Justin Ross Genetics - 604 Spring 2012 Research Paper Ethics and ...

tomatoedgeΒιοτεχνολογία

20 Φεβ 2013 (πριν από 4 χρόνια και 5 μήνες)

116 εμφανίσεις

Justin Ross

Genetics
-

604

Spring 2012

Research Paper

Ethics and GMOs

The emerging field of Bio
-
Technology has
led to the development of numerous
advancements

in the field of agriculture. The increased need to feed the world has opened
many developments to increase the yield of famers around the world.
The emerging sciences of
genetically modified organisms have developed a path to potentially solving the food
supply
needs for future generations. As the science develops, the
perspective forward is a boundary

between
its

science and
the

ethical
responsibilities that accompany them
.

The ethical
implications of

patenting and potential ownership of life

have ethical

ramificatio
ns the world
over.
Genetically modified organisms and the intellectual property they create presents a
danger to the establishment

of agriculture as it is today. Genetically modified (GM) foods can
be the savior

of the food needs of the 21st ce
ntury, or they will be the beginning of the
corporate ownership of life itself.

From ancient times of simple farmers selecting the best seeds for their crops humanity
has strived to make crops improved and bountiful. Before the biotechnology advent, Farme
rs
used their own methods to yield better results. Farmers used their own seed banks and with
their own personal natural selection was able to track and harvest better crops. This was the
predominant form of advancement for agriculture for thousands of ye
ars. With advent of the
modern age and advancements in technology we now have genetically modified organisms
(GMOs).


GMOs, using b
iotechnology
,

is
an

emerging science
that

combines the biological
sciences with the development of modern technology to strive for an enhanced biological
world.

Biotechnology has changed the landscape for agriculture and has created genetically
modified foods.
Using genetic engineering technique
s to
alter an organism through direct
human manipulation represents the basis for GMOs. The implementation of recombinant DNA
modification techniques represents the chief alteration method.
(
Yann, Maeseele, Reheul, Van
Speybroeck
, & De Waele
,
2008).
By tra
nsplanting splices of DNA into a host organism in the
hopes to alter that organism for the
desired changes can create many needed additions to the
crops of today.

The use of genetic modification primarily through r
-
DNA, and the mapping of the
genome of various agricultural organisms have given forth an industry of GM food.
(Yann et al.,
2008).
With the ongoing research began to take shape, the leaps and bound into c
hanging
crops to become stronger and more yielding showed progress. In opposition to mutagenesis
which is mutation breeding, genetically modified foods have favorable portions of other
organisms inserted into the host for beneficial changes. . (
Carolan, 20
08).
Taking genetic
information from an organism and then inserting that information into the host crop can then
be used for a particular benefit, such as GM cotton receiving genes from the bacteria

Bacillus
thuringiensis

to resist the common pests that co
nsume the cotton crop. (
Kapur, M., Bhatia, R.,
Pandey, G., Pandey, J., Paul, D., & Jain, R., 2010).

Bt crops are one of the predominantly used areas of exploration. The Bt bacterium is a
naturally occurring pesticide endotoxin. (Kumar, Chandra, & Pandey, 2
008). The principal is that
select proteins are removed from the
Bacillus thuringiensis
bacteria that are toxic for selected
insects, but not to humans. (
Konig, 2004).
With the addition of the genes into the host crop, the
end result is that the pest that
ingests the crop and dies, while the crop remains viable for
mammal consumption. (
Konig, 2004).
The benefit for this is that the farmer will simply
purchase the GM seed and not have to spray his crops with this pesticide. The
insertions of the
Bt genes ha
ve taken place in several crops and is

a growing industry for the future. What is left
now is the legal battle that has begun over the ethics of these new crops.

As the research into crop seeds and plant development moved forward into the 20
th

century, the

consensus emerged as to what to do with their research. The discussion became
what is known as intellectual property rights (IPR).
(Adcock, 2007)
.
Once thought of as
philosophical ideals, gave way to ownership. In the 1920s agriculture had come to an
understanding of protection of scientific research that was given as respect to other work but
was short of a patent. The
results of this understanding were

the
I
nternational
C
onvention on
the
P
rotection of
N
ew
Varieties of Plants (UPOV) of 1961 and subseq
uent revisions until 1991.
(Adcock, 2007)
.

Viewed as more of a framework to facilitate the Plants Variety Rights (PVR)
system to which governmental agencies can discern laws to applicable systems of public
interest. The UPOV convention and its
PVRs were

in
tended to ensure science integrity and
allow research to move forward while
still allowing agriculture to provide its service to the
world.
(
Adcock
,

2007).

As this new research and framework emerged it left the ideological dilemma of
bioethics for the newl
y discovered techniques.
To be able to establish such bold new
techniques as recombinant DNA

(r
-
DNA)
, boundaries to its ethical practices also followed.

The
ethical implications of their research led to wonder as to whether r
-
DNA itself is “playing god”
or pushing nature beyond its
boundaries
.
(
Yann et al.
,

2008).
In the 1970s
thru the international
Asilomar
conferences,

the scientific progress formed a fo
rmal set of recommendations and
addressed the core concerns as laid out in the NIH “Guidelines for Research Involving r
-
DNA
Molecules” in 1976. These guidelines allowed for the voluntary moratorium on research to be
lifted and persuaded the US Congress to
hold off restrictions. With the moratorium lifted and
the threat of US Congress intervention subdued,
the techniques for r
-
DNA commercialization
were able to move ahead.

(
Yann et al.
,

2008).

Through the commercialization of r
-
DNA techniques the technology
became part of
patent law.

As originally written by Thomas Jefferson with the Patent Act of 1793, patents are
the representation of an inventor’s rights as a new composition on a particular matter, and
further clarified by the Patent Act of 1836 that a pa
tent application
judged
for its novelty, its
utility and uniqueness.
(
Carolan
,

2008).
As patent law became further reviewed its implications
for biotechnology have become a fiercely contentious grey area to which the idea that an
organism itself can by patented and a commodity to be owned. Court rulings have since further
reduced what can b
e considered to be natural life and what is
viewed as biologically created
products of ownership.

With the advent of these new processes and the stretching of what is life and what is
property began with a landmark case
involving

GM organism,
the oncomou
se
,

and Harvard
College. The oncomouse is a genetically eng
ineered mouse to contract cancer, and Harvard
College was applying for a patent for “transgenic animals”. Transgenic animal is such to be
known as experimental models for biomedical research. What

followed was with the patent
being awarded and then Harvard licensing the patent for commercialization. And the effects of
that led to
a patent covering any non
-
human mammal to be
genetically engineered

in the US.
(
Prudham
,
2007).
But as later rebuked by the Supreme Court
of Canada (SCC),
it was viewed
that whole organisms were outside the realm of invention. And later rebuked by the US
,

by the

Plan
t

Act and US Plant Variety
P
rotection Act,
the US

Congress intended to keep
higher
li
fe
forms
outside the scope of US patents.

And the SCC later upheld this reasoning as the mouse is
a higher life form and not the “composition of matter” or “manufacture” as Canadian Patent
Act defined.
(
Prudham
,
2007).
Although the patent of so called high
er life forms was proven
unfounded the next frontier was GM foods.

Within the last 20 years the growing business of biotechnology patents has risen by
leaps and bounds. These patents range from “genetic inventions” such
as gene fragments

or

sequences

and
nucleic acids.
(
Carolan
,
2008).
The patents for GM products are increasing
rapidly and are a wide assortment of scientific products.
The first GM food to be commercially
sold was the FlavrSavr tomato by Calgene. Although not rampantly successful commercial
ly, the
product opened the door to others to attempt GM foods, and the company Calgene later
became a subsidiary of Monsanto.
(
Carolan, 2008).

The Monsanto Company is a multinational corporation based in the United States in the
field of agricultural biote
chnology. Holding patents in a wide variety of genetically modified
crops, this corporation is the microcosm to which the current ethical ramifications stand as it is
today.
The advancements and creations Monsanto has created have yielded many changes to
c
rops from soybeans to rice. The potential for these crops to alter the world food supply have
given much promise to the GMO field. It is overshadowed by the fierce legal battles that ensued
over its products.

Monsanto had created
an

insecticide that was o
riginally designed to spray on the crop
and make it able to grow while destroying unwanted weeds around it.

While Roundup did have
success it led to insecticide resistance. Monsanto then created GM crops that were designed to
be “ready” for the Roundup an
d curb the resistance.
(
Rashmi, Fuchs, & Schuette, 2002).

Roundup Ready products such as its soybeans were met in the market with fervor about the
bioethics it implicates. The agricultural community saw it as a way to eliminate their ability to
proliferate

their own seed
,

and
then
force them to replace it with Monsanto products
.
(
Rashmi
et al.,
2002).

An early example of its GM products was

Roundup Ready wheat
.

T
here was a
firestorm as to
whether
its yield was actual
ly

increased
,

and

studies showed they had not
.

With
its yield in question
by 2004 research

had shut down. In this example the science was not
advanced to benefit change.

(
Eaton
,
2009).

In its GM alfalfa, the backlash was taken up to the US Supreme Court.
(
Grossman
,

2010).
In the case Monsanto v. Geerston Seed it was debated that if non commercial product
(Geerston) were to be tainted by the Monsanto seed, even if by accident, would the
noncommercial product by held liable for the tainted product.
In the court case M
onsanto had
discovered that some of its own product had blown
out
of its transport trucks and sprouted its
crops on Geerston Seed’s land.
(
Grossman, 2010).

Monsanto
’s

contention then was its growing
product on Geerston’s land was then property of Monsanto
due to its product growing on
another’s land.
(
Grossman, 2010).

Geerston farm’s position was that the land was owned by
them, and the product was removed from their land so that their own seed can be planted.
(
Mons
anto et al v. Geerston Seed Farm,
2010).
In the decision it was ruled that in fact the
Monsanto product Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA) did contaminate the public domain,
but due to
the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) ha
ving

limited ability to monitor or
enforce the progress
,

that
Monsanto is not at fault. In addition the court lifted the temporary
injunction on RRA.
(
Burrell & Hubicki, 2005).

Monsanto can use this to their advantage to pressure the public domain seeders to fall
to the imminent domain of the commercial product.
With just the threat of a lawsuit,
Monsanto can drag any farmer it thinks has the Roundup Ready product into a long and costly
process that many cannot afford and effectively force them to settle or go out of business.
The
Roundup Ready products then have
a patent liability that it holds to others
as
seen

by
Monsanto v. Schmeiser.
(
Burrell & Hubicki, 2005).
This case
,

seen by the SCC
,

relates to the
question of if a GMO crop contains its GM plant cells is the whole organism a patented
product? The SCC ruled

that in fact the entire organism can be seen as a patented product.
(
Burrell & Hubicki
,
2005).

So the discussion going forward is to whether the ethics of
biotechnology corporations is for the good of society? Or are they attempting to push the
farmers as
ide in the name of corporate
profit margins and increased market share
?

As we look through the entire idea of what GMOs are for society, the world can seem to
benefit from the concepts that GM foods can offer.
The emerging technology of GMOs has
created an

entire industry that can be used as a vehicle to advance the world of agriculture the
world over.
The world forward shall always be progress. And as the progress develops there
must be boundaries.
T
he legal and ethical ramifications they lay forth, the fi
eld of
biotechnology
and GMOs
has a tremendous amount of legal clarification as

to what life is and

what can be owned in this world.

The advancements GMOs provide can be the catalyst of food
needs for the 21
st

century. In contrast these biotechnology corpo
rations must also decide which
their intention is ethically. Is it their intention to monopolize agriculture and create a profit
driven monoculture? Or are they on the side of scientific progress and solving the world’s food
needs?
Going forward w
e must de
cide where

the line shall be drawn
for the needs of society as
a whole and who gets to own it.











References

Adcock, M., (2007).
Intellectual property, genetically modified crops and bioethics.

Biotechnology Journal, 2(9), 1088
-
1092.
DOI:
10.1002/biot.200700090


Burrell, R.,
&
Hubicki, S., (2005). Patent liability and Genetic Drift.
Environmental Law Review,

7(4),
278
-
296. Retrieved from http://vathek.com


Carolan, M. S., (2008).
From patent law to regulation: the ontological
gerrymandering of

Biotechnology.
Environmental Politics, 17(5),
749
-
765. DOI:
10.1080/09644010802421505


Eaton, E., (2009).
Getting Behind the Grain: The Politics of Genetic Modification on the

Canadian Prairies.
Antipode,

41(2),
256
-
281. DOI: 10.1111/j.14
67
-
8330.2009.00672.x


Grossman, M. R.,
(2010).
Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms
: US Supreme Court Decides GM


Alfalfa
Case.
European Food & Feed Law Review, 5(4),

216
-
221.
Retrieved from



http://www.l
exxion.eu/effl/

Kapur, M., Bhatia, R., Pandey, G., Pandey, J., Paul, D., & Jain, R., (2010).
A Case Study for



Assessment of Microbial Community Dynamics in
Genetically

Modified

Bt

Cotton
Crop



Fields.


Current Microbiology, 61(2), 118
-
124.
DOI
:
10.1007/s00284
-
010
-
9585
-
6

Konig, A., (2004
).
Assessment of the safety of foods derived from genetically modified (GM)


crops.
Food and chemical toxicology
,
42(7), 1062. DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.019

Kumar, S., Chandra, A., & Pandey, K. C., (2008).
Bacill
us thuringiensis (Bt) transgenic crop: An


environment friendly insect
-
pest management strategy
. Journal of
Environmental




Biology
, 29(5), 641
-
653. Retrieved from http://www.jeb.co.in

MONSANTO CO. ET AL.
v
. GEERTSON SEED FARMS ET AL. (2010).
Legal Information Institute at


Cornell Law School, 09
-
475, 570 F. 3d 1130.
Retrieved from






http://www.law.cornell.edu/

Prudham, S., (2007).
The Fictions of Autonomous Invention: Accumulation by Dispossession,

Commodification and Life Patents in Cana
da.
Antipode, 39(3), 406
-
429. DOI:
10.1111/j.1467
-
8330.2007.00533.x


Rashmi, S. N., Fuchs, R. L.,
&
Schuette, S. A., (2002).
Current Methods for Assessing Safety of

Genetically Modified Crops as Exemplified by Data on Roundup Ready Soybeans.
Toxicologic
Pathology, 30(1), 117
-
125
. Retrieved from
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/01926233.html


Weaver, S.,
&
Morris M
.

C., (2005).
Risks Associated With Genetic Modification: An Annotated

Bibliography Of Peer Reviewed Natural Science Publications.
Journa
l of Agricultural and

Environmental Ethics, 18(2),

157

189. DOI 10.1007/s10806
-
005
-
0639
-
x


Yann
,

D., Maeseele
,

P., Reheul
,

D., Van Speybroeck
,

L.,
&
De Waele
,

D., (2008). Ethics In The

Societal Debate on Genetically Modified Organisms: A (Re)Quest for
Sense and
Sensibility
. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21(1),

29

61. DOI
10.1007/s10806
-
007
-
9057
-
6


Zahra, M., (2009). The US’ Food and Drug Administration, Normativity of Risk Assessment,

GMOs, and American Democracy
.
Journal of agricu
ltural & environmental ethics, 22(2),

125
-
139. DOI: 10.1007/s10806
-
008
-
9133
-
6