Genetic modification can be divided into two main categories, the modification of genes within a species and the manipulation of genes between species, moving genetic information across the species barrier, what we call transgenics.
The difference between the traditional genetic manipulations described previously and the new technologies and methods we may embark on today lies in that before the manipulation was always contained within a species through the use of natural tool, but now we use the technology to move genes from species to species, across the natural barriers which keep gene pools separated and defined, using tools which we have artificially created for this very purpose. This is where the ethical, cultural and spiritual issues arise, and where we may risk our ecological safety. However, this type of genetic manipulation also promises to yield huge benefits in fields such as, medical and pharmaceutical, forensic, environmental, research and developmental, and agricultural. These potential advantages and drawbacks will need to be further investigated to make a conclusive decision on whether the new wave of the genetic engineering of organisms should be employed and to what degree it should be done so.
In terms of the moral issues of genetic engineering in New Zealand several opinions and beliefs must be considered and evaluated. The Maori, whom are the indigenous inhabitants of this country, believe they bear any spiritual costs associated with environmental degradation irrespective of who initiates the transgression. This responsibility the Maori feel must be acknowledged. Also many religious figures believe “Life is a gift given in trust”, “Coherence of the biosphere is complicated and precious” and “Creation is our being not our enemy”. These ideas too must be accepted in arguing the merits of genetic modification. Personally, I believe at the root of the arguments of all bio-ethics, what must be defined is what is actually natural? Is it natural the way bacteria die from its own toxins? Yes, because self-polluting is the level of complexity that bacteria function at. Therefore we can define natural to be the level of complexity of process and logic that your biological society or system allows you to function at. Is genetic modification natural? Yes, because that is the level of complexity of process that our biological system allows us to achieve. This is the only way a scientist can approach the matter. This does not however mean that we should not fully analyse any decisions we make about genetic modification and jump right into it! Evolution gave us genetic modification, yes, but it also gave us minds, and we must aim to use not one or the other, but both. Minds are something which evolution has not yet given the bacteria, which is why they continue to poison themselves.
Genetic tampering of organisms is natural, but is it in our best interests? Introducing a change into a biological system, either intentionally or accidentally, is likely to create effects on the whole system, many of which we will not be able to predict given the complexity of the system or control given the vastness of it.
At the foundations of evolutionary life lies genetic variation. This variation is the fingerprints of our history and proof of our being. It is something which can’t be artificially created, and if or when destroyed by cloning of a pest-resistant pine tree, or sheep which makes flawless wool, will be a loss which will not be taken into consideration by those who calculate net profits of the agricultural or forestry sectors. These are the real problems of genetic engineering. I can’t talk about what any imaginary gods, or spirits may think of it.
Now we must investigate the benefits of developing genetic technologies, and organisms. Genetic modification allows us to identify genes and understand their functions in research, also to study organisms, their characteristics and help to understand their diseases. We can investigate pests and diseases in animals and plants, and manipulate these to reduce the use of chemicals and pesticides in agriculture. Genetic information we develop can be used to help treat human diseases, and the potential to treat many serious diseases (heart defects) at a very early genetic stage in the zygote will free up valuable medical resources, not to mention the possibility to prevent diseases which were previously fatal. Genetic modification can assist us in cleaning our surroundings by consuming our waste products like plastics, and cleaning up our environmental accidents such as oil spills. Through genetic research we allow the future genetic engineers a better education and understanding, by learning off our foundation.
I will look at two specific instances genetic modification is used on farm animals in New Zealand to get a more focused look at precise practical benefits and problems. To do this the current approach to genetically modified organisms in New Zealand will need to be understood. All genetically altered organisms must be contained in a laboratory in New Zealand, at least before October 2003, and any genetic modification carried out is strictly controlled through a comprehensive system of laws and regulations. The Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) has responsibility for approving or declining proposals to research, test, import or manufacture genetically modified organisms in New Zealand. In their decision attention will be paid to the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act, as well as members of the public, who have the opportunity to express their views on any application that has been publicly notified.
PPL Therapeutics is currently field-testing sheep in New Zealand that have been genetically modified. These sheep have been given a human gene which produces the protein alpha-1 antitrypsin, by a process known as somatic cell nuclear transfer. The gene is only required to be expressed in the milk-producing mammary glands, so that the protein can be harvested from the milk the sheep produces. This is achieved by fusing the promoter gene for beta lactoglobulin with the human gene for alpha-1 antitrypsin. The human gene will only be expressed when the beta-lactoglobulin gene is turned on, which only happens in the mammary glands. The fused DNA is then inserted into a nucleus which is inserted into a fertilised sheep embryo. The fertilised sheep embryo now containing transgenic DNA is implanted into a surrogate mother to develop. If the offspring develops into a ewe, when it reproduces and lactates its milk will contain the protein, and any offspring it produces will contain the gene for producing the needed protein. If the offspring develops into a ram then it will not produce the protein, but any female offspring it branching off it will.
The valuable protein which is being produced in these sheep is used for the treatment of cystic fibrosis, a human genetic disorder where the sufferers lack a substance that regulates protein secretion across a cell membrane. The progressive loss of lung function from childhood results. With an intravenous treatment of alpha-1 antitrypsin once a week the life expectancy of victims is doubled. The treatment is available without the need for genetic modification as the protein can also be derived from blood plasma; however this process of genetic manipulation in using sheep as “bio-reactors” to produce the protein allows a greater quantity of the treatment to be produced at a cheaper cost.
ERMA had to assess all risks and suggest prevention methods before approving the application from PPL Therapeutics to produce 4000+ transgenic sheep. The escape or release of animals was a risk, however while sheep can and do escape they are usually either recaptured or die. Practical farming experience also has shown that sheep only wander minor distances of a few kilometres. Mating with sheep outside the containment area was another problem which meant the environment may be in danger of contamination of the modified DNA. This risk was managed conversely by using mostly females that only mate at a certain stage of their oestrus cycle, lowering the probability that an animal will both escape and be able reproduce. Also a successful live birth outside the containment area is known to be very unlikely to occur. Inter-species transformation of the genetically modified organisms DNA is very unlikely as genetic information seldom naturally traverses across the species barrier.
This application of genetic modification is beneficial in increasing the standard of living, yet there are also risks of contaminating the environment outside the containment area which must be considered.
Transgenic cattle have also been produced in New Zealand after ERMA gave approval to AgResearch to go ahead with field tests. As with sheep the same set of contamination risks were present and were reduced to an acceptable level before testing began. Several separate experiments were done on the cattle one of which concerned inserting additional copies of the gene that produces casein, to increase the protein content of the milk. Another experiment involved disrupting the B-lactoglobulin gene to change the composition of the cow’s milk. The protein produced by this gene causes lactose allergies from the milk in humans. The final experiment involved inserting a human gene that codes for a protein called myelin. This protein may provide a possible treatment for multiple sclerosis. All these experiments once again used somatic cell nuclear transfer.
These two examples of genetic engineering on farm animals in New Zealand show that with the right precautions, genetically modified organisms can be a safe and successful way of producing a more beneficial situation.
I can finally conclude that genetic engineering is a viable technology as long as barriers and safeguards are setup to separate genetically modified organisms from the natural forms of organisms and the rest of our biosphere and care is taken to minimise risks of DNA contamination. The benefits are very promising from the limited tools we have available now, and if we do not continue moving forward with the technology we run the risk of being left behind as techniques and knowledge relevant to genetic engineering become the intellectual property of others. The message is thus stated; proceed with caution.
