Click here to load reader
Upload
vuongdat
View
215
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Daron Chau
Professor Rex Krueger
Writing 10, Section 02
October 21, 2012
The Progression in Genetic Engineering
As we look into the history of genetic engineering and focus on problems that has
have accumulated, we note that society is continually being affected. With the human
population increasing throughout history, people needed a way to prevent food shortages.
This drive to obtain better agricultural yields gave rise to genetic engineering. With
genetic engineering, one can modify an organism’s genetic code and change the way an
organism it functions. Because of genetics, scientists are able to modify plants and
animals to produce more crops that live longer, contain more nutrition, and have
medicinal properties. However, people have portrayed genetically modified foods as
potentially dangerous to people’s health and to the environment. As of now genetically
modified organisms, or GMOs, have become widely used in 1st world countries for
agricultural usages, but with our current state of affairs, society has constantly demanded
tighter regulations in GM products.
The term genetic engineering has only been around for several decades, but the
idea of its usages, like hybridization, came from ancient times. A well-known example of
hybridization was Gregor Mendel’s pea experiments. In the late 1800s, Mendel
introduced the idea of genetic inheritance by accurately predicting the off-spring’s
physical trait when he hybridized two different pea plants. He Mendel showed that he can
could control, to a large degree, the traits of organisms, which was why people refer to
him as the father of genetics. In the article written byhis article, Bill Ganzel, he
explainsed the importance of Mendel's work on hybridization for agriculture later in the
1930s. Mendel's work influenced many Midwestern farmers, especially during the Great
Depression, to hybridize corn (Bill). By hybridizing different types of corn, farmers were
able to obtain five times more bushels per acre than from non-hybrids, a roughly 20 to
100 bushels per acre increase. Although hybridization and genetic engineering are two
distinct techniques, genetic engineering directly inserts foreign genes inside an
organism's genome, while hybridization artificially selects two similar species with the
desired traits for fertilization. In a sense genetic engineering is a more intricate and
complicated form of hybridization, and it has an infinite amount of room to grow and
flourish with each passing year.
It was not until the discovery of the DNA helix in 1954, by James D. Watson and
Francis Crick, that geneticists began to understand the functions of how genes were
regulated and expressed. From the book Essential Cell Biology, Dr. Bruce Alberts, Dr.
Dennis Bray, and their fellow doctorate peers explained how the discovery of the DNA
helix led to the realization of gene regulation and its mechanisms. The three-dimensional
structure of DNA was crucial to the emergence of genetic engineering simply because the
model provided insight on “how [DNA was] able to store hereditary information”
(Alberts 173). By knowing the mechanisms of gene expression, scientists were able to
take a step further in hybridization. Instead of crossbreeding favorable traits together
through fertilization, scientists were now able to genetically insert foreign genes into any
genome, a technique known as genetic engineering. Organisms that contain transgenic
genes were a byproduct of genetic engineering. In the article written by Ali M. Ardekani,
it explained the widespread growth of GMOs from 1996 to 2011 and the issues that had
risen in response. “At present, more than 148 million hectares of farmland are under
cultivation for biotech crops throughout the world” (Ardekani 2). This widespread growth
since 1996 showed an increase of interest in genetically modified organisms. However as
more crops become genetically modified, people began to inquire the safety in GMOs
and the actual benefits they bring to the world.
One of the major events that brought skepticism to public attention on GMOs was
the problem with the genetically modified Bt cotton in China that was heavily planted
since 1997. In 2001, a study was conducted by H. Cheng and other Chinese scientists to
evaluate the presence of the Bt gene in honey produced by bees using Bt cotton. Because
China is a major produce of cotton, supplying about 20% of the world's supply, they
needed to genetically modify their cotton for insect pest control. A genetically modified
cotton that expressed the gene Bacillus thuringiensis, that produces the protein toxin
Cry1A, was the solution to prevent the cotton bollworm, “a major pest in Chinese cotton
production” (Cheng 1) from destroying the cotton plantation. This cotton is formally
known as Bt cotton. “Since cotton is one of the major honey-source plants, it [raised]
concerns in the international trade whether there [were] alien DNA sequences contained
in honey” (Cheng 1). By using the following techniques Polymerase Chain Reaction,
PCR, and electrophoresis, the Cheng and his fellow Chinese scientists were able to
conclude that the Bt gene was present in the honey made from the nectar of Bt cotton and
that the Bt gene was absent in the honey made from natural cotton. The importance of
PCR allowed the specific DNA sequence of interest to be isolated and replicated
tremendously. This specific DNA sequence was chosen because the region was known to
either contain the Bt gene or not. Lastly the technique electrophoresis revealed whether
the gene Bt was within the DNA sequence by separating the proteins by size. Although
the Bt gene was found in honey made from using Bt cotton, it is important to note that
“there is no evidence of mechanisms for horizontal gene transfer from digested foods to
enteric epithelium cells” (Cheng 4). Horizontal gene transfer is the relocation of a
specific gene from one organism's genome to a distinctively different organism genome.
As for the epithelium cells, they are the cells that surround the lining of our intestines and
stomach, which come into direct contact with the Bt gene. The findings, however, caused
“the Chinese regulatory authority in 2002 [to issue] 17 GM products” (Cheng 4) to be
labeled for international trade instead of banning each product all together. The actions
taken by the Chinese had created a chain reaction on further regulations on GM products
by labeling. However many anti-GM consumers criticized claimed that the potential
detrimental effects of transgenic genes should be sufficient reasons to ban all GM
products.
Although scientific studies such as the one above can prove individual GM
products to pass onto the world market, many have been funded entirely by private
companies that are for the use of GMOs. "The majority of research experiments on
transgenic [organisms] are being performed by the private sector" (Ardekani 6), which
"causes independent scientists [to] urgently follow strict precautionary approaches in
designing experiments on GMOs" (Ardekani 6). This further adds to the skepticism
towards GMOs as people doubt whether or not the studies have been bias. Because these
studies have to follow strict guidelines, it is difficult for the public to accept because such
guidelines were meant to support GM products. This meant that the studies were
conducted in order to allow genetically modified products to enter into the food market,
not for meeting safety food standards. Many people with this mindset questioned whether
the data provided by these extensive studies were was reliable. Even if these studies were
conducted for the purpose of health safety standards, people would still be hesitant to
accept its accuracy and validity. Today people have a hard time accepting studies that
have proven certain GM produces to be safe, and a main reason for this phenomenon is
because of the possibility of deception.
Another issue with GMO's brought to public attention is that GMO's can cause
possible allergic reactions to certain people. In the article “ Consumers With Allergic
Reaction To Food” by Galina Gaivoronskaia, it talks about how many people have had
concerns “about new allergens entering the food chain with the introduction of GM
foods” (Gaivoronskaia 3). Because GM food production has been increasing, more
people are worrying about the safety of their health, and the safety of others. “It
[appeared] that in recent years, more individuals have become allergic, [and] some
analysts have interpreted these trends to be a result of" (Gaivoronskaia 3) eating GM
foods. Despite the numbers of allergic reactions associated with GM foods that have gone
upincreased, there were too many confounding variables to associate a direct cause and
effect relationship. Although there was no direct correlation between GM foods to the
causation of an allergic reaction, people could not ignore the possibility some sort of
relationship. This uncertainty is a factor in regulating genetically modified organisms
because people feel that it is their responsibility to prevent their loved ones from harm.
On the other hand, genetic engineering “can help to remove food allergens from existing
foods, which is a benefit for allergic individuals” (Gaivoronskaia 3). With the use of
genetic engineering, there are currently specific foods like GM peanuts that people can
eat without having an allergic reaction. This method can allow allergy-prone people to
enjoy their foods without spending money on medications. Because GMOs can both help
and hurt people with certain allergies, it is a current issue on whether banning GMOs will
benefit society's safety, or cause a certain section of allergy-prone people to suffer.
Lastly, many critics argued that GM products could potentially have a detrimental
effect on the surrounding environment. In the article written by Dr. Margaret Mellon, and
Dr. Jane Rissler, it talked about the negative impacts genetically modified corn, Bt corn,
could have had on the monarch population if it wasn't for criticisms against it. In 2000, Bt
corn was widely planted across the Midwest, despite having prior knowledge “that pollen
from Bt corn could kill the larvae of monarch butterflies” (Mellon). People were outraged
at the approval of Bt corn and had forced the government to conduct research on the
toxicity of several different Bt corn. In 2001, the research concluded that only one type of
Bt corn was safe enough, while the rest proved too lethal for the monarch butterfly. This
incident caused many people to doubt the benefits of GM products and had caused tighter
regulations and test assessments before a GM product can be fed or grown in the
environment. These regulations have slowed the growth of genetic engineering as all GM
products have to meet standard safety requirements for humans and the environment
before it is introduced into society.
Genetically modified foods have continued to impose larger influences in the
world as time progresses. Although GM products have greatly increased agricultural
yields, critics still argue that the GM products poses greater harm than good such as
provoking allergic reactions, and damaging the environment. Despite these harsh
criticisms and tighter regulations, GM foods are still being made because of its potential
benefits to the world. Many would say that the benefits would greatly outweigh the
consequences. However society has yet to figure out an answer to this growing sector,
leaving a social issue unsolved.
Daron:
This paper is FULL of interesting ideas and good research. Your thoughts are also mostly
well organized. The problem is that you don’t have a thesis that answers the assignment. I
don’t know what major events or ideas led us to where we are now. You never summarize
your major points in the intro, so every point comes as a surprise to the reader rather than
being the logical continuation of a central claim. Some of your later paragraphs also don’t
necessarily seem to be about history. There are many places here where you have way too
much scientific detail that the reader doesn’t need to get the point. Since this paper is too
long anyway, I expect these sections trimmed down to the essentials.
You need to revise this, but it doesn’t need to be a big project. Mainly, you need a thesis
that address the assignment and you need to make sure that each paragraph is a logical
extension of that thesis.
B-
--Rex
Daron Chau
Professor Rex Krueger
Writing 10, Section 02
November 11, 2012
The Progression in Genetic Engineering
As we look into the history of genetic engineering, society continually have has
found it hard to accept that genetically modified foods or products have been more
beneficial in providing food per hectare of land either by prolonging agricultural life or
simply increasing harvest amounts then foods that are naturally grown. The way
genetically modified foods, also called GMFs, is are made is by genetically inserting
foreign DNA, the code that dictates an organism’s life, into the host’s DNA in hope that
the host would accept the foreign DNA as its own. This process could, in theory, apply to
humans who consume GMFs. It is because of this possibility that many people have
criticized that genetically modified foods could be detrimental to people who consume
them and to the environment of whichthat GMFs are grown in. As of now, genetically
modified foods have become widely used in 1st firstworld countries for agricultural
usages and society has demanded more attention towards regulating GMFs. The reason
why people have opposed GMFs today is because of the modified Bt cotton in China, the
public skepticism on privately funded GMF research and studies in Iran, the peanut
allergy provoked by GMFs, the monarch butterfly incident in Midwestern U.S, and the
modified Bt corn and the farming techniques used in the U.S.
One of the major events that brought skepticism to public attention on GMFs was
the problem with the genetically modified Bt cotton in China that was heavily planted
since 1997. In 2001, a study was conducted by H. Cheng and other Chinese scientists to
evaluate the presence of the Bt gene in honey produced by bees using Bt. Their article
Isolation And PCR Detection Of Foreign DNA Sequences In Bee Honey Raised On
Genetically Modified Bt (Cry1ac) Cotton proved foreign genes can be transmitted
between organisms by using various scientific techniques. Because China is a major
producer of cotton, supplying about 20% of the world's supply, they needed to genetically
modify their cotton for insect pest control. In response to the bull-worm pest, “a major
pest in Chinese cotton production”, Chinese genetic engineers have genetically inserted
the Bt gene, also known as Bacillus thuringeinsis, into the cotton’s DNA (Cheng 1). The
Bt gene thus allowed the cotton, now known as Bt cotton, to produce the protein toxin
Cry1A to fight off the bull-worm and thus the Bt cotton lived longer. “Since cotton is one
of the major honey-source plants, it [raised] concerns in the international trade whether
there [were] alien DNA sequences contained in honey” (Cheng 1). By using the following
techniques Polymerase Chain Reaction, PCR, and electrophoresis, the Cheng and his
fellow Chinese scientists were able to conclude that the Bt gene was present in the honey
made from the nectar of Bt cotton and that the Bt gene was absent in the honey made
from natural cotton. Although the Bt gene was found in honey made from using Bt
cotton, Cheng stated in his study that “there [was] no evidence of mechanisms” for the Bt
gene in honey to “transfer from digested foods to” our cells surrounding our intestines
(Cheng 4). The findings, however, caused “the Chinese regulatory authority in 2002 [to
issue] 17 GM products” to be labeled for international trade instead of banning each
product all together (Cheng 4). The actions taken by the Chinese had created a chain
reaction because the European Union and the U.S. have adopted similar actions. However
many anti-GM consumers criticized that the potential detrimental effects of transgenic
genes, genes that can be transferred from one organism to another should be sufficient
reasons to ban all genetically modified, or GM, products.
Many people in the have doubt the reliability and validity in GMF research
conducted for safety because of Iran’s privately funded research. Although scientific
studies such as the one above can prove individual GM products to pass onto the world
market as being safe for its consumers, many have been funded entirely by private
companies that want to put their GMFs out into the market. In Ardekani M. Ali’s article,
it stated that in Iran "the majority of research experiments on transgenic [organisms] are
being performed by the private sector,” which "causes independent scientists [to] urgently
follow strict precautionary approaches in designing experiments on GMFs" (Ardekani 6).
Research funded by private companies that want to pass their products adds to the
skepticism towards GMFs as people doubt whether or not the studies have been biased.
Because these studies have to follow strict guidelines, it is difficult for the public to
accept because such guidelines were meant to support GM products. These studies were
conducted in order to allow genetically modified products to enter into the food market,
not for meeting safety food standards. Many people with this mindset questioned whether
the data provided by these extensive studies were reliable. Even if these studies were
conducted for the purpose of health safety standards, people would still be hesitant to
accept its accuracy and validity. Today people have a hard time accepting studies that
have proven certain GM produces to be safe, and a main reason for this phenomenon is
because of the possibility of deception.
Another issue with GMF's brought to public attention is that GMF's can cause
possible allergic reactions to certain people. In the article “Consumers With Allergic
Reaction To Food” by Galina Gaivoronskaia, it the author talks about how many people
have had concerns “about new allergens entering the food chain with the introduction of
GM foods” (Gaivoronskaia 3). Because GM food production has been increasing, more
people are worrying about the safety of their health, and the safety of others. “It
[appeared] that in recent years, more individuals have become allergic, [and] some
analysts have interpreted these trends to be a result of" eating GM foods (Gaivoronskaia
3). Despite the numbers of allergic reactions associated with GM foods that have
increased, there were too many confounding variables to associate a direct cause and
effect relationship. Although there was no direct correlation between genetically modified
foods to the causation of an allergic reaction, people could not ignore the possibility some
sort of relationship. This uncertainty is a factor in regulating genetically modified foods
because people feel that it is their responsibility to prevent their loved ones from harm.
On the other hand, genetic engineering “can help to remove food allergens from existing
foods, which is a benefit for allergic individuals” (Gaivoronskaia 3). With the use of
genetic engineering, there are currently specific foods like GM peanuts that people can
eat without having an allergic reaction. This method can allow allergy-prone people to
enjoy their foods without spending money on medications. Because genetically modified
foods can both help and hurt people with certain allergies, it is a current issue on whether
banning GMFs will benefit society's safety, or cause a certain section of allergy-prone
people to suffer.
The potential monarch butterfly massacre in 2000 is yet another event that caused
many GMF oppositions to demand more regulation on GM products. In Dr. Margaret
Mellon, and Dr. Jane Rissler’s article Environmental Effects of Genetically Modified
Food Crops, it talked about the negative impacts genetically modified corn, Bt corn,
could have had on the monarch population if it wasn't for criticisms against it. In 2000, Bt
corn was widely planted across the Midwest in the U.S., despite having prior knowledge
“that pollen from Bt corn could kill the larvae of monarch butterflies” (Mellon 1). People
were outraged at the approval of Bt corn and had forced the government to conduct
research on the toxicity of several different Bt corn. In 2001, the research concluded that
only one type of Bt corn was safe enough, while the rest proved too lethal for the
monarch butterfly. This incident caused many people to doubt the benefits of GM
products and had caused tighter regulations and test assessments before a genetically
modified product can be fed or grown in the environment. These regulations have slowed
the growth of genetic engineering as all GM products have to meet standard safety
requirements for humans and the environment before it is introduced into society.
However even if these GM products have been passed as safe to consume through more
rigorous experiments, the public have shown to be skeptical because of the monarch
butterfly incident.
Farmers in the U.S have avoided using safer planting techniques on genetically
modified foods because…. This contributed to more GMF-oppositions because not all
farmers follow safer planting techniques when dealing with GMFs. In Nicholas A.
Linacre, and Thompson J. Colin’s article Dynamics Of Insect Resistance In Bt-Corn,
farmers have had to practice safer planting techniques according to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, requirements. However, one of the methods that
farmers are required to use is postponing their planting for 10 years. Thus "it [seemed]
unlikely that farmers will plant 20% of their fields with non-Bt-born when they have to
wait 10 years" (Linacre 7). Because of this 10 year period, many independent farmers
would become bankrupt. This also applies to newly established big-scale farmers that
have not obtained enough funds to sustain their own growth. Because of these problems,
many farmers have chosen to ignore the EPA’s requirement and plant their GMFs using
their personal techniques, which could be more of a hazard. These farming mal-practices
have caused public distrust in genetically modified foods because of the lack of safety
techniques farmers purposely avoided to use.
Genetic engineering and its food products have been criticized as potentially
unsafe and misleading due to the studies conducted by Dr. Cheng in 2001, privately
funded research in Iran, the assumed peanut allergy correlation, the potential mistakes
conducted on the monarch butterfly in Midwestern U.S., and the malpractices U.S.
farmers have used to plant their GM crops. All of these events have contributed to the
widespread opposition towards GMFs and that many people have pushed for tighter
regulation or total removal of GMFs. The issue here is that GMFs are a necessity to
providing more food and health benefits to society and yet many people reject GMFs
because they have the possibility to inadvertently transmit harmful genetic material into
humans. These constant conflicts between the benefits and flaws on GMFs, along with
the events listed above, have contributed to the issue of genetic engineering we have
today.
Daron:
A fine revision that tackles the most important problems with the first version. This has a
thesis, a focus on history, and good organization. The only place this paper suffers is
wordy or awkward sentences, some proofreading issues and some quotes without
introductions. These are little issues but they do matter.
Good work overall.
A-
--Rex
Works Cited
Gaivoronskaia, Galina, and Bjorn Hvinden. "Consumers With Allergic Reaction
To Food." Science, Technology & Human Values 31.6 (2006): 702-730. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 21 Oct. 2012.
H. Cheng, W. Jin, H. Wu, F. Wang, C. You, Y. Peng, and S. Jia. "Isolation And
PCR Detection Of Foreign DNA Sequences In Bee Honey Raised On Genetically
Modified Bt (Cry1ac) Cotton." Food & Bioproducts Processing: Transactions Of The
Institution Of Chemical Engineers Part C 85.1 (2007): 141-145. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 21 Oct. 2012.
Maghari, Behrokh Mohajer, and Ali M. Ardekani. "Genetically Modified Foods
And Social Concerns." Avicenna Journal Of Medical Biotechnology 3.3 (2011): 109-
117. Academic Search Complete. Web. 21 Oct. 2012.
Reinhardt, Claudia, and Ganzel, Bill. “The Science of Hybrids.” The Ganzel
Group. 2003. Web. 21 Oct 2012
Mellon, Margaret, and Rissler, Jane. “Environmental Effects of Genetically
Modified Food Crops.” Union of Concerned Scientists (2003): Web. 21 Oct. 2012.
Linacre, Nicholas A., and Colin J. Thompson. Dynamics Of Insect Resistance In
Bt-Corn." Ecological Modelling 171.3 (2004): 271. Academic Search Complete. Web.
31 Oct. 2012.