Daily Archives: February 15, 2014

FoodYou Design: BioEthics Forum XX
Feelings, Facts, Food and GMOs -- A Fresh Look The mission of the FoodYou Campaign at Pace University is to objectively explore and address the tough que...

By: ThePaceAcademy

See more here:
FoodYou Design: BioEthics Forum XX - Video

Genetic Engineering Maximum Ride Style
Abigail Rasch #39;s "Science in Fiction" Video Contest submission ( can also be viewed here: https://www.wevideo.com/view/151007082)

By: Kavli "Science in Fiction" Video Channel

See more here:
Genetic Engineering Maximum Ride Style - Video

Feature Article of Thursday, 13 February 2014

Columnist: Agorsor, Yafetto, Otwe, Galyuon

Israel D. K. Agorsor, Levi Yafetto, Emmanuel P. Otwe and Isaac K. A. Galyuon

1. Introduction

At the turn of the last decade, Ghana signaled its intention to adopt plant genetic engineering as part of the efforts towards modernizing its agriculture when it established the National Biosafety Committee. This committee would, among others, activate the processes for the formulation of a Biosafety Bill. In 2011, a draft Biosafety Bill was passed into law by Ghanas Parliament, and is known as Biosafety Act 2011 or Act 831. Genetic engineering techniques enable scientists to modify the genetic make-up of an organism, otherwise known as its genome, by inserting into the genome pieces of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) ? the genetic material ? that condition specific desirable traits from other organisms. These modifications result in what are known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) or transgenic organisms (transgenics).

To say that the debates on GMOs are, perhaps, the fiercest of all debates that have ever engulfed any human endeavour and, for that matter, any scientific discipline in living memory may be an understatement. Why the GMO wars have been so fiercely fought is clear only to the extent that people and cultures have significant emotional attachment to food and food products, and thus anything that appears an aberration to these would always be fiercely resisted. However, the evidence, as we have it, is that these debates have at times gone beyond the science, and have assumed moral and speculative dimensions. The result is that quite often, moral questions are also asked to proponents of genetic engineering, questions whose answers may not be readily available.

Some of these moral questions include: Are scientists now playing God? Why do scientists interfere in nature and the natural order? Speculative ones include the myriad of diseases, such as cancer, heart diseases, diabetes and fibroid, that genetically modified (GM) food causes. Of course we are aware of some published reports which suggest GM foods could have adverse effects on human and animal health. But we are also aware that some of these reports have either been challenged or retracted from the scientific journals in which they were published after follow-up studies showed that the experiments leading to those conclusions were flawed. You may read, for example, Sralini affair at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A9ralini_affair, as well as the widely-referenced Pusztai study which although hailed by some scientists, has been challenged by others including the UK Royal Society. See the Pusztai affair at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pusztai_affair.

We have noticed, too, that in an opinion piece that appeared in the Daily Graphic of Monday, December 23, 2013, and titled GM Foods: Mass genocide, studies by Australian scientist Judy Carman and her colleague Jack Heinemann have been cited as evidence of health risks of GMOs. In fact, Carman and co-authors studies have been disputed. Many scientists, including the food regulator for Australia/New Zealand known as Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) have rejected Carman and colleagues claim that GM foods have health risks as reported in one study. See FSANZs response to Carman and colleagues claims at http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumer/gmfood/Pages/Response-to-Dr-Carman's-study.aspx. Basically, the charge is that it was flawed science that led to their claims.

For an example of a publication that discusses the health implications of GM foods, see the article (not an original research paper, but a review article) Health risks of genetically modified foods by Dona and Arvanitoyannis published in the journal Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition in 2009 (Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 49(2): 164-175) at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989835 (click on View full text). For a challenge to the views expressed in Dona and Arvanitoyannis, see the article Response to Health risks of genetically modified foods by Craig Rickard in the same journal at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408390903467787#tabModule.

Unfortunately, the independence of the authors of some of the pro- and anti-GMO articles and research papers have been questioned at times; the authors have been accused of doing the bidding of either biotechnology giants or anti-GMO movements because they have been receiving, allegedly, research funding from these groups. These accusations have also added to the complexity of the GMO debates.

Read the original here:
Ghanas GMO debates: beyond the sticking points (1)

Precise and easy ways to rewrite human genes could finally provide the tools that researchers need to understand and cure some of our most deadly genetic diseases.

Over the last decade, as DNA-sequencing technology has grown ever faster and cheaper, our understanding of the human genome has increased accordingly. Yet scientists have until recently remained largely ham-fisted when theyve tried to directly modify genes in a living cell. Take sickle-cell anemia, for example. A debilitating and often deadly disease, it is caused by a mutation in just one of a patients three billion DNA base pairs. Even though this genetic error is simple and well studied, researchers are helpless to correct it and halt its devastating effects.

Now there is hope in the form of new genome-engineering tools, particularly one called CRISPR. This technology could allow researchers to perform microsurgery on genes, precisely and easily changing a DNA sequence at exact locations on a chromosome. Along with a technique called TALENs, invented several years ago, and a slightly older predecessor based on molecules called zinc finger nucleases, CRISPR could make gene therapies more broadly applicable, providing remedies for simple genetic disorders like sickle-cell anemia and eventually even leading to cures for more complex diseases involving multiple genes. Most conventional gene therapies crudely place new genetic material at a random location in the cell and can only add a gene. In contrast, CRISPR and the other new tools also give scientists a precise way to delete and edit specific bits of DNAeven by changing a single base pair. This means they can rewrite the human genome at will.

It is likely to be at least several years before such efforts can be developed into human therapeutics, but a growing number of academic researchers have seen some preliminary success with experiments involving sickle-cell anemia, HIV, and cystic fibrosis (see table below). One is Gang Bao, a bioengineering researcher at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who has already used CRISPR to correct the sickle-cell mutation in human cells grown in a dish. Bao and his team started the work in 2008 using zinc finger nucleases. When TALENs came out, his group switched quickly, says Bao, and then it began using CRISPR when that tool became available. While he has ambitions to eventually work on a variety of diseases, Bao says it makes sense to start with sickle-cell anemia. If we pick a disease to treat using genome editing, we should start with something relatively simple, he says. A disease caused by a single mutation, in a single gene, that involves only a single cell type.

In little more than a year, CRISPR has begun reinventing genetic research.

Bao has an idea of how such a treatment would work. Currently, physicians are able to cure a small percentage of sickle-cell patients by finding a human donor whose bone marrow is an immunological match; surgeons can then replace some of the patients bone marrow stem cells with donated ones. But such donors must be precisely matched with the patient, and even then, immune rejectiona potentially deadly problemis a serious risk. Baos cure would avoid all this. After harvesting blood cell precursors called hematopoietic stem cells from the bone marrow of a sickle-cell patient, scientists would use CRISPR to correct the defective gene. Then the gene-corrected stem cells would be returned to the patient, producing healthy red blood cells to replace the sickle cells. Even if we can replace 50 percent, a patient will feel much better, says Bao. If we replace 70 percent, the patient will be cured.

Though genome editing with CRISPR is just a little over a year old, it is already reinventing genetic research. In particular, it gives scientists the ability to quickly and simultaneously make multiple genetic changes to a cell. Many human illnesses, including heart disease, diabetes, and assorted neurological conditions, are affected by numerous variants in both disease genes and normal genes. Teasing out this complexity with animal models has been a slow and tedious process. For many questions in biology, we want to know how different genes interact, and for this we need to introduce mutations into multiple genes, says Rudolf Jaenisch, a biologist at the Whitehead Institute in Cambridge Massachusetts. But, says Jaenisch, using conventional tools to create a mouse with a single mutation can take up to a year. If a scientist wants an animal with multiple mutations, the genetic changes must be made sequentially, and the timeline for one experiment can extend into years. In contrast, Jaenisch and his colleagues, including MIT researcher Feng Zhang (a 2013 member of our list of 35 innovators under 35), reported last spring that CRISPR had allowed them to create a strain of mice with multiple mutations in three weeks.

Genome GPS

Go here to read the rest:
CRISPR is the technology that could allow researchers to perform microsurgery on genes

PARIS, Feb 13 (BERNAMA-NNN-PRENSA LATINA) -- French company Abivax and the Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (CIGB) in Cuba announced an agreement here Wednesday to partner in the development and commercialisation of vaccines with one against the Hepatitis B virus.

The CIGB, Cuba's leading biotechnology institution, has more than 50 research-development projects, while Abivax, based in Paris, is a product of the merger of the Wittycell, Splicos and Zophis firms. Their objective is to fight infectious diseases and cancer.

"Cuba is known for the excellence of its physicians and the quality of its vaccines. This is a project of international importance to put France foremost in this matter," Philippe Pouletty, president of the Administrative Council of the French firm, said.

Norkis Arteaga, head of Biocubafarma business department, said that the complementary nature of both companies in research and production will allow for the distribution of many products in the future.

Arteaga cited in a statement a licensing agreement between the CIGB and Abivax for the development and commercialisation of the therapeutic vaccine against Hepatitis B.

Cuba will provide the clinical results and capacity, while the French firm financial resources to complete other clinical trials in Europe and Asia along with the experience to register it in these markets and commercialise it later.

-- BERNAMA-NNN-PRENSA LATINA

Go here to read the rest:
Cuba, France Agree To Develop Hepatitis B Vaccine