= By ANGELA OKETCH More by this Author 11 hoursago

The chemicals that farmers spray on their crops in form of pesticides to kill pests and prevent diseases have always been a bone of contention, with researchers trying to find safer alternatives. A new variety of rice that fights multiple pathogens with no effect on the yield of the crop, is thus a welcome relief for both farmers and scientists.

The discovery is based on a study of the plants immune system. Plants use receptors on the outside of their cells to identify molecules that signal a microbial invasion, and respond by releasing antimicrobial compounds. Therefore, identifying genes that kickstart this immune response yields disease-resistant plants.

Just like sick humans who are unproductive at work, plants grow poorly and produce unfavourable yields when their immune systems are overloaded. For a long time, scientists have focused on the NPR1 gene from a small, woody plant called Arabidopsis thaliana, to boost the immune systems of rice, wheat, tomatoes and apples.

However, NPR1 is not very useful for agriculture because it has negative effects on plants. To make it useful, researchers needed a better gene that would activate the immune response only when the plant is under attack. Rice with the gene was able to combat rice blast which often causes an estimated 30 per cent loss of rice crop worldwide, every year.

A segment of DNA called the TBF1 cassette acted as a control switch for the plants immune response. When the TBF1 cassette from the Arabidopsis genome was copied and pasted alongside and in front of the NPR1 gene in rice plants, it resulted in a strain of rice that could fend off offending pathogens without causing stunted growth seen in previously engineered crops.

The researchers tested the superiority of engineered rice over regular rice by inoculating crop leaves with the bacterial pathogens that cause rice blight and leaf streak, as well as the fungus responsible for blast disease. Whereas the infections spread on the leaves of wild rice plants, the engineered plants confined the invaders to a small area.

The researchers say this innovation could come in handy in the developing world where farmers with no access to fungicide often lose their entire crop to disease. The study was published in Nature.

open close

Follow this link:

Genetic engineering boosts immunity against crop disease - Daily Nation

Prof John Shine in 2015. Shine discovering a sequence of DNA now called the Shine-Dalgarno sequence which allows cells to produce proteins the basis for how all our cells operate. Photograph: Mal Fairclough/AAP

A man whose discovery was essential for the development of genetic engineering, and used that technology to create several therapies now helping many thousands of people, says receiving a Queens Birthday honour is a great recognition from the community of the value of scientific research.

John Shine started his career by discovering a sequence of DNA now called the Shine-Dalgarno sequence as part of his PhD in the mid 1970s.

That sequence, while a miniscule part of the human genome, allows cells to produce proteins the basis for how all our cells operate.

The discovery was essential for genetic engineering, spawned an entire biotech industry, and has now been used to produce therapies that have helped millions of people. In his own work, Shine used those techniques to clone of human insulin and growth hormone for the first time.

Other scientists honoured on Monday included astronomer Ken Freeman, who founded the field of galactic archaeology, and ethnobotanist Beth Gott.

Shine, who was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia today, told the Guardian he has been unusually lucky in his career to have been able to oversee discoveries he made in basic sciences, be translated into real therapies and become commercialised.

My PhD was really esoteric research, he said, referring to his discovery of the Shine-Dalgarno sequence . But then I went over to San Francisco when gene cloning was just beginning right place, right time.

Shine had discovered how to clone the human gene that produces insulin, but to make that useful, it needed to be inserted into another organism that could be farmed in this case, bacteria, which would be farmed in large vats.

But if you want to put [the gene] into bacteria to make human insulin, you needed to trick the bacteria into thinking the gene was one of its own, he said.

It turned out Shines earlier discovery of the Shine-Dalgarno sequence was essential for making that final leap. Although the genetic code is the same in animals and bacteria, the regulatory code was very different. Thats where the Shine-Dalgarno sequence comes in, Shine said.

He needed to find the bacterias version of the Shine-Dalgarno sequence, and put that on either side of the human insulin gene, inside the bacteria.

You needed to put the right Shine-Dalgarno sequence just in front in the right place in the insulin gene to make the bacteria produce human insulin.

The fact that both problems were so closely related was mostly an accident, Shine says.

But throughout the rest of his career, Shine continued to be involved in the translation of his discoveries in esoteric science, all the way through to commercialisation.

Since stepping down as the head of the Garvan Institute in 2011 one of Australias top medical research institutes Shine has been the chair of the biotech giant CSL, one of Australasias largest companies.

So Ive come full circle, Shine said. CSL ... in more recent years, were moving into genetic engineering and weve released several genetically modified proteins for haemophilia that are changing the lives of thousands of people around the world.

Ive been very lucky to be able to go through the basic research in my career, and now see a lot of these real health care products come to fruition and improve the lives of thousands of people. Its wonderful when you can have all the excitement of research but also the satisfaction of seeing something very good coming out of it.

It is not the first time Shine has been recognised publicly for his work. In 2010 he won the prime ministers prize for science something his brother Rick Shine won in 2016.

Apart from the obvious personal honour, its a demonstration that the community does appreciate the benefits that come from research, Shine said. The wellbeing of any society is intimately linked to good healthcare.

Another winner of the prime ministers science prize, astronomer Ken Freeman, was appointed a Companion of the Order of Australia for his founding contributions to the field of galactic archaeology and his teaching work at the Australian National Universitys Mount Stromlo Observatory.

Honours were also awarded to Royal Melbourne hospitals Peter Grahame Colman (AM), for his work in endocrinology and diabetes research; aeronautical engineer Graeme Bird (AO), the former department head at the University of Sydney and a NASA consultant for 40 years; and Peter Klinken (AC), the chief scientist of Western Australia.

Ethnobotanist Beth Gott was made a Member of the Order of Australia for her work studying native plants and their use by Indigenous people. Gott founded Monash Universitys Aboriginal education garden in 1986 and has assembled databases of native plants in south-eastern Australia.

A paper she wrote in 2005 for the Journal of Biogreography found Indigenous fire-farming was crucial to the growth of plant tubers in southeastern Australia, allowing them to make up half of the local peoples diet.

Read more:

Scientist John Shine honoured for discovery that formed basis of ... - The Guardian

Jenn Ackerman/NYT/Redux/eyevine

Gene-edited cattle such as these hornless cows may come under scrutiny by the US Food and Drug Administration.

In January this year, two US agencies proposed the first substantial overhaul in 30 years of how they regulate genetically altered crops and livestock. Some plant scientists expressed relief. Some animal researchers used more colourful language.

The proposals one to govern plants, the other to govern animals came to wildly different conclusions. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) suggests that many plants whose genomes have been altered by a single DNA letter change should not need approval before being released in the field. However, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) contends that animals whose genomes have been similarly changed might have to go through a rigorous evaluation before being released onto the market.

For the two agencies to evaluate the same problem and come to opposite conclusions is worrisome. The deadline for public comment is 19June researchers should seize this chance to push for a scientific and harmonized approach.

The USDA oversees the transport and release of plants that could pose a threat to the nations agricultural system. The agency used that remit to cover plants that have been genetically altered using molecular tools harvested from plant pathogens. A form of the bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens, for example, was often used to shuttle genes into plant genomes. But even as the regulations were being crafted, technology was marching ahead. Researchers developed ways to express foreign genes in plants without using a pest. By 2011, the USDA found itself unable to oversee a host of new crops because they were engineered by other techniques and could not be classified as potential plant pests.

The FDA, meanwhile, has co-opted regulations that are designed to govern the approval of animal drugs. FDA oversight is triggered by the genetic engineering of an animal (generally taken to mean the splicing together of DNA sequences from different sources). This has left researchers in industry and academia uncertain as to whether the FDA would regulate animals that have been developed using modern gene-editing techniques, which dont necessarily insert foreign DNA. Such techniques are already being used in the lab to develop disease-resistant pigs, among other animals. One company, Recombinetics of St Paul, Minnesota, which is hoping to bring its hornless dairy cattle to market, filed a notification to the FDA a month before the proposals were released.

Almost any gene-edited livestock could be encompassed by the FDAs regulations. Yet gene-edited plants would be regulated only if they are pests or noxious weeds.

It might be asking too much to demand complete consistency across agencies. USDA or FDA staffers are not free to conjure regulations as they see fit: they are also confined by agency-specific statutes. This is why some definitions differ, and some approaches such as treating the engineered genome of a goat as an animal drug do not seem intuitive.

Gene-editing and other technologies clearly pose a challenge for regulators. Legislative definitions can quickly expire with the next technological development. Regulators in Europe, for example, have been struggling for years to incorporate new technologies into their framework. Canada, which regulates its crops on the basis of their attributes rather than the process used to generate them, is one of the few countries with a system that is able to adapt to advances. Meanwhile, it is still hard to tell how consumers will view gene-edited foods when they reach the market.

For the two agencies to evaluate the same problem and come to opposite conclusions is worrisome.

But both the solutions proposed in the United States have the potential to err, albeit in opposite directions. Regulating all gene-edited animals may make little sense for a change that merely reproduces a DNA sequence found in nature, or that could be recreated by using chemicals to randomly mutate DNA. Conversely, waving through many edited crops could under-regulate some with the potential to alter agricultural ecosystems. For example, a herbicide-tolerant plant could lead to changes in spraying that generate herbicide-resistant weeds.

It is unclear whether or how President Donald Trumps appointees will influence the development of these regulations. But researchers should take the opportunity to be heard, to scrutinize proposed definitions, look for loopholes and suggest alternatives to reduce the likelihood that the regulations will soon become outdated. Above all, they should push for regulations that are consistent across agencies, with an emphasis on evaluating the risks posed by the final product. Some researchers may feel that simple gene edits, such as those that reproduce a naturally occurring mutation, deserve no scrutiny. Others may have reservations about those same products. Let all of those voices be heard or endure another 30 years of ill-fitting regulations.

Continued here:
Harmonize conflicting regulations for genetically engineered plants and animals - Nature.com

Bioenergy production techniques that are already available could be used to supply up to 30 percent of the worlds energy by 2050, according to a 2015 report by The Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), a global network of scientists from 24 countries that reviews scientific knowledge on the environment.

To find out why scientists are so optimistic about biofuel production in the developing world, SciDev.Net spoke with Glaucia Mendes Souza, researcher at the Chemistry Institute of the University of So Paulo.

Souza is also coordinator of the Bioenergy Research Program at the Brazilian research foundation FAPESP, and co-editor of the report.

What is the potential for expanding biofuel production in Latin America and Africa?

Huge! There are at least 500 million hectares of land available for biofuel production around the world. Much of that is in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa, and is currently being used for low-intensity grazing.

What are the main scientific and technological advances related to biofuel production in Brazil?

Thanks to the ethanol programme and research carried out by the private sector, as well as public research entities, Brazil has obtained genetically improved varieties of sugar cane and managed to increase its productivity from 49 tonnes per hectare in 1970 to 85 tons per hectare in 2010.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: Q&A: Boosting bioenergy in Africa and Latin America

Read the original:

How genetic engineering could boost biofuel production in Africa and Latin America - Genetic Literacy Project

Cottons environmental footprint is much less noticeable today than was the case in the early 1960s, thanks largely to science and technology.

Ryan Kurtz, director of agricultural research, Cotton Incorporated, says the highly successful Boll Weevil Eradication Program, genetic engineering, innovations in tillage, and changes in farm size and efficiency combined to reduce cottons impact on the environment over the past 35 years.

[Kurtz] said cotton farming has evolved from horses to robots and drones. Weve seen great strides in reduced soil loss, water use, and pesticide use.

Biotechnology now protects plants from insect damage, Kurtz said. Herbicide tolerant varieties also allow a more efficient weed management system. Cotton farmers also reduce energy consumption because of biotech, he added.

Genetic engineering has improved varieties in other ways. We have more water efficient varieties, which improves on a plant already known for drought tolerance.

[T]he success of the Boll Weevil Eradication Program and the introduction of Bt cotton revolutionized insect control in cotton. At one time, cotton farmers in some areas were spraying as many as 15 times in a season. The average was seven. Following boll weevil eradication, the average dropped to five, and after Bt cotton was introduced the average dipped to two.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: Cottons effect on the environment continues to diminish

More:
How genetic engineering helped reduce cotton's environmental footprint - Genetic Literacy Project

In science and medicine the terminology applied can be the difference between life and death, success and failure. Words have precise meanings, and a productive dialogue in the sciences requires adherence to a common set of mutually recognized terms. Shared meaning is like a verbal handshake that ensures a positive connection where information can flow.

Genetic engineering, familiarly known by the slippery colloquialism GMO, has been central to the production of drugs like insulin, enzymes used in cheese making, and laboratory-produced fibers. The widest-recognized successes have been the adoption of the technology by 20 million farmers onto almost half a billion acres of farmland, most of those in the developing world. Some 70 percent of grocery store products now contain ingredients from genetically engineered plants. And while scientists and farmers acknowledge concerns arising from the overuse of the technology, such as weed and insect resistance, there remains zero credible evidence of health-related concerns.

Still the most beautiful and altruistic applications of this technology remain to be deployed. The innovations geared to solve specific issues in hunger, environment or consumer health have not left university laboratories or government greenhouses.

This cutting edge has not been dulled due to technical problems or clandestine dangers. Instead, technology has been stalled because of high deregulation costs and negative public perception founded on misinformation.

Could part of the problem simply be the bad branding of a good technology? Our social psyche has been saturated with fear-based manufactured risk and misinformation. Could cleaning up our vocabulary advance the publics understanding of the science and help illuminate its actual risks and benefits, while curing the tales of fear mongering?

Goodbye, GMO

Take for instance the abbreviation GMO. The term appears to have been first used thirty-three years ago this week, appropriately in the New York Times, a venue that regularly uses language to blur scientific reality in food space. Over the last decades the term has been adopted as nomenclature of derision; after all, who would want to feed their child an alien organism?

GMO is not a scientific term. Scientifically speaking, genetic modification is ambiguous, applying to many situations. Genetic modification is what happens upon a sexual crossing, mutation, multiplication of chromosomes (like in a seedless watermelon or banana), introduction of a single new gene from an unrelated species or the tweaking a genome with new gene editing techniques. These are all examples of genetic modification, but not all offer the predictability and precision of the process of genetic engineering.

This is why actual scientists rarely (if ever) use the GMO designation in technical parlance. It first regularly was highlighted in rhetoric opposing the technology, and since has sadly been adopted by mainstream media. Works that apply the term tend to disparage the technology, and opt for GMO rather than a scientifically precise term to stoke the negative perception.

For instance, the term GMO is prominently presented in the 2012 publication (retracted) by French biologist Gilles-Erich Seralini and colleagues, juxtaposed with tumor-ridden suffering animals. Their intent was to label the sad and grotesque figures of suffering animals with the three letters, G-M-O. A valid scientific effort would have labeled a figure with the gene installed that made the plant unique, not a catch-all term for an engineered plant. Seralinis work met tremendous outcry from a scientific community that saw this as being a political and manipulative use of the scientific literature to advance an agenda.

The use of the term GMO in the figures is consistent with that interpretation.

In order to help advance the public discussion, we should agree to abandon the meaningless term GMO. This is especially important for academics, scientists, farmers, dietitians and physiciansprofessionals the public relies upon to answer questions about food and farming. It is time for the science-minded community to adopt a common vocabulary to enhance effective discussion and enjoy more meaningful dialogue.

Toward a new phrasebook

Here are my suggestions for how we can adopt a common vocabulary to make sure were all speaking the same language about these technologies.

1. Stop using GMO. It is imprecise. Everything not arising as a clone is genetically modified from previous forms, as is anything changed by mutation. You are a unique genetic modification of your parents combined genes. A dachshund is a genetic modification of an ancestral gray wolf. Instead we should replace GMO with Genetic Engineering. Genetic engineering is adding, subtracting, or adjusting genes in the lab that change a trait in the resulting plant, animal or microbe. It satisfies the very definition of engineering the application of science and mathematics to affect properties of matter or the sources of energy in nature to be made useful to people.

However, the term GMO is something people recognize. Effective communication depends on shared meaning, so scientists or journalists should use the term once in a presentation or article parenthetically, then switch to genetic engineering. Experts should make it clear that GMO is not an acceptable term when discussing science.

The flawed GMO must also still be included in keywords, image tags, or in any online content. If it is not present, someone searching the internet for credible information with this non-scientific term may encounter a higher proportion of scientifically questionable information. Providing a parenthetical mention or brief reference ensures that those seeking science-based answers can find them.

2. An All-Encompassing Term. A better term for the scientific processes used to produce new varieties or breeds, or the intermediate steps, would be best referred to as crop or animal genetic improvement. In other words, when we use traditional breeding methods to make plants or animals better, it takes many steps and lots of selection. Thats genetic improvement, whether it is done by sexual exchange, breaking DNA strands with radiation or doubling chromosomes with chemistry.

3. The Newest Technologies. New technologies are now being used that allow scientists to make incredibly specific changes to DNA sequence, without leaving foreign DNA sequences (that some find objectionable) behind. These techniques should be collectively referred to as gene editing. Especially avoid referring to the technology by its technical name like CRISPR/Cas 9 or TALEN, which are specific types of gene editing. It is important because the list of gene editing methods is inevitably growing. Gene editing is also more precise than the often-used genome editing.

The purpose of this brief new glossary is not to provide a mandate based on my narrow experience and observations. Instead, my goal is to offer a proposal so a scientific community eager to precisely engage the public can challenge the pros and cons of these terms to hone an optimal vocabulary. My hope is to ultimately derive an agreed-upon terminology that can be adopted and consistently applied by experts in science, medicine and agriculture. Journalists and science communications may then adopt the precise wording of the discipline for improved precision in communication.

Concrete, unambiguous terms can help curious and concerned people understand the realities of genetic engineering. Certainly medicine has benefited from precise language, such as how childhood cognitive disabilities are now characterized with greater sensitivity and improved medical precision. This change improved social stigma of various developmental disorders, brought compassionate understanding to the conditions, and enhanced treatment for those affected.

Better scientific literacy and precision in terminology around genetic engineering would lead to a more productive discourse that ultimately could enable more rapid deployment of safe technologies that can help people and the planet. The individuals that insist on adhering to antiquated, divisive and imprecise terms will be automatically characterized as antiquated, divisive and imprecise.

The first step is to stop using the archaic, imprecise term GMO.

Kevin Folta is a land-grant scientist exploring ways to make better food with less input, and how to communicate science. This article was published with his permission. All of Dr. Foltas funding can be found at kevinfolta.com/transparency.

The AGDAILY Digest is the information superhighway for your country road.

Read this article:

Kevin Folta: Please say no to the term 'GMO' - AGDAILY

Last month, researchers announced some astonishing findings in Nature Genetics: Theyd found 40 genes that play a role in shaping human intelligence, bringing the total number of known intelligence genes up to 52.

This study was a big deal because while weve known intelligence is largely heritable, we havent understood the specifics of the biology of IQ why it can be so different between people, and why we can lose it near the end of life.

The Nature Genetics study was a key early step toward understanding this, hailed as an enormous success in the New York Times.

And there are many more insights like this to come. The researchers used a design called a genome-wide association study. In it, computers comb through enormous data sets of human genomes to find variations among them that point to disease or traits like intelligence. As more people have their genomes sequenced, and as computers become more sophisticated at seeking out patterns in data, these types of studies will proliferate.

But theres also a deep uneasiness at the heart of this research it is easily misused by people who want to make claims about racial superiority and differences between groups. Such concerns prompted Nature to run an editorial stressing that the new science of genetics and intelligence comes to no such conclusions. Environment is crucial, too, Nature emphasized. The existence of genes for intelligence would not imply that education is wasted on people without those genes. Geneticists burned down that straw man long ago.

Also, nothing in this work suggests there are genetic difference in intelligence when comparing people of different ancestries. If anything, it suggests that the genetics that give rise to IQ are more subtle and intricate than we can ever really understand.

Were going to keep getting better at mapping the genes that make us smart, make us sick, or even make us lose our hair. But old fears and myths about genetics and determinism will rear their heads. So will fears about mapping ideal human genes that will lead to designer babies, where parents can pick traits for their children la carte.

To walk through the science, and to bust its myths, I spoke to Danielle Posthuma, a statistical geneticist at Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam, who was the senior author on the latest Nature study.

Theres a simple understanding of genetics were all taught in high school. We learn, as Gregor Mendel discovered with pea plants, that we can inherit multiple forms of the same gene. One variation of the gene makes wrinkled peas; the other makes for round peas. Its true, but its hardly the whole story.

In humans, a few traits and illnesses work like this. Whether the bottom of your earlobes stick to the side of your face or hang free is the result of one gene. Huntingtons disease which deteriorates nerve cells in the brain is the result of a single gene.

But most of the traits that make you you your height, your personality, your intellect arise out of a complex constellation of genes. There might be 1,000 genes that influence intelligence, for example. Same goes for the genes that lead to certain disorders. Theres no one gene for schizophrenia, for obesity, for depression.

A single gene for one of these things also wont have an appreciable impact on behavior. If you have the bad variant of one gene for IQ, maybe your IQ score ... is 0.001 percent lower than it would have been, Posthuma says.

But if you have 100 bad variants, or 1,000, then that might make a meaningful difference.

Genome-wide association studies allow scientists to start to see how combinations of many, many genes interact in complicated ways. And it takes huge data sets to sort through all the genetic noise and find variants that truly make a difference on traits like intelligence.

The researchers had one: the UK Biobank, a library that contains genetic, health, and behavioral information on 500,000 Britons. For the study, they pulled complete genome information on 78,000 individuals who had also undergone intelligence testing. Then a computer program combed through millions of sites on the gene code where people tend to variate from one another, and singled out the areas that correlated with smarts.

The computer processing power needed for this kind of research this study had to crunch 9.3 million DNA letters from 78,000 people hasnt been available very long. But now that it is, researchers have been starting to piece together the puzzle that links genes to behaviors.

A recent genome-wide analysis effort identified 250 gene sites that predicted male pattern baldness in a sample of 52,000 men. (Would you really want to know if you had them?) And theres been progress identifying genes that signal risk for diabetes, schizophrenia, and depression.

And these studies dont just look at traits, diseases, and behavior. Theyre also starting to analyze genetic associations to life outcomes. A 2016 paper in Nature reported on 74 gene sites that correlate with educational attainment. (These genes, the study authors note, seem to have something to do with the formation of neurons.) Again, these associations are tiny the study found that these 74 gene variants could only explain 3 percent of the difference between any two people on what level of education they achieve. Its hardly set in stone that youll flunk school if you dont have these gene variants.

But still, they make a small significant difference once you start looking at huge numbers of people.

Its important to note that Posthumas study was only on people of European ancestry. Whatever we find for Europeans doesnt necessarily [extrapolate] for Asians or South Americans, [or any other group] she says. Those things are often misused.

Which is to say: The gene variations that produce the differences between Europeans arent necessarily the same variations that produce differences among groups of different ancestry. So if you were to test the DNA of someone of African origin, and saw they lacked these genes, it would be incredibly irresponsible to conclude they had a lower capacity for intelligence. (Again, there are also likely hundreds of more genetic sites that have something to do with intellect that have yet to be discovered.)

Posthumas work identifying genes associated with intelligence isnt about making predictions about how smart a baby might grow up to be. She doesnt think you can reliably predict educational or intelligence outcomes from DNA alone. This is all really about reverse-engineering the biology of intelligence.

Genes code for proteins. Proteins then interact with other proteins. Researchers can trace this pathway all the way up to the level of behavior. And somewhere along that path, there just might be a place where we can intervene and stop age-related cognitive decline, for instance, and Alzheimers.

We're finally starting to see robust reliable associations from genes with their behavior, she says. The next step is how do we prove that this gene is actually evolved in a disorder, and how does it work?

Understanding the biology of intelligence could also lead the way for personalized approaches to treating neurodegenerative diseases. Its possible that two people with Alzheimers may have different underlying genetic causes. Knowing which genes are causing the disease, then, you might be able to tailor the treatment, Posthuma says.

As more and more genome-wide studies are conducted, the more researchers will be able to assign people polygenic risk scores for how susceptible they might be for certain traits and diseases. That can lead to early interventions. (Or, perhaps in the wrong hands, a cruel and unfair sorting of society. Have you seen the movie Gattaca?)

And there are some worries about abusing this data, especially as more and more people get their genomes analyzed by commercial companies like 23&Me.

Many people are concerned that insurance companies will use it, she says. That they will look into people's DNA and say, Well, you have a very high risk of being a nicotine addict. So we want you to pay more. Or, You have a high risk of dying early from cancer. So you have to pay more early in life. And of course, that's all nonsense. Its still too complicated to make such precise predictions.

We now have powerful tools to edit genes. CRISPR/Cas9 makes it possible to cut out any specific gene and replace it with another. Genetic engineering has advanced to the point where scientists are building whole organisms from the ground up with custom DNA.

Its easy to indulge our imaginations here: Genome-wide studies are going to make it easier to predict what set of genes leads to certain life outcomes. Genetic engineering is making it easier to assemble whatever genes we want in an individual. Is this the perfect recipe for designer babies?

Posthuma urges caution here, and says this conclusion is far afield from the actual state of the research.

Lets say you wanted to design a human with superior intelligence. Could you just select the right variants of the 52 intelligence genes, and wham-o, we have our next Einstein?

No. Genetics is so, so much more complicated than that.

For one, there could be thousands of genes that influence intelligence that have yet to be discovered. And they interact with each other in unpredictable ways. A gene that increases your smarts could also increase your risk for schizophrenia. Or change some other trait slightly. There are trade-offs and feedback loops everywhere you look in the genome.

If you would have to start constructing a human being from scratch, and you would have to build in all these little effects, I think we wouldn't be able to do that, Posthuma says. It's very difficult to understand the dynamics.

There are about 20,000 human genes, made up of around 3 billion base pairs. We will never be able to fully predict how a person will turn out based on the DNA, she says. Its just too intricate, too complicated, and also influenced heavily by our environment.

So you could have a very high liability for depression, but it will only happen if you go through a divorce, she says. And who can predict that?

And, Posthuma cautions, there are some things that genome-wide studies cant do. They cant, for instance, find very, very rare gene variations. (Think about it: If one person in 50,000 has a gene that causes a disease, its just going to look like noise.) For schizophrenia, she says, we know that there's some [gene] variants that decrease or increase your risk of schizophrenia 20-fold, but they're very rare in the population.

And they cant be used to make generalizations about differences between large groups of people.

Last year, I interviewed Paul Glimcher, a New York University social scientist whose research floored me. Glimcher plans to recruit 10,000 New Yorkers and track everything about them for decades. Everything: full genome data, medical records, diet, credit card transactions, physical activity, personality test scores, you name it. The idea, he says, is to create a dense, longitudinal database of human life that machine learning programs can mine for insights. Its possible this approach will elucidate the complex interactions of genetics, behavior, and environment that put us at risk for diseases like Alzheimers.

Computer science and biology are converging to make these audacious projects easier. And to some degree, the results of these projects may help us align our genes and our environments for optimal well-being.

Again, Posthuma cautions: Not all the predictions this research makes will be meaningful.

Do we care if we find a gene that only increases our height or our BMI or our intelligence with less than 0.0001 percent? she asks. It doesn't have any clinical relevance. But it will aid our scientific understanding of how intellect arises nonetheless.

And thats the bottom line. The scientists doing this work arent in it to become fortune tellers. Theyre in it to understand basic science.

What most people focus on, when they hear about genes for IQ, they say: Oh, no. You can look at my DNA. You can tell me what my IQ score will be, Posthuma says. They probably dont know its much better if you just take the IQ test. Much faster.

Read the original post:
Scientists are finding more genes linked to IQ. This doesn't mean we can predict intelligence. - Vox

Gene therapy and a range of biological research rely on the efficient delivery of nucleic acids into cells through the process known as transfection. Most widely-used transfection approaches for mammalian cells rely on electrostatic forces, usually taking advantage of cationic reagents to bind to negatively-charged nucleic acids and form strong ionic complexes. Cells then grab these complexes and internalize them through a process called endocytosis. However, the concentration of positive charge in the reagents can kill cells, and some cellssuch as embryonic cells, neurons, or cells directly isolated from tissuedont incorporate the nucleic acids successfully.

Now researchers report a novel transfection technique, SnapFect, that relies on bio-orthogonal moleculesa class of chemically-reactive molecules that dont interfere with biological systems (ACS Cent. Sci. 2017, DOI: 10.1021/acscentsci.7b00132). The team designed nanoparticle liposomes carrying a bio-orthogonal ligand. When they add those fatty particles to cell culture, they fuse into the cell membrane within seconds, leaving the ketone ligand exposed on the surface. The team then packages the nucleic acids to be delivered in complementary lipid complexes decorated with oxyamines. When the oxyamine particles are added to the cells, these functional groups react quickly with the cell surface ketones. The membrane-bound nucleic-acid complex is then pulled into the cell via endocytosis, and the nucleic acid can be expressed. Its not based on electrostatics but on click chemistry, says Muhammad N. Yousaf, a chemical biologist at York University. Thats why basically every cell is transfected with the nucleic acid.

Commercial transfection reagents already bring in about $1.5 billion per year. Yousafs team compared SnapFect to two widely-used kits: Lipofectamine (Life Technologies) and ViaFect (Promega). SnapFect transfected cells with a 68% overall efficiency while the other two transfected 19% and 29%, respectively.

Yousaf launched a company called OrganoLinX that this month began selling SnapFect ($350 for 20-25 transfections). We focused on making [the kit] just as easy to use as other commercial products out there, he says.

Besides improving efficiency, researchers could also pre-treat one batch of cells to decorate them with ketones and then mix them with other cell types before adding nucleic acids. Just the pre-treated ones will be transfected, Yousaf explains. Its like precision transfection. Because the team can create a variety of complexes using the oxyamine particles, the technique can also deliver other molecules such as proteins into cells.

I think its an interesting step forward, says James H. Eberwine, a molecular neurobiologist at the University of Pennsylvaniaparticularly the techniques universal applicability to DNA, RNA, and proteins, as well as the specificity conferred by the click chemistry approach.

Eberwine adds that while the study compares SnapFect to two widely-used techniques, researchers often optimize those techniques for their particular applications and achieve much higher efficiencies than those noted in this study. I would certainly try it, he says, and if it really does have the higher efficiency then I could see value in doing this.

Currently cell surface modification with ketones must occur shortly before addition of the oxyamine-bundled cargo. But SnapFect would be especially powerful if the ketone modification was more permanent, Eberwine says. That way, researchers could pre-engineer the surface of immature cells, then allow those cells to develop, migrate, and find their place in the local microenvironment of an experimental system before they get transfected. This would be a real boon, he says.

Read more here:

Genetic engineering through click chemistry - The Biological SCENE

The 20th century veggie burger was a beige patty packed with whole grains and carrot chunks, sold in a brown paper wrapper. The 21st century version? Its bloody-pink and fleshy, thanks to heme, an ingredient created via genetic engineering.

To those steeped in the natural-food movement, the acronym GMO for genetically modified organisms has traditionally been almost as taboo as a plate of braised veal. However, that view could be changing as a new generation of Bay Area entrepreneurs upends the alternative meat and dairy industry, using biotechnology to create vegetarian foods that taste more like meat and promise ecological advantages to boot.

As somebody who has my entire life been a hard-core environmentalist I went vegan for a large part for that reason genetic engineering is one of the most important tools we can use in terms of environmental conservation, said Mike Selden, co-founder and CEO of Finless Foods in San Francisco, which is replicating fish fillets out of stem cells, though not currently with genetic engineering.

Not everyone agrees, and as these products hit the market including the aforementioned veggie burger that bleeds from Impossible Foods consumer and environmental groups have called for greater oversight and testing than whats currently required by the federal government.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post:Meatless, tasty and genetically modified: a healthy debate

Read the original post:

21st century veggie burger: 'Bloody-pink and fleshy' thanks to genetic engineering - Genetic Literacy Project

Will Shindel prepares for a gene-editing class using the CRISPR tool at a Brooklyn community lab called Genspace. Alan Yu/WHYY hide caption

Will Shindel prepares for a gene-editing class using the CRISPR tool at a Brooklyn community lab called Genspace.

On a Saturday afternoon, 10 students gather at Genspace, a community lab in Brooklyn, to learn how to edit genes.

There's a recent graduate with a master's in plant biology, a high school student who started a synthetic biology club, a medical student, an eighth grader, and someone who works in pharmaceutical advertising.

"This is so cool to learn about; I hadn't studied biology since like ninth grade," says Ruthie Nachmany, one of the class participants. She had studied anthropology, visual arts, and environmental studies in college, but is now a software engineer.

In the 1970s, personal computers emerged from labs and universities and became something each person could have. That made it possible for people like Nachmany to become a professional programmer despite not having studied it in school.

Some compare that democratization of personal computing in the '70s to the current changes in access to genetic engineering tools.

In 2015, the journal Science declared the gene editing tool CRISPR Cas9 the breakthrough of the year. It let scientists make changes in DNA of living cells easier and cheaper than before. Today, the CRISPR tool is no longer something that only researchers do in labs. You can take classes in gene editing at a community lab. You can buy a $150 kit to do it at home. Some middle schoolers are doing it in their science classes.

Genspace lab manager Will Shindel, who teaches the genome-editing class, says his students are usually professionals who want to learn a new career skill or curious everyday people. "They just know that it's this word that everybody's throwing around," Shindel says. "It's either going to lead to the singularity or the apocalypse."

Shindel, a biologist by training, is one of many people now dreaming about and starting synthetic biology projects using the CRISPR tool. With some friends, he is working on genetically engineering a spicy tomato. Some people are trying to make bacteria produce insulin. At Acera, an elementary and middle school in Massachusetts, 13-year-old Abby Pierce recently completed a CRISPR experiment, genetically modifying bacteria so that it could grow in an antibiotic that would have killed it otherwise.

Pierce's science teacher, Michael Hirsch, made the argument to get genetic engineering kits for his science students to experiment with in class. "It's going to take molecular bio out of the 'Oh man, cool, they do it in labs' to 'Wait, we can do this in our homes,' " Hirsch says. "We could do things like create pigments, and create flavor extracts, and all of these really nifty things safely and carefully in our kitchens."

New skill set

In fact, the University of Pennsylvania's Orkan Telhan argues, genetic engineering will become an increasingly important skill, like coding has been. Telhan is an associate professor of fine arts and emerging design practices and he worked with a biologist and an engineer on a desktop machine that allows anyone to do genetic engineering experiments, without needing a background in biology.

"Biology is the newest technology that people need to learn," Telhan says. "It's a new skill set everyone should learn because it changes the way you manufacture things, it changes the way we learn, store information, think about the world." As an example of a recent application, Telhan points to an Adidas shoe made from bioengineered fiber, inspired by spider silk.

The comparison between genetic engineering and computing is not new. Two years ago at a conference, MIT Media Lab Director Joi Ito gave a talk called "Why bio is the new digital":

Genspace Lab Manager Will Shindel mixes all the chemicals before class, so the students don't have to make calculations to dilute them during the class. Alan Yu/WHYY hide caption

Genspace Lab Manager Will Shindel mixes all the chemicals before class, so the students don't have to make calculations to dilute them during the class.

"You can now take all of the gene bricks, these little parts of genetic code, categorize them as if they were pieces of code, write software using a computer, stick them in a bacteria, reboot the bacteria and the bacteria just as with computers, usually does what you think it does."

'We need to dig deeper'

Gene editing tools have already started a debate about ethics and safety. Some scientists have warned about not just intentionally harmful uses, but also potential unintended consequences or dangerous mistakes in experimentation.

The German government in March sent out a warning about one kind of CRISPR kit, saying officials found potentially harmful bacteria on two kits they tested, though it's not clear how those bacteria got there. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control responded with a statement earlier this month that the risk to people using these kits was low and asked EU member states to review their procedures around these kits.

Earlier, the German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety also issued a reminder that depending on the kit, genetic-engineering laws still applied, and doing this work outside of a licensed facility with an expert supervisor could lead to a fine of up to 50,000 euros ($56,000).

In the U.S., then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper in early 2016 added genome editing to a list related to "weapons of mass destruction and proliferation." But bioengineering experts say overall, the U.S. government agencies have long been monitoring the gene-editing and the DIY bio movement "very proactive in understanding" the field, as Johns Hopkins University biosecurity fellow Justin Pahara puts it.

"There is a lot of effort going into understanding the scope of DIY biology, who can do it, what can be done, what are some of the concerns, how do we mitigate risk," says Pahara, who is also a co-founder of bioengineering-kit company Amino Labs. He says DIY bio, or biohacking, poses little security concern for now, being at a very early stage.

"I would suggest that just all of these discussions, including looking into the past at computing and other technologies, [have] really helped us understand that we need to dig deeper," he says.

More variables

As much as the gene-engineering revolution is being compared to the PC revolution before it, bacteria are not as predictable as computers, says Kristala Prather, associate professor of chemical engineering at MIT. Her team studies how to engineer bacteria so they produce chemicals that can be used for fuel, medications and other things.

"I have a first-year graduate student ... who was lamenting the fact that even though she has cloned genes many times before, it's taking her a little while to get things to work well at my lab," Prather says. "And my response to her is that the same is true for about 80 percent of students who come into my group."

Prather explains that engineering bacteria isn't quite like coding because many more variables are at play.

"One of the common mistakes that people make it to assume all water is just water. The water that comes out of the tap in Cambridge is different than the water that comes out of the tap in New York," she says. "So there are very small things like that that can turn out to make a significant difference."

But Prather who remembers writing programs on a Commodore 64 computer as a 13-year-old is nonetheless excited about the prospect of more people learning about genetic engineering through kits and classes: She says even if all this access does right now is get more people excited about becoming scientists, it's still really valuable.

Alan Yu reports for WHYY's health and science show, The Pulse. This story originally appeared on an episode of its podcast called Do It Yourself.

Continued here:
How CRISPR Gene Editing Tool Went From Labs To A Middle ... - NPR - NPR

By Ryan CrossMay. 22, 2017 , 11:00 AM

Nope. Youre not looking at a Bob Ross still life. This faintly colored image was painted by bacteria (Escherichia coli) that produce colored pigments in response to light. Scientists designed the bacteria by adding 18 new genes to their genetic circuitry, including thousands of DNA bases that code for light sensor proteins that respond to red, green, or blue light. Exposure to the light makes the bacteria turn on a gene that kicks off a chemical reaction, producing a corresponding red, green, or blue pigment. Other genes act like circuit breakers to keep the system from overloading. The paint-by-light images were produced by mixing the bacteria into a gel on a petri dish and placing them in an incubator exposed to projector or laser light. Using this setup, scientists recreated the Massachusetts Institute of Technology logo, Super Mario, a tiled pattern of lizards, and a pile of fruit (above), they report today in Nature Chemical Biology. Although the art is unlikely to be displayed alongside works by Van Gogh or Monet, the genetically engineered bacteria could have other practical applications. The scientists say their light-responsive circuit could help control the flux of metabolic pathways in vats of microbes used to produce pharmaceuticals or industrial chemicals, by turning on and off in response to red, green, and blue lighta veritable bacterial disco.

Read the original here:
Bacteria can paint with light, thanks to genetic engineering - Science Magazine

Updated 5 hours ago

A theory to solve the nation's ever-worsening bee decline through genetic engineering has Western Pennsylvania beekeepers split about whether it will work.

We have to start working with bees that are locally adapted to the areas we keep them, explained Dwight Wells, 77, a founding member of the Heartland Honeybee Breeders Cooperative and president of the West Central Ohio Beekeepers Association who was a guest speaker at a weekend seminar in Beaver County. Beekeepers have got to understand their bees like farmers understand their crops and cows and pigs. Farmers are careful on the genetics they have in herds and fields big-time. They're looking for proper genetics.

Beekeepers have to start thinking along the same line and start calling themselves bee farmers.

Wells has worked with Purdue University geneticists since 2013 to improve the genetics of honeybees by mating them with queen bees that have adapted to chew off the legs of Varroa mites, also known as Purdue ankle biters. The parasites have long been blamed for honeybee loss because they transmit deadly diseases.

Wells said there are many theories that attempt to explain the mysterious colony collapse disorder, which surfaced in 2006. But he is convinced the main problem is linked to the Varroa mite and malnourished bees a problem he believes is solvable by combining the genetics of mite-resistant bees with Southern, commercial bees that are not fully adapted to surviving harsh winters.

Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, is not sure the project will work in the long run.

Fine, who keeps about 130 colonies at farms and backyards throughout Allegheny, Washington and Westmoreland counties, lost about 60 percent of his honey bees this winter.

Beekeepers can't afford not to treat for mites because we have to treat them to keep business going, Fine said.

He makes money by selling bees and honey and by renting out colonies to farmers. Business suffers when bees die off in winter, so Fine said he has a vested interest in keeping his bees alive.

To replenish his stock, he buys packages from large-scale commercial beekeepers in Georgia.

You like your strawberries I like blueberries and squash is really good, and people like zucchini, Fine said. Bees are always going to be moved.

According to the Atlanta-based American Beekeeping Federation, bees contribute nearly $20 billion to the country's agriculture industry by pollinating everything from apples to cranberries, melons and broccoli. Crops such as blueberries and cherries are almost entirely dependent on bee pollination. Almonds are entirely dependent on their pollination.

An estimated two-thirds of the country's 2.7 million bee colonies are transported to different farms across the nation throughout the year, ABF reports.

To keep his bees alive, Fine usually sprays them with an organic pesticide twice a year. The spray, he said, burns Varroa mites with naturally occurring acids. This year, however, he plans on using three or four treatments.

But Wells' genetic improving program is not necessarily targeting large beekeeping operations, which typically move bees long distances, said John Yakim, president of the Beaver Valley Area Beekeepers Association. He thinks the program would work if hobbyists who own five to 10 hives, like himself, introduced Purdue ankle biters to the region.

Yakim met Wells at a Pennsylvania State Beekeepers Association seminar in November 2014. Since then, he said he has been learning about the practice and wants others to be exposed to it as well.

BVABA hosted its Queen Raising Seminar on Friday and Saturday in Baden. Participants received unmated queen bees that Yakim and Wells hope mate with local drones.

This is designed for small-scale hobbyist and sideliners, Yakim said of the genetic improving program.

But that doesn't mean he thinks the program couldn't potentially work for large-scale beekeeping operations.

I don't see why not, even for producers with 10,000 colonies. The underlying science isn't going to change, he said.

The science lies in combining the genes of climate survivability and Varroa mite resistance, Wells said.

The problem with bees bought by beekeepers is that most of them are adapted to live in warmer climates, such as Georgia and Florida, where most commercial stock is produced, Wells said.

Beekeepers have been relying on chemicals since the 1980s to treat for mites. But mites develop resistance. And now they're running out of chemicals, Wells said. The smart ones are understanding they got to start developing their own stocks in order to kill mite spells. They're in trouble, and they realize it.

Dillon Carr is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach him at 724-850-1298, dcarr@tribweb.com or via Twitter @dillonswriting.

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, inspects his bee hives, at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017.

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

The queen bee, marked with a yellow dot, can be seen inside an observation hut Al Fine, at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017. Fine

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, lights a ball of cardboard for his smoker, before he inspects his bee hives, at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017. The Smoke is believed to mask the bees alarm pheromones, which blocks the bees ability to raise the alarm of an intruder.

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, removes the cover of a beehive, before inspecting the hive after recently introducing a new queen, at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017.

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, removes the cover of a beehive, before inspecting the hive after recently introducing a new queen, at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017. The Smoke is believed to mask the bees alarm pheromones, which blocks the bees ability to raise the alarm of an intruder.

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, searches for a newly introduced queen, while inspecting his bee hives at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017.

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, inspects his bee hives, at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017.

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

The dark bodied queen bee, crawls around a frame, as Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, inspects his bee hives, at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017.

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

Honey bees, owned by Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, stand at the uncovered entrance to the bee hives, at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017. Fine

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, inspects his bee hives, at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017.

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, takes a break while inspecting his bee hives, at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017. Fine

Dan Speicher | Tribune-Review

Al Fine, owner of Fine Family Apiary, poses for a portrait in his bee keeper suit, at Triple B Farms in Monongehala, on Wednesday, May 17, 2017.

View original post here:
Western Pennsylvania beekeepers abuzz on genetic engineering - Tribune-Review

May 19, 2017 Images of garment prototype before exercise with flat ventilation flaps (F) and after exercise with curved ventilation flaps (G). Credit: Science Advances (2017). advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/5/e1601984

A team of MIT researchers has designed a breathable workout suit with ventilating flaps that open and close in response to an athlete's body heat and sweat. These flaps, which range from thumbnail- to finger-sized, are lined with live microbial cells that shrink and expand in response to changes in humidity. The cells act as tiny sensors and actuators, driving the flaps to open when an athlete works up a sweat, and pulling them closed when the body has cooled off.

The researchers have also fashioned a running shoe with an inner layer of similar cell-lined flaps to air out and wick away moisture. Details of both designs are published today in Science Advances.

Why use live cells in responsive fabrics? The researchers say that moisture-sensitive cells require no additional elements to sense and respond to humidity. The microbial cells they have used are also proven to be safe to touch and even consume. What's more, with new genetic engineering tools available today, cells can be prepared quickly and in vast quantities, to express multiple functionalities in addition to moisture response.

To demonstrate this last point, the researchers engineered moisture-sensitive cells to not only pull flaps open but also light up in response to humid conditions.

"We can combine our cells with genetic tools to introduce other functionalities into these living cells," says Wen Wang, the paper's lead author and a former research scientist in MIT's Media Lab and Department of Chemical Engineering. "We use fluorescence as an example, and this can let people know you are running in the dark. In the future we can combine odor-releasing functionalities through genetic engineering. So maybe after going to the gym, the shirt can release a nice-smelling odor."

Wang's co-authors include 14 researchers from MIT, specializing in fields including mechanical engineering, chemical engineering, architecture, biological engineering, and fashion design, as well as researchers from New Balance Athletics. Wang co-led the project, dubbed bioLogic, with former graduate student Lining Yao as part of MIT's Tangible Media group, led by Hiroshi Ishii, the Jerome B. Wiesner Professor of Media Arts and Sciences.

Shape-shifting cells

In nature, biologists have observed that living things and their components, from pine cone scales to microbial cells and even specific proteins, can change their structures or volumes when there is a change in humidity. The MIT team hypothesized that natural shape-shifters such as yeast, bacteria, and other microbial cells might be used as building blocks to construct moisture-responsive fabrics.

"These cells are so strong that they can induce bending of the substrate they are coated on," Wang says.

The researchers first worked with the most common nonpathogenic strain of E. coli, which was found to swell and shrink in response to changing humidity. They further engineered the cells to express green fluorescent protein, enabling the cell to glow when it senses humid conditions.

They then used a cell-printing method they had previously developed to print E. coli onto sheets of rough, natural latex.

The team printed parallel lines of E. coli cells onto sheets of latex, creating two-layer structures, and exposed the fabric to changing moisture conditions. When the fabric was placed on a hot plate to dry, the cells began to shrink, causing the overlying latex layer to curl up. When the fabric was then exposed to steam, the cells began to glow and expand, causing the latex flatten out. After undergoing 100 such dry/wet cycles, Wang says the fabric experienced "no dramatic degradation" in either its cell layer or its overall performance.

No sweat

The researchers worked the biofabric into a wearable garment, designing a running suit with cell-lined latex flaps patterned across the suit's back. They tailored the size of each flap, as well as the degree to which they open, based on previously published maps of where the body produces heat and sweat.

"People may think heat and sweat are the same, but in fact, some areas like the lower spine produce lots of sweat but not much heat," Yao says. "We redesigned the garment using a fusion of heat and sweat maps to, for example, make flaps bigger where the body generates more heat."

Support frames underneath each flap keep the fabric's inner cell layer from directly touching the skin, while at the same time, the cells are able to sense and react to humidity changes in the air lying just over the skin. In trials to test the running suit, study participants donned the garment and worked out on exercise treadmills and bicycles while researchers monitored their temperature and humidity using small sensors positioned across their backs.

After five minutes of exercise, the suit's flaps started opening up, right around the time when participants reported feeling warm and sweaty. According to sensor readings, the flaps effectively removed sweat from the body and lowered skin temperature, more so than when participants wore a similar running suit with nonfunctional flaps.

When Wang tried on the suit herself, she found that the flaps created a welcome sensation. After pedaling hard for a few minutes, Wang recalls that "it felt like I was wearing an air conditioner on my back."

Ventilated running shoes

The team also integrated the moisture-responsive fabric into a rough prototype of a running shoe. Where the bottom of the foot touches the sole of the shoe, the researchers sewed multiple flaps, curved downward, with the cell-lined layer facing towardthough not touchinga runner's foot. They again designed the size and position of the flaps based on heat and sweat maps of the foot.

"In the beginning, we thought of making the flaps on top of the shoe, but we found people don't normally sweat on top of their feet," Wang says. "But they sweat a lot on the bottom of their feet, which can lead to diseases like warts. So we thought, is it possible to keep your feet dry and avoid those diseases?"

As with the workout suit, the flaps on the running shoe opened and lit up when researchers increased the surrounding humidity; in dry conditions the flaps faded and closed.

Going forward, the team is looking to collaborate with sportswear companies to commercialize their designs, and is also exploring other uses, including moisture-responsive curtains, lampshades, and bedsheets.

"We are also interested in rethinking packaging," Wang says. "The concept of a second skin would suggest a new genre for responsive packaging."

"This work is an example of harnessing the power of biology to design new materials and devices and achieve new functions," says Xuanhe Zhao, the Robert N. Noyce Career Development Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and a co-author on the paper. "We believe this new field of 'living' materials and devices will find important applications at the interface between engineering and biological systems."

Explore further: MIT group explores bacteria use for comfort wear

More information: "Harnessing the hygroscopic and biofluorescent behaviors of genetically tractable microbial cells to design biohybrid wearables" Science Advances (2017). advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/5/e1601984

Is "bio" the new interface? What is all this talk about actuators being made out of biological matter such as bacteria?

Textile production has historically been a bellwether for innovations in manufacturingfrom technological improvements such as the spinney jenny and the flying shuttle at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution to recent ...

(AP) -- When it comes to the discomfort and health risks of the current heat wave, it's not just the heat or the humidity - it's both.

Imagine a fabric that will keep your body at a comfortable temperatureregardless of how hot or cold it actually is. That's the goal of an engineering project at the University of California, San Diego, funded with a $2.6M ...

Engineers and biologists at MIT have teamed up to design a new "living material"a tough, stretchy, biocompatible sheet of hydrogel injected with live cells that are genetically programmed to light up in the presence of ...

Without sweat, we would overheat and die. In a recent paper in the journal PLOS ONE, USC faculty member Krzysztof Kobielak and a team of researchers explored the ultimate origin of this sticky, stinky but vital substancesweat ...

A team of MIT researchers has designed a breathable workout suit with ventilating flaps that open and close in response to an athlete's body heat and sweat. These flaps, which range from thumbnail- to finger-sized, are lined ...

French researchers have released software tools that they claim can restore some of the computers locked up by a global cyberattack that held users' files for ransom.

Numerous studies have raised critical concerns about the promise of corn ethanol's ability to mitigate climate change and reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Some of the studies have suggested that after a full life cycle ...

A Dubai firm's dream of towing icebergs from the Antarctic to the Arabian Peninsula could face some titanic obstacles.

Google announced a lot of new bells and whistles Wednesdayseveral of which, it turns out, are already offered by rivals such as Amazon, Apple and Facebook.

Google announced Wednesday it was bringing its digital assistant to Apple iPhones as part of its effort to win the battle with tech rivals on artificial intelligence.

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Trypophobia, anyone?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

View post:
Self-ventilating workout suit keeps athletes cool and dry - Phys.Org

Asheville-based director and producerJeremy Seiferts 2013 documentary film GMO, OMG highlighteda major concern about the manipulation of the food supply the belief that genetically modified organisms are dangerous.

In 2015, Mountain Xpress reported how local restaurants were seeing an increased demand for non-GMO foods. Until aGMO labeling bill was signed into law in July 2016, locals likeThe Market Placechef and ownerWilliam Dissenwere vocal, not so much about the dangers of GMOs, but about the importance of transparency when it comes to genetic engineering in our foods.

On Saturday, May 20, GMO Free NC will host the sixth annual March Against Monsanto, an Asheville public protest that organizers say aims to raise awareness of the dangers of genetically modified organisms to our food, to our health, our childrens health and that of all living things on the planet.

Even theNational Academy of Sciences,the agency responsible for releasingthe comprehensive May 2016 reportthat found no evidence that foods derived from genetically engineered (GE) crops were unsafe to eat, noted that it is clear that the proportion of Americans who believe that foods derived from GE crops pose a serious health hazard to consumers has steadily increased, from 27 percent in 1999 to 48 percent in 2013.

This trend pits those who are skeptical of genetic engineering against those who, alongside agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture and National Academy of Sciences, believe that genetic engineering is not only safe but has the potential to be a powerful tool for food production in the future.

Simply speaking, genetic engineering is a process whereby genes can be moved within a species or from one species to another, saysJack Britt, an Asheville-based scientist, consultant and agricultural professor of nearly 40 years at institutions like N.C. State University and the University of Tennessee. All of us have genes or pieces of genes that came from other species. Some have been introduced by viruses and bacteria, and some have been spread by biting insects and the organisms they inject into us when they bite.In the 1960s, scientists discovered how to excise and insert DNA (genes). The methods used by scientists are the same as those used by bacteria and viruses to move genes around among species, except that scientists do this more precisely than bacteria and viruses.

Essentially, the idea is that genetic engineering is simply a more efficient means of doing something that nature has always been doing since the dawn of time improving species through natural selection. We now know that nature has created many GMO crops over millions of years. The same organism that is used by scientists to move genes into corn, soybeans, papaya, canola, alfalfa and other GMO crops has been moving genes across species naturally for a long time. When the sweet potato genome was sequenced a few years ago, it was discovered that it was a true GMO crop and that the same organism has left its footprint in the sweet potato thousands of years ago.

WHAT GMO Free NC hosts the sixth annual March Against Monsanto. The march is kid- and pet-friendly. Participants are encouraged to wear earthy colors and/or creative costumes.

WHERE Downtown, starting and ending atthe Vance Monument

WHENSaturday, May 20 Rally begins at 11 a.m., march begins at noon. Rain or shine.

DETAILS Visit the events Facebook page at avl.mx/3pv for updates, including informationabout a sign-making circle planned for 4 p.m. Thursday, May 18, at The Block Off Biltmore.

Rather than improving species through whats essentially rolling the dice, genetically speaking, genetic engineering is much more targeted. With GMOs, there may be one gene altered. Yourenot changing a host of genes. Its very deliberate and very direct. Its not like taking a Schnauzer and breeding it with a St. Bernard and seeing what were going to get, saysLeah McGrath, corporate supermarket dietitian for Ingles Markets.

The use of GMOs and genetic engineering is also more prevalent than many people realize. Insulin is a GMO, so everyone who is a Type 1 diabetic relies on a product of genetic engineering, says McGrath.

Genetic engineering is used widely in processing and manufacturing of thousands of products that we all use every day, says Britt. Many cosmetic, health and other products are produced in fermentation vats using genetically modified E. coli.The technology that is used to produce GMO crops is used to make hundreds of products such as cold-water detergents, bread preservatives, many over-the-counter products and many pharmaceuticals.

Despite the widespread use of GMO-based products, many of the foods grown today fall outside the realm of what is considered genetically modified. Remember that there are no tomatoes, cucumbers, lettuces, kale, collards andmany other vegetables that are genetically engineered, saysFred Gould, N.C. State professor and chair of the National Academy of Sciences committee on GE crops. So unless your farm is focused on commodity row crops, you probably dont even have access to engineered crops.

The current list of GE foods on the market includes corn, soybeans, cotton, Innate Potatoes, papaya,squash, canola, alfalfa, arctic apples, sugar beets and AquaBounty salmon, according to a report frombestfoodfacts.org.

The number of GMO crops out on the market is limited by the regulatory process theyre subjected to.It can actually take almost 20 years to bring a GMO product to market. There are trials upon trials beforethat can happen, says McGrath. Britt agrees, noting that GMO crops are under much more control by FDA, EPA and USDA than any other farm products.

McGrath says its important for consumers to understand which GMO foods are in circulation so theres no risk of being exploited by unfounded, fear-based marketing. When you have small grocery stores, even here in Asheville, that put out adsshowing a tomato or strawberry with a syringe in it, implying that those products are GM, its important to understand that there arent actually any GMO strawberries or tomatoeson the market, says McGrath.

Despite the fact that every national scientific and medical agency in the world has declared that GMO foods are safe, according to Britt, many people are still concerned and skeptical.

According to a recentvideo released byKurzgesagtvia YouTube, there are several common objections to genetic engineering, including gene flow (the concept that GM crops can mix with traditional crops and introduce unwanted new traits into them), the use of terminator seeds (which are essentially seeds that produce sterile plants, requiring farmers to buy new seeds every year) and the use of chemical pesticides and herbicides, like the weed-killing herbicide glyphosate.

The use of pesticides and herbicides especially causes alarm among vocal critics in Asheville.

Philosophically and ethically, I believe that you are what you eat, and I do my best to source and cook ingredients that are local, sustainable and healthy. For me, the conversation about GE and healthy eating is the use of herbicides and pesticides in our food, says Dissen.

Agricultural communities suffer the greatest and most obvious effects of the ever-increasing amount of poison being sprayed, saysChris Smith, community coordinator at Asheville-basedSow True Seed. Glyphosate is showing up in groundwater. Studies show effects on beneficial insects and pollinators, not least because of the killing off of plants like milkweed, the preferred food of monarch butterflies. More emerging studies are linking health issues to people who get drift from aerial spraying. And that isnt to mention the real threat to the biodiversity of food and other crops in nearby fields, says Smith.

AnneandAaron Grierrun the 70-acreGaining Ground Farm in Leicester and have been selling vegetables in Asheville since 1999. We currently grow 14acres of vegetables on land that we lease from immediate family. We do actively avoid GMO seed in our vegetable production. We actively avoid buying non-GMO seed from companies that also produce and sell GMO seeds. We worry about GMOs unintended impacts on insects and increased usage of herbicide in Roundup Ready-type applications, say the Griers.

Britt seemsless concerned than Dissen, Smith and the Griers about the use of chemicals like glyphosate. The primary advantage of GMO corn and other GMO crops is that they simplify control of weeds and control of insect damage to crops, says Britt. In general, weeds are now typically controlled by a single herbicide (glyphosate) rather than multiple herbicides, and the GMO plants often include a BT toxin that kills insects that feed on plants.

When Britt refers to weeds controlled by glyphosate, he is referring togenetically modified herbicide-resistant crops (think Roundup Ready), which have been engineered to survive exposure to glyphosate, the chemical (found in Roundup spray)known to kill weeds. The BT that Britt references is a gene borrowed from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, which allows engineered plants to produce a protein that destroys the digestive systems of specified insect pests. So basically, the plant makes its own pesticide, and insects that eat it will die.

Butare BT toxins bredinto crops something to worry about? Unlike many pesticides, the BT toxin is not active in humans. The bacteria that produces the BT toxin is used by organic farmers to control pests in their organic crops. It is a natural product, says Britt.

Britt counters concerns about the overall use of pesticidesby noting that now we spray much less than previously, and pesticide use in the U.S. has declined significantly over the last two decades. According to worldwide statistics, the U.S. now ranks around 43rd in the world in amount of pesticide used per acre of arable farmland. Fertilizer use has also declined, and we rank about 62nd in the world in fertilizer use per acre.

For Gould, some objections to the current use of GE technology may be valid, but not those regarding the health or safety for humans and the environment. The overall data doesnt show that GMOs themselves cause human and environmental safety problems, says Gould. If you are against GMOs for ethical and societal reasons, I think its best to express your opposition in those terms instead of health and environmental terms.

Laura Lengnick, professor of sustainable agriculture at Warren Wilson College and author of the bookResilient Agriculture, says: GE technology may be a useful tool in climate change adaptation, but not as it is used today. In general, GE technology is a great example of the overemphasis on technological solutions to food production challenges that characterizes industrial agricultural.

Britt disagrees.The first GMO on the market was Roundup-resistant corn, and that was really designed so that Monsanto could sell more Roundup. Now, while it definitely makes planting and growing corn simpler for the farmer, the company was primarilyfocused on selling more Roundup. So, ultimately, that was a product that made a lot of money for [Monsanto], farmers liked it, but itwasnt necessarily a great step forward in terms of producing food more efficiently or meeting needs any better, except for maybe reducing the overall use of pesticides, says Britt.

For Anne and Aaron Grier of Gaining Ground Farm, everyday shoppers carry a responsibility when it comes to farmers buying seed from companies like Monsanto.We think that most of the responsibility rests with the consumer making decisions with their dollar. If consumers quit buying products that contained GMO crops, farmers would quit using GMO seeds, say the Griers.

Companies like Monsanto are for-profit corporations with shareholders and board members to satisfy. Thus, consumer and agricultural concerns may be secondary to generating profits. This isnt to imply that these companies are malicious or nefarious, however,but rather a reminder that profits are a top priority for many companies. Which company does not have an intention tomake profit? Britt asks.

Britt says the GMO technologies were using today arent particularly enhancing the state of agriculture, as they have the potential to, but believes there is reason to be optimistic about the future of GE. I think the long-term advantages of genetic engineering or gene editing is for things like drought resistance and salt tolerance, he says. Could you grow plants in salty water? If we could do that, we wouldnt have to worry about irrigation water.

Britt also believes GMOs may soon be a thing of the past. My guess is that GMO will soon be replaced by gene-editing, he says. Its quicker, easier to do and has a precision that is exceptionally high. With gene-editing, a specific gene is excised or cut from the DNA, and its replacement is inserted in the space that was cut out. Often the replaced gene is a slightly different version of the one that was cut out and often leads to improved health or some other benefit to the plant or animal.

With growing concerns around global population growth and impending climate change, there is certainly reason to move forward with research and development of potentially effective GE technologies. I dont think you can draw a line in the sand and just say no to GE, says McGrath. I think we have to realize that we need tohave these tools in our toolbox and dont have the luxury of taking anything off the plate.

Those critical of GE maintain that we need to proceed with caution, however. Could publicly funded altruistic application of certain types of biotech help us in the future? Smith asks. Quite possibly. Will biotech be a golden wand that solves all our problems? Extremely unlikely. We need big system changes, which means human behavior needs to change and that relies on the most complex tool we have at our disposal: our brains.

See the original post here:
Facts, fears and the future of food: Asheville talks about genetic engineering - Mountain Xpress

Myrtle Beach Sun News

Why does it matter if food is grown organically? Myrtle Beach Sun News About two thirds of the processed and packaged food on the supermarket shelves contains genetically engineered products. That may be in the form of oils, sweeteners, soy protein, amino acids, vitamin C and other such ingredients. Genetic engineering ...

See the rest here:
Why does it matter if food is grown organically? - Myrtle Beach Sun News

The environment ministry in India will make the final call after the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee recently gave a positive recommendation for the commercial cultivation of GM mustard. Whether the crop is commercially cultivated could depend on the Supreme Court, which is hearing a case seeking a moratorium on its commercial release. The government has stated it will abide by the courts decision (although that remains to be seen and some question the courts impartiality). The final hearing will probably take place in July. The casebefore the Supreme Court was brought by Aruna Rodrigues who accuses various officials and the regulatory authorities of unremitting fraud and regulatory delinquency.

The importance of GM mustard should not be underestimated. It is central to the whole debate about the future of agriculture in India and the wider development paradigm. GM mustard is a Trojan horse that would help pave the way for ripping up the economic and social fabric of India and recast for the benefit of powerful Western corporations, not least Bayer-Monsanto (seeGM Mustard in Indiato read my numerous articles on this issue).

GM mustard is being promoted on the basis of the lie that it will increase yield. However, the government itself admits theres no evidence that it will do so.In aletterto Anil Dave, Indias environment minister, presented below, advocate Prashant Bhushan says that conclusions were drawn and disseminated to mean that GM Mustard DMH 11 is a superior hybrid-making technology that will out-yield Indias best non-GMO hybrids and varieties. But he adds that non-GMO hybrids and varieties out-yield HT DMH 11 hands down.

Bhushan reminds the Indian government that it has admitted that there is no evidence that GM mustard out-yields non-GM. In an affidavit to the Supreme Court, the government stated,

No such claim has been made in any of the submitted documents that DMH 11 out-performs Non-GMO hybrids.

ANNEX

Resi. Office. Chamber

B-16,Sector-14,Noida C-67, Sector-14, Noida 301, New Lawyers Chamber

Dist. Gautam BudhNagar Dist. Gautam BudhNagar SupremeCourt Of India

(U.P.) 201 301 (U.P.) 201 301, fax: 0120-4512694 New Delhi

Ph : 0120-2512632, 2512693 Ph: 0120-2512523, 2512695 Ph: 011- 23070301,23070645.

Dated: May 13, 2017

Shri Anil DaveThe Honble Minister of MoEF and Climate Change Paryavaran Bhavan Lodhi Road New Delhi

COMMERCIAL APPROVAL BY THE GEAC OF HT MUSTARD HYBRID DMH 11ON 11 MAY 2017

Dear Shri Dave

I express a deep disquiet and anxiety at the opaque and unscientific regulatory oversight of this GM mustard, which is also an herbicide tolerant (GM) crop. It has resulted yesterday, in its undoubtedly flawed approval for Commercialisation by the GEAC. I write to request you to please withhold your approval of such a move on three grounds.

The firstis that the CJ, based on the assurance given by the AG Mukul Rohatgi that the Union of India will not release DMH 11without the prior approval of the Supreme Court,accordingly, gave a verbal Order of an interim injunction till the case is heard comprehensively and the issue of HT mustard in substance. This was widely reported in the newspapers, two examples of which are referenced ().

The secondis the grave matter of the independence, surety and rigourof the oversight of the biosafety of HT Mustard DMH 11, which is critical for Indias agriculture in mustard, its food safety (both as a vegetable and seed oil), and furthermore, and of outstanding importance, the certain contamination that will occur of Indias mustard germplasm. These matters are of course, of central concern to your Ministrys regulating function and mandate for India.

The thirdis the requirement and my personal plea to you, to take note of the lessons of history of GMO regulation in India, embedded as it is in the most serious conflicts of interest and lack of expertise, where regulation has become farcical. For this reason,self-assessed safety dossiersby crop developers are kept secret by our Regulators and governing Ministries. Four official reports attest to the prevailing, utterly dismal state of regulation.

May any government treat its citizens with such willful disregard, despite Constitutional provisions?

The Bt brinjal Biosafety-Dossier remained unpublished for 16 months despite a SC order, but eventually, the Regulators had to comply with its full publication (with the raw data), which then revealed its fraudulence when examined and appraised by independent scientists of international stature. Studies said to be done were not done, as many as 36 of 37 environmental studies, leaving aside other risk assessment protocols. The moratorium which followed was also in large part influenced by the fact thatIndia is the worlds Centre of brinjal diversitywith 2500 varieties and wild species, which would certainly be contaminated. This is what the 37thPSC of 2012 (on GMOs) had to say on Bt brinjal and regulation. I quote very briefly. I would urge you to read the full recommendations of just 3 pages:

-Convinced that these developments are not merely slippages due to oversight or human error but indicative of collusion of a worst kind,they have recommended a THOROUGH PROBE INTO THE BT. BRINJALmatter from the beginning up to the imposing of moratorium on its commercialization by the then Minister of Environment and Forests (I/C) on 9 February, 2010 by a team of independent scientists and environmentalists.(Recommendation Para No. 2.79).

The Committee after critically analyzingthe evidence the gross inadequacy of the regulatory mechanism, the absence of chronic toxicology studies and long term environment impact assessment of transgenic agricultural crops; the virtual non-existent nature of the oversight bodies like National Biodiversity Authority, Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers Right Authority, Food Safety and Standards Authority of India, etc., recommended that till all the concerns voiced in their Report are fully addressed -, to put in place all regulatory, monitoring, oversight, surveillance and other structures,further research and development on transgenics in agricultural crops should only be done in strict containment and FIELD TRIALS UNDER ANY GARB SHOULD BE DISCONTINUED FORTHWITH.(Recommendation Para Nos. 8.116, 8.121 & 8.125)

Noting with concern the grossly inadequate and antiquated regulatory mechanism for assessment and approval of transgenics in food crops; the serious conflict of interest of various stakeholders involved in the regulatory mechanism; the total lack of post commercialization, monitoring and surveillance, the Committee have felt thatin such a situation what the Country needs is not a bio-technology regulatory legislationbut anall-encompassing umbrella legislation on bio-safety-The Committee have also cautioned the Government that in their tearing hurry to open the economy to private prospectors, they should NOT MAKE THE SAME FATE BEFALL ON THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR, as has happened to the communications, pharma, mineral wealth and several other sectors in which the Governmentsfacilitative benevolence preceded setting up of sufficient checks and balances and regulatory mechanisms,thereby, leading to colossal, unfettered loot and plunder of national wealth in some form or the other, incalculable damage to environment, bio-diversity, flora and fauna and unimaginable suffering to the common man.(Recommendation Para No. 3.47 & 3.48)

But till date, the GM mustard dossier remains unpublished in willful Contempt of Court. Prof Pental is the Chair of the DBTs Agricultural Biotechnology Task Force. SR Rao, Member GEAC is over-all in-charge of the DBTs Agri Biotech programmes.The DBT also funds Pentals GM mustard.

Does anything more need to be said to underscore the implications of thiscosyarrangement of partnership in the Regulatory oversight of HT mustard DMH 11 and GMOs in general?

Data that has leaked around the edges demonstrate that we have ample reason to be greatly concerned of gross cover-up and misconduct. Furthermore, this HT mustard DMH 11 and its two HT variants are doubly barred by the unanimous 5-member TEC recommendations: ie this is an HT crop and a crop in a Centre of genetic diversity.

The further contents of this letter below, make clear in the simplest possible way, from, and it has to be said, curious admissions of your Apex Regulator and the Union of India in their Reply Affidavit submitted to the SC, which effectively demolish wholesale, any sound basis for the release of HT DMH 11 for commercial cultivation. I make 3 short points, to alert you to the veracity of this statement, as you will not be briefed correctly on these matters by your Regulators and indeed by the Ministries of S & T and Agriculture, both of which promote HT DMH 11 and even fund it (DBT) as stated above:

(a) HT hybrid mustard DMH 11 has failed the first criteria of a test risk protocol of a GM crop:Is the GM Crop required in the first place?The answer inNobased on the admission of the Union of India itself in their Reply Affidavit in the SC.They said:

No such claim has been made in any of the submitted documents that DMH 11 out-performs Non-GMO hybrids. The comparison has only been made between hybrid DMH 11, NC (national Check) Varuna and the appropriate ZC (zonal checks) MSY of 2670 Kg/ha has been recorded over three years of BRL trials which is 28% and 37% more than the NC & ZC respectively (At 88, pg.56).

Unfortunately, the whole truth uncovered, is that no valid comparators were used and the field trials themselves stand voided on the basis of serious anomalies and violations in field testing, inconclusive results and even statistical fraud.Yet, conclusions were drawn and disseminated to mean that DMH 11 is a superiorhybrid-making technologythat will out-yield Indias best Non-GMO hybrids and varieties. The fact is, Non-GMO hybrids and varieties out-yield HT DMH 11 hands down.

(b) We know, based on the AGs assertion in Court that the Union of India holds that this GM mustard will displace imported edible oil-seeds in a significant way (reduce our oilseeds bill). However, such an assertion in the light of the above submission is to say the least ludicrous, entirely lacking any semblance of logic. Moreover, the nearest equivalent to Indian mustard (Brassica juncea) is rape-seed oil (Canola), imported from Canada (which is essentially GMO) and represents just 2% of Indias edible oil imports! Rs 68,000 Cr is the total import oil-seeds bill,not Canolaalone, as the AG mistakenly stated in Court. Can this be the basis for the Commercialisation of HT mustard DMH 11?

It gets murkier still when the U of I also admits that:

Heterosis is due to the careful selection of parents and not due to the three transgenes The developers have nowhere claimed that the yield increase is due to the three transgenes(At 65, page 45)

This is exactly the issue that there is no trait for yield in HT DMH 11. It is good indeed that on this point we are all in agreement. Yet, somehow, the opposite story prevails, the story to the media, and the PMO. The stand of the Niti Aayog is particularly curious in that their National Agri policy requires GMOs in agriculture to meet Indias food security as they are better yielding! Where in this statement is the basic science governing the trait for yield in GMOs and Mustard in particular? It is very troubling that the Niti Aayog has failed to do some basichomework.

(c) Therefore, we draw the conclusion that the stated regulatory intent is toderegulate HT DMH 11 as a policy agenda based on no science,and to convert Indias mustard agriculture, in a massive and dangerous experiment, to (GM) HThybridmustard, (variants of DMH 11). Imagine our consternation when your Regulator admitted to precisely this:

Once the GE mustard events Varuna bn 3.6 and EH2 modbs 2.99 are approved and deregulated, these would be immediately used by the National net-work programme Once a robust pollination control mechanism is in place,yield of hybrids can be further improved by breeding betterparental lines(at 63, pg. 43).

The statement is pure spin, dissimulation. Unless deconstructed, it conveys that HT Hybrid DMH11 is a superior hybrid-making technology (which it is not); that will (alone) provide 25 to 30% higher yield and even better, (not true, as admitted), because on the contrary, Indias best Non-GMO hybrids and varieties are already significantly outperforming HT DMH 11. Unfortunately and regrettably, the plain truth is that decades of good work already being done by our agri institutions and the DRMRin Non-GM hybrid technology and superior-yielding varieties will be laid waste in this dangerous plan for the country via HT Hybrid DMH 11 and its variants.

AND OUR GERMPLASM WILL BE THOROUGHLY CONTAMINATED AND IN A CENTRE OF MUSTARD DIVERSITY.

India is a centre of diversity in mustard with9720 Accessionsin our gene banks(The NBPGR). With a commercialised GM crop, contamination of non-GMO is certain. That is the evidence.

In closing, Id like to emphasise that GMO contamination is neither remediable nor reversible and is the outstanding concern. The genes in HT hybrid DMH 11 are toxic genes: being an HT crop also means that DMH 11 is a pesticidal crop. Its nationality doesnt change the science. It stays this way whether foreign or Indian! How do we get carried away on such a band-wagon?

The issue also is that with GMO contamination, our mustard will be changed at the molecular level. Any toxicity that there is will remain in perpetuity. Are we prepared to be the agents for such monumental risk and put India and its people in jeopardy without any recourse and remedy?

For these reasons among others, and there are decidedly others, I would urge you on behalf of our Nation not to endorse this outrageous and anti-national approval, but reject it in the public interest. You will be doing India a noble service in posterity.

Thank you, Yours sincerely,

Signed/

Prashant Bhushan

* * *

Notes

LiveLaw News Network: No GM Mustard Without SC Approval October 24, 2016;

http://www.dnaindia.comreport-will-not-release-gm-mustard-crop-commercially-without-supreme-court-s-permission-centre-

Directorate of Rape-Seed Mustard

Read the original here:
India: Genetic Engineering, the Commercialization of GM Mustard and the Future of Agriculture - Center for Research on Globalization

[Dr Swati Puranik, of the Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences at Aberystwyth University in the UK] and her collaborators in Kenya and India aim to use conventional genomics-based breeding to come up with varieties of finger millet that contain higher levels of calcium and vitamins, without using genetic engineering.

Professor Paul Christou, from the Department of Crop and Forest Science and Agrotecnico Centre at the University of Lleida in Spain, has genetically engineered maize and rice to boost vitamin A, folic acid and vitamin C, along with a wide spectrum of essential micronutrients.

He sees value in conventional breeding to develop fortified crop varieties, but believes genetic engineering is the only current way to deliver a staple crop that meets the recommended daily amounts of vitamins and minerals simultaneously.

To my mind, in order to be successful in biofortification programmes, you need to address the micronutrient deficiencies in as complete a manner as possible,saidProf. Christou.

Genetically modified (GM) cereal varieties could have a major impact if they are accepted. But Prof. Christou recognises that not everyone is receptive to GM foods, even where they can improve nutrition for hundreds of millions of people.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post:New strains of staple crops serve up essential vitamins

Read more from the original source:
If biofortified crops are goal, both genetic engineering and conventional breeding necessary - Genetic Literacy Project

Diamondback moths. (Credit: Oxitec)

Though genetically modified crops may steal the spotlight, similarly reprogrammed insects may have just as big an effect on the agricultural industry.

Biotechnology company Oxitec is moving forward withplans to develop genetically engineered diamondback moths in an attempt to reduce populations of the invasive crop pest. Their plan is to release males that will pass on a gene preventing female offspring from reaching maturity and reproducing, eventually eradicating the moths in North America. Tests have so far been positive, although there are still worries about the prospect of releasing genetically modified organisms into the wild.

Currently, pesticides are used to control the moths, which are responsible for an estimated $5 billion worth of damage every year in the U.S. An invasive species, the diamondback moth originated in Europe, but has proved difficult to control since appearing the U.S. due to short gestation times and the large numbers of eggs females lay at once. Oxitec says that their technique is preferable to pesticides, as the moths have proven capable of evolving resistance to the compounds in the past, and most carry some risk to the environment and human health.

Oxitec cites a USDAanalysis that found no risk of significant impact in an earlier test of the GM moths as evidence that their technique is safe, but the prospect of GM insects raisesfears that the moths may proliferate beyond targeted areasand cause impacts on the broader ecology. Similar techniques have been applied before, reaching as far back as the 1950s when sterile screwworm flies were released in Florida, effectively eliminating the parasitic species there. Impotent mosquitos, also manufactured by Oxitec, have been used to combat Zika in South America, andplans to implement the same procedure in Florida are underway.

The successful screwworm campaign relied on blasts of radiation to sterilize the males. Oxitecs technique uses gene editing engineering to implant males with modified DNA that ensures female caterpillars dont survive to adulthood. In the case of the moths, males need not be targeted because it is only the female caterpillars who are responsible for damaging the crops.

They say that tests of the moths, including feeding them to various animals and releasing them in greenhouses, have revealed no ill effects as a result of the genetic modification. Along with the caterpillar-killing gene, the moths are also implanted with a gene that causes them to fluoresce red under UV light, the better to identify them in the wild.

The FDA found no issues preventing the company from moving forward, but because the moths are an agricultural pest, the USDA must weigh in as well.Oxitec is currently waiting on USDA approval to conduct expanded tests at a site in New York in conjunction with Cornell University. They hope to release the moths in a contained cabbage field to see how effective their modifications are.

Most opposition to genetically modified insects is based on the prospect of altered organisms spreading beyond the areas they are released. In the case of the diamondback moth, Oxitec says that the nature of the modification, which precludes breeding, should serve to limit the spread of the GM moths, and pesticides and freezing winter conditions should take care of the rest.

Kevin Esvelt, a professor at MIT and leader of the Sculpting Evolution Lab agrees: The wholepoint is to harm the next generation of organisms. And since they carry the relevant genetic construct, its necessarily going to decrease, he says. It will not persistin the environment over time as long as the genetic construct is doing what its supposed to do.

This marks a crucial difference from a gene drive, a technique often associated with genetically modifying populations. The hallmark of a gene drive is tweaking genes to increase the chances that a particular trait will be passed on to offspring. The odds are normally 50/50, but a gene drive can tilt them in favor of a particular set of genes,causing a trait to spread through a population. This is helpful when a trait is detrimental to an organisms survival and would normally be weeded out by natural selection. Gene drives havent yet been applied in the wild, though, and likely wont be for many years.

Oxitecs moths possess nosuch scale-tipping modifications that could cause the modified genes to spread across the globe, they merely pass on genetic material in the normal way. Part of this genetic material, however, has been changed to ensure that female caterpillars with the gene dont survive.

From a technical perspective its a perfectly sound approach, it probably offers fewer risks than current approaches using pesticides. In general I am a fan of usingbiology to solve ecological problems as opposed to chemistry, Esvelt says.

Still, he says that field trials are an important step in testing the efficacy and safety of any genetically modified organism. Along with careful tests, Esvelt advocates for more community involvement in the decision making process, as well attempts to reach out and communicate with critics. Although both the FDA and USDA have a period in place during which the public can comment, Esvelt says more communication should be done earlier.

Here is the original post:
After Mosquitos, Moths Are the Next Target For Genetic Engineering - Discover Magazine (blog)

Updated May 7, 2017, 11:50 AM

By Philippine News Agency

Bostons Massachusetts General Hospital won a contract worth more than US million to conduct research for a US military genetic engineering program, the Department of Defense said in a press release.

(Credits via Pixabay/ Manila Bulletin)

Massachusetts General Hospital [of] Boston, Massachusetts was awarded a cooperative agreement with a ceiling value of US million for research and development supporting the Safe Genes program, the release stated.

The Safe Genes program, according to DARPA, delivers biological capabilities for advanced genome editing applications.

The work will be overseen by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency based in Arlington, Virginia, the release noted.

The project has an expected completion date of April 2021, the Defense Department said.

Tags: contract, DARPA, Hospital, Manila bulletin, Pentagon awards Boston hospital genetic engineering research contract, research, Safe Genes program

Follow this link:
Pentagon awards Boston hospital genetic engineering research contract - Manila Bulletin

By Staff Friday, April 7, 2017

In spite of my hair, no one has ever mistaken me for Einstein. In the gym, after a shower, some people have thought I was Bernie Sanders. But as soon as they started talking to me, they could see that I didnt have his native intelligence.

Science requires no experience, profession, skill or money. Luckily, I was, and am, qualified. If you are a little curious and can think clearly, you can probably do an experiment. I suppose it helps to be a little CDO (which is Obsessive Compulsive Disorder with the letters in the correct sequence). It also helps to be able to focus on a single topic for a long period of time. This requirement has hampered me throughout my career.

Being a scientist probably takes a little money, too, but much less than you might think if you listen to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Scientists seldom complete all the studies that are possible using a single tool. Every time technology comes up with a new piece of equipment scientists need it to see what they can do with it. Everyone wants the new electric microscopes when we really havent exhausted the old steam-powered microscopes yet.

Science rushes recklessly ahead. Now we have a new method of engineering genetics called CRISPR. This is an acronym for CRISPR/cas9 which stands for Clustered Regularly-Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats/CRISPR associated protein 9. Id call it CRISPR for sure if I had to say the full name too many times. One could sprain their frenulum or something trying to say all that.

The deal is that CRISPR has decreased the time and costs of genetic engineering by about 99 percent. Generally, reducing time and costs is a great boon to mankind. As a scientist, I am thrilled! However, it just occurred to me that making it faster and cheaper to destroy ourselves may not be in our best interests.

While Monsanto and the two other food monopolies are excited to make more food, now some medical scientists want to eliminate certain neurological and psychiatric diseases that have been the key to producing the great minds of history. Medical scientists seem to see variations in life as problems to be solved. There should be no deviations or abnormalities outside of a normal curve.

However, humans would be smart to notice that genetic variants contribute to psychiatric conditions that may be beneficial depending on ones environment or genetic background. For example, both Thomas Edison and Einstein were considered addled and were kicked out of school. Tennessee Williams feared the process of thought and nearly went mad. The rate of bipolar disorder is 10 times higher among writers than among the general population, and 40 times higher among poets.

I will insert a shameless self-promotion here concerning my book Between Two Mirrors, available on Amazon.

It is a mixture of science essays by a scientist with a spotty record in public school and poetry by the same person, who some continue to believe may have mental problems.

In short, genetic engineering shows a gross misunderstanding of evolution.

Evolution does not progress toward some ideal species where each individual is identical to the others. Instead, it tinkers around the edges of a species toward adaptation to some local niche that itself changes as the species change. It is impossible to predict the result of evolution because the environment selects the species, and the selected species alters the environment. The best one can say is that evolution produces diversity.

Unruly white hair is a characteristic of old, white males of European descent and, in and of itself, is not a sign of genius. However, mental aberrations are not always something to be eliminated. They may be capable of enriching mankind beyond what one might expect. If CRISPR had been available 72 years ago, you might have been spared this column. However, Id have had a lot less fun.

Gary McCallister, .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address), is a professor emeritus of biological sciences at Colorado Mesa University.

Read more here:

Engineering a solution to genetic uniqueness - Grand Junction Daily Sentinel