people know the implications of genetic engineering and what it really involves and many are
ignorant of what to expect from GM.
Genetic Engineering and Animals/ Humans
Everyone knows the story of the first cloned animal. The Finn Dorset sheep, known as
Dolly, was the first new-born mammal to be cloned from adult cells and is a miracle for
scientists the world over. She had opened many new windows of opportunity for scientists
who hope to soon be able to clone humans using the same technology. The possibilities
really are endless. A single cell from an elite racehorse could be used to create hundreds of
identical copies, each with the same elite genetic makeup. However pleasing this heady new
discovery is, there is a widespread argument over whether or not cloning is right. Is it simply
a wonderful new way to develop a generation of disease-free animals and humans or is it
tampering with nature and playing God?
Many people see it as the answer to all problems, that screening can reveal vital information
about a person’s life span and health future. Genetic engineering could, in theory, identify
genetic defects early on, giving time to replace the faulty gene and cure the sufferer.
Predicting disease is a major use for genetic engineering and one that could change the way
we live forever. At present scientist are working on a genetic test known as the GeneChip.
They claim in a few years doctors will be able to take a simple mouth swab and, using the
GeneChip, look through your DNA for disease prospects. Although they have come under
fire from their critics, geneticists argue that anyone is entitled to know what their future holds
for the health-wise. Indeed they say the information can be vital for planning out the rest of
your life if, for example, you are a woman with a likelihood to develop breast cancer.
Pre-natal diagnosis is also another option that could soon be open to the public. Parents
could be made aware of any flaws there may be in their child’s DNA and could decide
whether or not to carry on with the pregnancy. Genetic engineering could also be used to
grow substances like human insulin and growth hormone on a huge level. Currently
scientists are looking at introducing blood-clotting genes for haemophiliacs and purifying milk
from GM sheep for the treatment of cystic fibrosis. They are also hoping to study presently
incurable diseases in the hope they might be able to introduce a cure using genetic
engineering.
There are also high hopes for animals in genetic engineering. Transgenic animals (or those
that have been given a gene from another animal) have many uses. They can produce more
meat and milk, feeding the starving, and they can grow faster, with the possibility of less fatty
meat. They can be bred to resist disease, but also develop disease so they might be tested
on for further research. A biotechnology firm in Cambridge is working on a transgensic pig
that could be bred to grow desperately needed organs for transplant into human beings.
The technique can also be used to ‘knock out genes’, deleting proteins so that they might
prevent BSE in cows. But it isn’t all good news for genetic engineering, in fact there is a
lengthy and strong argument as to why it is dangerous to go to take it to these levels.
Many have disagreed with the predicting of disease, saying that many people may not be
able to cope with the knowledge that they may contract a terminal disease- it could ruin
lives. Also there has been widespread outcry over the Association of Insurance Brokers’
announcement that it will not offer life insurance over £100,100 to anyone who had taken a
genetic test that had predicted fatal disease and since 1995 there has been pressure form
MP’s to develop a code of practise concerning genetic screening. There are also fears of
employers discriminating against potential employees who have the potential for life
threatening illness in later life.
Although scientists hope genetic engineering will provide many choices for parents, the
BMA has voiced it’s concerns that the industry will cause ‘selective breeding’ or the choice
to abort a baby because of undesirable characteristics such as physical traits. The BMA
have also said people have been mislead about the power to screen for later abnormalities.
It says ‘The number of abnormalities which can be detected in this way is limited and
few of the tests are conclusive’.
The problem many people have with genetic engineering is the risk of error that is involved.
Screening is complex and it is difficult to be precise every time. Faulty diagnosis could put
an end to job prospects or insurance benefits, not to mention the psychological problems
arising from finding out you have the potential to contract a fatal disease. Another very
complicated process is the replacing of the defected gene and there is no guaranteed
success. The organisation Animal Aid also recognises the problem of the mass production
of biological substances such as insulin. It believes it could lead to ‘over-prescribing’,
especially with children and growth hormone. Also, British physicist Joseph Rotblat says
genetic engineering could give the opportunity for the development of new weapons of mass
destruction.
Adding to these concerns is the topical area of animal cruelty. The HMSO released
statistics on animal testing in 1994 in the Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living
Animals, Great Britain paper. It says over 202,311 experiments were performed on animals
with harmful genetic consequences. The main worry is that scientists simply have no real
idea of what the realest of their ‘genetic tinkering’ will be and that most of the animal
suffering has not been charted. Horrific abnormalities like loss of limbs and facial clefts have
been known, as well as calves growing too quickly in the womb to be born naturally and
pigs born with a bovine growth hormone being blind, suffering from arthritis, without the
ability to reproduce.
Experiments are just not successful enough for animal right’s campaigners. Chickens bred
to be resistant to a certain disease are found to actually suffer from the disease, lambs are
born with a fatal diabetic condition and there are fears that humans will contract new strains
of fatal disease from animals, such as the case of BSE producing a strain of the human form
CJD. The topic of ‘breeding for death’ is widely debated. Mice born to contract cancer,
others dying of cystic fibrosis within forty days- is it fair to breed mice purely to carry out
‘theories’? To breed fruit flies with extra wings and eyes or mice with ears on their back,
causing immense suffering an certain death? Many say no and have joined such
organisations as Animal Aid and the CIWF to try and put a stop to this cruelty.
The CIWF released this statement on the subject of animal testing: ‘CIWF believes that the
production of trangenic farm animals cannot be down without causing suffering to
those animals and to their parents and surrogate parents. We would therefore like to
see an end to the genetic engineering of farm animals’. The Genetics Forum believe all
these problems could be controlled and some of them even solved if the government
arranged an overall framework for consistency in local ethics committees. As yet there is no
such plan.
Genetic Engineering and Plants
This is another method scientists feel will solve world-wide problems. If food can be grown
faster and with more pleasing characteristics then the economy can be boosted and the
starving can be fed. Many independent bodies are funding their own projects concerning
GM research including The European Commission and the DOE. But what are the
implication of GM foods and are they doing more harm than good?
There is a worry that genes cannot be used out of their species but researched on Gm claim
that this is no concern. There is proof that bacteria moves genes from species to species
naturally and even that ordinary plant breeding crosses genes to prevent disease. Most of
what we call ‘home grown’ crops did not originate in the UK but were brought here by
plant breeders who began selecting and crossing bred to suit UK conditions.
Scientists believe their technology has advanced dramatically which gives little room for
error. The testing is strictly controlled and assessed and since only the specific gene for a
trait is dealt with there is no trail or error method any longer- giving much tighter, better
results. It is believed Gm could revolutionise the world we live in. Farmers could find their
yields are vastly improved and that there is no more use for artificial fertilisers which reduces
the chance of pollution. There could be a greater marketability for produce, an
improvement in animal health and welfare as well as the obvious help for undeveloped
countries.
A recent survey claims most people are open to the idea of GM crops, especially if they
meet the criteria promised. Researchers claim energy producing crops could be formed in
order to preserve natural resources and that plants could be specially adapted to grow in
hostile conditions such as arid land or acidic soil. At present, slow ripening fruit is being
developed, tomato puree made from GM ingredients is on sale and coffee beans are being
modified to produce more aroma and less caffeine. Vegetarian cheese has been a huge
success, the rennet from calves stomach linings being replaced with the GM ingredient
chyomosin.
As well as the ‘necessary’ plant breeding there is also room for the possibilities of luxury.
Using genetic engineering and a wild strain of meadow grass, the British Seed Houses are
breeding a species of ‘super-grass’, designed to keep it’s lush, green appearance all year
round. Also the grass will never need to be watered, meaning it can survive through drought
and cold periods.
But despite this extensive argument for GM foods there is the downside. Again there is the
claim that scientists haven’t enough insight as to what can happen in the future. There are
claims GMO’s may continue to live in their environment long after the crops are removed,
leading to the possibly of pollution.
The production of GM Soya has also come under fire as it is not included under the current
laws and does not have to be labelled as GM. It is estimated that Soya is includes in 60%
of processed foods in America and when it was decided to plant some millions of hectares
of GM crops in North America there was an outcry. Foodfuture, a segment of the Food
and Drink Federation, claims it would not be beneficial or practical to have full information
about every single ingredient in a food on the label, but the public continues to argue their
right to know what is in the for they are consuming.
Many farmers are voicing their fears about herbicide-resistant crops. They are concerned
that the gene may copy into other species, namely weeds, causing them to also became
resistant to herbicide. This renders the herbicide useless and breeds a new species- ‘super
weeds’. Also they are scared of using GM seeds. Once companies change seeds using
GM, they can patent them so farmers have to pay to use them. This is known as bio-piracy
and is basically a legal form of theft. Farmers can be run out of business because of bio-
piracy and, consequently, because of GM.
Assisting developing countries is also not as rosy as it first appears to be. There is concerns
that the use of GM renders trade with developing countries pointless so there is a loss of
money for those less fortunate. Many also doubt if developing countries will actually receive
any of the benefits and not just line the pockets of those already wealthy. Religion has an
important part to play in GM produce. Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus object to animal genes
being used in the produce due to their religious obligations. Vegetarians also find this
[practise unacceptable with their diet.
Organisations are concerned about the spread of GM genes into other gene pools. The
Green Alliance says ‘Such spread could mean ‘genetic contamination’ of the gene
plants of some native plants and animals- in other words, naturally occurring genes
could be replaced by introduced ones, leading to a reduction in biological diversity....
the potential of release is enormous. Therefore rare events will occur.’ They are also
worried about the underhand way some governments are dealing with GM. In 1996, in the
US, GMO varieties of maize and Soya were grown with conventional breeds, meaning
people were unwillingly eating GM crops without even knowing.
Despite scientists claiming there is still a huge market for GM produce, recent public opinion
is shifting towards organic produce, especially since the blunders surrounding the BSE crisis.
Many GMO producers are now concerned that the public may begin to boycott their
products if further action is not taken to reassure them about GMO.
Sources of Information
Articles
Man or Mouse? The Guardian March 1997
The genetics policy, The Daily Mail February 1997
Hello Dolly, Telegraph Group Limited 1997
Why the gene green grass of home stay eternally emerald, The Daily Mail 1997
Genetic clues to a healthier future, Telegraph Group Limited 1996
Public oppose insurers’ genetic test policy, The Genetics Forum April 1997
Will the gene genies change the way you farm? NFU Magazine Autumn 1997
Organisation Information
Genetic Engineering, CIWF
The BMA’s views on genetic testing, BMA
Food and biotechnology, Foodfuture 1997
Ethical, safety and other questions Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research
Council
Environmental groups are concerned, The Green Alliance
Why be concerned? The Green Alliance January 1997
Genetics, Animal Aid
Websites
OneWorld.net
Text Books
Biology a functional approach, MBV Roberts
