and hearts, and most alarming is the damage to the reproductive organs and DNA function. Even Monsanto’s own studies on trangenic corn MON863 showed toxicity in animals liver and kidneys. The only human feeding study on GM food, published in Nature in 2004, found that genes inserted into GM soybeans transfered into the DNA of human gut

Health concerns aside, Ellis argues that tampering with the genetic makeup of plants can have unforeseen consequences for plant life, such as the development of “super weeds” that are resistant to pesticides. it’s also possible that plants “emitting toxins as a result of modification could cause natural pests to mutate into bigger, stronger, more resistant

“genetic pollution” or cross-contamination. Opponents of genetic modification worry that pollen from genetically modified fields could eventually find its way to fields of unmodified crops, and even to wild plants, potentially creating untested and unpredictable strains of plant life.

In 1970, Henry Kissinger said, “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control the people.” How do you control food? By consolidating agricultural interests into what was to be termed agribusiness, creating genetically modified organisms out of heritage seeds with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, patenting the new seeds, and making sure that these new seeds are force-fed to U.S. farmers as well as the rest of the world. By holding the patents on these seeds and requiring farmers to purchase new seeds every year, the control is complete. Also, by controlling how these GMO seeds are created, other more sinister uses come to mind. But first, you must convince the world of your good intentions. This is accomplished through lies, deception, and a bit of media manipulation. By promising farmers that this technology was safe, and would result in increased yields at less cost, they were more than happy to give it a try. The fact that in most cases this claim was false had yet to be proven by the innocent farmers that believed the lie. By the time independent studies started revealing that GMO is harmful, it was too late, and the freight train called agri-business was on its way to fulfilling its purpose – to make as much money as possible by spreading GMO seeds as far as possible, and thus gaining control of the population

--Environmental and health impacts of GMOs: the evidence

Effects on biodiversity

The environmental effects of genetically engineered crops designed to resist insect pests and herbicides are well documented. They are as follows

Insect-resistant crops kill specific pests known to threaten the crop. In addition to their intended deadly effects, they are also: • Toxic to ‘non-target’ organisms, such as butterflies. Long-term exposure to pollen from GM maize that expresses the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin has been found to cause adverse effects on the behaviour1 and survival2 of the monarch butterfly, the best-known of all North American butterflies. Effects on European butterflies are virtually unknown, as few studies have been conducted. Those few do, however, suggest cause for concern that European butterflies would suffer as a result of insectresistant GM crop being planted.3, 4, 5, 6 • Toxic to other, beneficial insects. Genetically engineered Bt crops adversely affect7 insects that are important in the

Agricultural wastes from Bt maize have been identified entering water courses, where the Bt toxin might be toxic to certain insects.21 This demonstrates the complexity of interactions in the natural environment and underlines the shortcomings of the risk assessment. • Bt maize is more susceptible to a plant lice (aphid) than conventional maize, caused by changes in sap chemistry. These changes have not been described in a single application to market Bt maize but have important ecological implications. This demonstrates that plantinsect interactions are too complex to be assessed by the risk assessment. Herbicide tolerant (HT) crops are associated with: • Toxic effects of herbicides on ecosystems. Roundup, the herbicide sold by Monsanto in conjunction with its Roundup Ready GM crops, has been shown to be a potential endocrine disrupter, i.e., could interfere with hormones.22 It is also toxic to frog larvae(tadpoles).23 • Increased weed tolerance to herbicide. Evolution of weed resistance to Roundup is now a serious problem in the US and

India

conclusion Through my questionnaire and other sources I found that the public was aware that GMOs are a possibility for the future, however they did not know much about them, how they are developed and why.

They also have no idea it is possible that they could be eating them in the next year without knowing it. Most of them were against genetic modification, but everbody felt if GMOs were going to be put on the market, they should be tested for long term effects on humans and the environment.

References 1. Hans Jonas: The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of Ethics for the Technological Age (1979) Hans Jonas: On Technology, Medicine and Ethics (1985) 2. Department of Biotechnology Ministry of Science & Technology, Government of India 3. THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR GENETIC ENGINEERING AND BIOTECHNOLOGY