SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Scientist has published an opinion article for the classification and regulation of genetic modified organism (GMO) based loosely on the "What Could Possibly go Wrong" meme.
After studying many different GMO projects, the authors suggest categorizing projects and prioritizing regulations based on how the genetic modification was accomplished is more important than what the intended outcome was.
We are all familiar with the "Gene splicing" principal in GMO, as it seems to get the most press. This is where a trait from one species is spliced into another species. Called HDR: homology-directed repair, a short segment or an entire gene from some other species is introduced.
Just as common is :Gene Editing", which attempts to knock out certain pre-existing genes, and or, insert (or move) segments that also occur naturally in that species. Also known as NHEJ: non-homologous end-joining. (cutting and deleting or splicing from some other place in the organism).
Both methods can introduce a Gain of Function, or a Loss of Function into the GMO crop. Regulators, and the public fears of human / fly cross-breeds (by way of hyperbole) lead to regulations that largely miss the mark. It turns out that Gene Editing may pose the greater risk. And, most Gene Editing falls outside of regulation. Why: Because nothing foreign is added.
Continued...
The article proposes a framework to determine when a GMO project needs closer scrutiny and regulation. The article (first link) presents this in Graphical Form.
Basically, loss of function is more worrisome than gain of function. But over all, Cisgenesis, genetic modification in which genes are artificially transferred between organisms that could otherwise be conventionally bred is the least worrisome and should be permissibly regulated. Intragenesis, (in vitro recombination that can't occur via conventional breeding - hybrids, are the next most acceptable and least worrisome, and should be regulated permissibly. But both knock-out and insertion gene editing deserve the most stringent regulation, even though (or perhaps because) these have the greatest chance of unintended mutants going viral. Yet this type of genetic modifications slips through the regulatory system most frequently.
Most of the plant mutants in the analyzed reports may be outside the current GMO regulations. Although the selection of a regulatory line may vary from country to country, we propose that the most stringent regulation should be initially adopted and gradually relaxed for cautious integration of genome-edited crops into society. We also urge careful consideration of labelling of food containing genome-edited crops.
.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday March 04 2015, @10:14PM
They can't actually qualitatively state any concerns that represent something that represents distinct problems from the natural mutation and artificial selection that have been applied to crops for thousands of years.
People become very concerned over adding specific genes that create specific proteins that have a specific effect on the organism that tend to be well understood(because scientists are actively seeking that effect). Whereas the natural approach to solving the same problem, whatever it may be, is far more risky. Geneticists are accused of their reach exceeding their grasp, when all they're really doing is reaching a lot less blindly than before.
The scientific case here is pretty much nil.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 04 2015, @10:44PM
> They can't actually qualitatively state any concerns that represent something that represents distinct problems
> from the natural mutation and artificial selection that have been applied to crops for thousands of years.
They can't state them or you can't hear them? The fact that you seem unaware that transgenesis is impossible through "natural mutation and artificial selection" suggests the latter. Or perhaps you hide behind the pedant's excuse that horizontal gene transfer does occur in nature under very narrow circumstances, so it's all good.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Hartree on Thursday March 05 2015, @12:42AM
"horizontal gene transfer does occur in nature under very narrow circumstances"
Not just narrow circumstances.
In higher animals more rarely, but it's under quite broad circumstances in the rest of life. It's rampant in bacteria, archea, virii, etc, and they vastly outweigh multicell animals both in biomass and diversity.
The perhaps is due to the huge amount of incorporated foreign genetic material that is in each of us. A goodly portion of your genome is incorporated viral material (at least 5%. Look up endogenous retrovirus). Virii have picked up snippets of genetic material from all sorts of places, including other vertebrates. So, over the longer span of time, large amounts of foreign genetic material has been transferred even in the very groups that you would expect it least. And this has been found in just the short time we've known how to look for it.
I work at the land of Carl Woese and Nigel Goldenfeld (U of Illinois), and much of their later work is about how naturally occurring HGT has had massive effect on evolution and not just in prokaryotes. This is a very hot topic in genetics and evolution.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05 2015, @01:11AM
> In higher animals more rarely, but it's under quite broad circumstances in the rest of life. It's rampant in bacteria, archea, virii,
Are you trying to prove my point about pedantry?
The day we start factory farming virii as a significant source of calories then that will be relevant.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Hartree on Thursday March 05 2015, @02:49AM
Are you intentionally taking that out of context and adding a non sequitor to try to support your position? And all the while rail about solid points being just pedantry of no importance?
This is central to how life developed and continues to develop. Mom nature does gene transfer on her own.
The virii are one of the main genetic transfer mechanisms for foreign genetic material, both in prokaryotes and the more complex eukaryotes. Did you even read the rest of the post where that's pointed out?
They're one of the main methods humans use to make GMOs by transferring foreign DNA to a new organism. Why? Because they've already been doing it for billions of years. They're better than we are at it. And, they do it to things we DO farm for calories.