Genetic engineering explained

Genetic engineering, also called genetic modification or genetic manipulation, is the modification and manipulation of an organism's genes using technology. It is a set of technologies used to change the genetic makeup of cells, including the transfer of genes within and across species boundaries to produce improved or novel organisms.

New DNA is obtained by either isolating and copying the genetic material of interest using recombinant DNA methods or by artificially synthesising the DNA. A construct is usually created and used to insert this DNA into the host organism. The first recombinant DNA molecule was made by Paul Berg in 1972 by combining DNA from the monkey virus SV40 with the lambda virus.

As well as inserting genes, the process can be used to remove, or "knock out", genes. The new DNA can be inserted randomly, or targeted to a specific part of the genome.[1]

An organism that is generated through genetic engineering is considered to be genetically modified (GM) and the resulting entity is a genetically modified organism (GMO). The first GMO was a bacterium generated by Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen in 1973. Rudolf Jaenisch created the first GM animal when he inserted foreign DNA into a mouse in 1974. The first company to focus on genetic engineering, Genentech, was founded in 1976 and started the production of human proteins. Genetically engineered human insulin was produced in 1978 and insulin-producing bacteria were commercialised in 1982. Genetically modified food has been sold since 1994, with the release of the Flavr Savr tomato. The Flavr Savr was engineered to have a longer shelf life, but most current GM crops are modified to increase resistance to insects and herbicides. GloFish, the first GMO designed as a pet, was sold in the United States in December 2003. In 2016 salmon modified with a growth hormone were sold.

Genetic engineering has been applied in numerous fields including research, medicine, industrial biotechnology and agriculture. In research, GMOs are used to study gene function and expression through loss of function, gain of function, tracking and expression experiments. By knocking out genes responsible for certain conditions it is possible to create animal model organisms of human diseases. As well as producing hormones, vaccines and other drugs, genetic engineering has the potential to cure genetic diseases through gene therapy. Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells are used in industrial genetic engineering. Additionally mRNA vaccines are made through genetic engineering to treat viruses such as COVID-19. The same techniques that are used to produce drugs can also have industrial applications such as producing enzymes for laundry detergent, cheeses and other products.

The rise of commercialised genetically modified crops has provided economic benefit to farmers in many different countries, but has also been the source of most of the controversy surrounding the technology. This has been present since its early use; the first field trials were destroyed by anti-GM activists. Although there is a scientific consensus that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food, critics consider GM food safety a leading concern. Gene flow, impact on non-target organisms, control of the food supply and intellectual property rights have also been raised as potential issues. These concerns have led to the development of a regulatory framework, which started in 1975. It has led to an international treaty, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, that was adopted in 2000. Individual countries have developed their own regulatory systems regarding GMOs, with the most marked differences occurring between the United States and Europe.

Overview

Genetic engineering is a process that alters the genetic structure of an organism by either removing or introducing DNA, or modifying existing genetic material in situ. Unlike traditional animal and plant breeding, which involves doing multiple crosses and then selecting for the organism with the desired phenotype, genetic engineering takes the gene directly from one organism and delivers it to the other. This is much faster, can be used to insert any genes from any organism (even ones from different domains) and prevents other undesirable genes from also being added.[2]

Genetic engineering could potentially fix severe genetic disorders in humans by replacing the defective gene with a functioning one.[3] It is an important tool in research that allows the function of specific genes to be studied.[4] Drugs, vaccines and other products have been harvested from organisms engineered to produce them.[5] Crops have been developed that aid food security by increasing yield, nutritional value and tolerance to environmental stresses.[6]

The DNA can be introduced directly into the host organism or into a cell that is then fused or hybridised with the host.[7] This relies on recombinant nucleic acid techniques to form new combinations of heritable genetic material followed by the incorporation of that material either indirectly through a vector system or directly through micro-injection, macro-injection or micro-encapsulation.

Genetic engineering does not normally include traditional breeding, in vitro fertilisation, induction of polyploidy, mutagenesis and cell fusion techniques that do not use recombinant nucleic acids or a genetically modified organism in the process. However, some broad definitions of genetic engineering include selective breeding.[8] Cloning and stem cell research, although not considered genetic engineering,[9] are closely related and genetic engineering can be used within them.[10] Synthetic biology is an emerging discipline that takes genetic engineering a step further by introducing artificially synthesised material into an organism.[11]

Plants, animals or microorganisms that have been changed through genetic engineering are termed genetically modified organisms or GMOs.[12] If genetic material from another species is added to the host, the resulting organism is called transgenic. If genetic material from the same species or a species that can naturally breed with the host is used the resulting organism is called cisgenic.[13] If genetic engineering is used to remove genetic material from the target organism the resulting organism is termed a knockout organism.[14] In Europe genetic modification is synonymous with genetic engineering while within the United States of America and Canada genetic modification can also be used to refer to more conventional breeding methods.[15] [16] [17]

History

See main article: History of genetic engineering.

Humans have altered the genomes of species for thousands of years through selective breeding, or artificial selection[18] [19] as contrasted with natural selection. More recently, mutation breeding has used exposure to chemicals or radiation to produce a high frequency of random mutations, for selective breeding purposes. Genetic engineering as the direct manipulation of DNA by humans outside breeding and mutations has only existed since the 1970s. The term "genetic engineering" was coined by the Russian-born geneticist Nikolay Timofeev-Ressovsky in his 1934 paper "The Experimental Production of Mutations", published in the British journal Biological Reviews.[20] Jack Williamson used the term in his science fiction novel Dragon's Island, published in 1951[21] – one year before DNA's role in heredity was confirmed by Alfred Hershey and Martha Chase,[22] and two years before James Watson and Francis Crick showed that the DNA molecule has a double-helix structure – though the general concept of direct genetic manipulation was explored in rudimentary form in Stanley G. Weinbaum's 1936 science fiction story Proteus Island.[23] [24]

In 1972, Paul Berg created the first recombinant DNA molecules by combining DNA from the monkey virus SV40 with that of the lambda virus.[25] In 1973 Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen created the first transgenic organism by inserting antibiotic resistance genes into the plasmid of an Escherichia coli bacterium.[26] [27] A year later Rudolf Jaenisch created a transgenic mouse by introducing foreign DNA into its embryo, making it the world's first transgenic animal[28] These achievements led to concerns in the scientific community about potential risks from genetic engineering, which were first discussed in depth at the Asilomar Conference in 1975. One of the main recommendations from this meeting was that government oversight of recombinant DNA research should be established until the technology was deemed safe.[29] [30]

In 1976 Genentech, the first genetic engineering company, was founded by Herbert Boyer and Robert Swanson and a year later the company produced a human protein (somatostatin) in E. coli. Genentech announced the production of genetically engineered human insulin in 1978.[31] In 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Diamond v. Chakrabarty case ruled that genetically altered life could be patented.[32] The insulin produced by bacteria was approved for release by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1982.[33]

In 1983, a biotech company, Advanced Genetic Sciences (AGS) applied for U.S. government authorisation to perform field tests with the ice-minus strain of Pseudomonas syringae to protect crops from frost, but environmental groups and protestors delayed the field tests for four years with legal challenges.[34] In 1987, the ice-minus strain of P. syringae became the first genetically modified organism (GMO) to be released into the environment[35] when a strawberry field and a potato field in California were sprayed with it.[36] Both test fields were attacked by activist groups the night before the tests occurred: "The world's first trial site attracted the world's first field trasher".

The first field trials of genetically engineered plants occurred in France and the US in 1986, tobacco plants were engineered to be resistant to herbicides.[37] The People's Republic of China was the first country to commercialise transgenic plants, introducing a virus-resistant tobacco in 1992.[38] In 1994 Calgene attained approval to commercially release the first genetically modified food, the Flavr Savr, a tomato engineered to have a longer shelf life.[39] In 1994, the European Union approved tobacco engineered to be resistant to the herbicide bromoxynil, making it the first genetically engineered crop commercialised in Europe.[40] In 1995, Bt potato was approved safe by the Environmental Protection Agency, after having been approved by the FDA, making it the first pesticide producing crop to be approved in the US.[41] In 2009 11 transgenic crops were grown commercially in 25 countries, the largest of which by area grown were the US, Brazil, Argentina, India, Canada, China, Paraguay and South Africa.[42]

In 2010, scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute created the first synthetic genome and inserted it into an empty bacterial cell. The resulting bacterium, named Mycoplasma laboratorium, could replicate and produce proteins.[43] [44] Four years later this was taken a step further when a bacterium was developed that replicated a plasmid containing a unique base pair, creating the first organism engineered to use an expanded genetic alphabet.[45] [46] In 2012, Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier collaborated to develop the CRISPR/Cas9 system,[47] [48] a technique which can be used to easily and specifically alter the genome of almost any organism.[49]

Process

See main article: Genetic engineering techniques. Creating a GMO is a multi-step process. Genetic engineers must first choose what gene they wish to insert into the organism. This is driven by what the aim is for the resultant organism and is built on earlier research. Genetic screens can be carried out to determine potential genes and further tests then used to identify the best candidates. The development of microarrays, transcriptomics and genome sequencing has made it much easier to find suitable genes.[50] Luck also plays its part; the Roundup Ready gene was discovered after scientists noticed a bacterium thriving in the presence of the herbicide.[51]

Gene isolation and cloning

See main article: Molecular cloning. The next step is to isolate the candidate gene. The cell containing the gene is opened and the DNA is purified.[52] The gene is separated by using restriction enzymes to cut the DNA into fragments[53] or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to amplify up the gene segment.[54] These segments can then be extracted through gel electrophoresis. If the chosen gene or the donor organism's genome has been well studied it may already be accessible from a genetic library. If the DNA sequence is known, but no copies of the gene are available, it can also be artificially synthesised.[55] Once isolated the gene is ligated into a plasmid that is then inserted into a bacterium. The plasmid is replicated when the bacteria divide, ensuring unlimited copies of the gene are available.[56] The RK2 plasmid is notable for its ability to replicate in a wide variety of single-celled organisms, which makes it suitable as a genetic engineering tool.[57]

Before the gene is inserted into the target organism it must be combined with other genetic elements. These include a promoter and terminator region, which initiate and end transcription. A selectable marker gene is added, which in most cases confers antibiotic resistance, so researchers can easily determine which cells have been successfully transformed. The gene can also be modified at this stage for better expression or effectiveness. These manipulations are carried out using recombinant DNA techniques, such as restriction digests, ligations and molecular cloning.[58]

Inserting DNA into the host genome

See main article: Gene delivery. There are a number of techniques used to insert genetic material into the host genome. Some bacteria can naturally take up foreign DNA. This ability can be induced in other bacteria via stress (e.g. thermal or electric shock), which increases the cell membrane's permeability to DNA; up-taken DNA can either integrate with the genome or exist as extrachromosomal DNA. DNA is generally inserted into animal cells using microinjection, where it can be injected through the cell's nuclear envelope directly into the nucleus, or through the use of viral vectors.[59]

Plant genomes can be engineered by physical methods or by use of Agrobacterium for the delivery of sequences hosted in T-DNA binary vectors. In plants the DNA is often inserted using Agrobacterium-mediated transformation,[60] taking advantage of the Agrobacteriums T-DNA sequence that allows natural insertion of genetic material into plant cells.[61] Other methods include biolistics, where particles of gold or tungsten are coated with DNA and then shot into young plant cells,[62] and electroporation, which involves using an electric shock to make the cell membrane permeable to plasmid DNA.

As only a single cell is transformed with genetic material, the organism must be regenerated from that single cell. In plants this is accomplished through the use of tissue culture.[63] [64] In animals it is necessary to ensure that the inserted DNA is present in the embryonic stem cells.[65] Bacteria consist of a single cell and reproduce clonally so regeneration is not necessary. Selectable markers are used to easily differentiate transformed from untransformed cells. These markers are usually present in the transgenic organism, although a number of strategies have been developed that can remove the selectable marker from the mature transgenic plant.[66]

Further testing using PCR, Southern hybridization, and DNA sequencing is conducted to confirm that an organism contains the new gene.[67] These tests can also confirm the chromosomal location and copy number of the inserted gene. The presence of the gene does not guarantee it will be expressed at appropriate levels in the target tissue so methods that look for and measure the gene products (RNA and protein) are also used. These include northern hybridisation, quantitative RT-PCR, Western blot, immunofluorescence, ELISA and phenotypic analysis.[68]

The new genetic material can be inserted randomly within the host genome or targeted to a specific location. The technique of gene targeting uses homologous recombination to make desired changes to a specific endogenous gene. This tends to occur at a relatively low frequency in plants and animals and generally requires the use of selectable markers. The frequency of gene targeting can be greatly enhanced through genome editing. Genome editing uses artificially engineered nucleases that create specific double-stranded breaks at desired locations in the genome, and use the cell's endogenous mechanisms to repair the induced break by the natural processes of homologous recombination and nonhomologous end-joining. There are four families of engineered nucleases: meganucleases,[69] [70] zinc finger nucleases,[71] [72] transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs),[73] [74] and the Cas9-guideRNA system (adapted from CRISPR).[75] [76] TALEN and CRISPR are the two most commonly used and each has its own advantages.[77] TALENs have greater target specificity, while CRISPR is easier to design and more efficient. In addition to enhancing gene targeting, engineered nucleases can be used to introduce mutations at endogenous genes that generate a gene knockout.[78] [79]

Applications

Genetic engineering has applications in medicine, research, industry and agriculture and can be used on a wide range of plants, animals and microorganisms. Bacteria, the first organisms to be genetically modified, can have plasmid DNA inserted containing new genes that code for medicines or enzymes that process food and other substrates.[80] [81] Plants have been modified for insect protection, herbicide resistance, virus resistance, enhanced nutrition, tolerance to environmental pressures and the production of edible vaccines.[82] Most commercialised GMOs are insect resistant or herbicide tolerant crop plants.[83] Genetically modified animals have been used for research, model animals and the production of agricultural or pharmaceutical products. The genetically modified animals include animals with genes knocked out, increased susceptibility to disease, hormones for extra growth and the ability to express proteins in their milk.[84]

Medicine

Genetic engineering has many applications to medicine that include the manufacturing of drugs, creation of model animals that mimic human conditions and gene therapy. One of the earliest uses of genetic engineering was to mass-produce human insulin in bacteria. This application has now been applied to human growth hormones, follicle stimulating hormones (for treating infertility), human albumin, monoclonal antibodies, antihemophilic factors, vaccines and many other drugs.[85] [86] Mouse hybridomas, cells fused together to create monoclonal antibodies, have been adapted through genetic engineering to create human monoclonal antibodies.[87] Genetically engineered viruses are being developed that can still confer immunity, but lack the infectious sequences.[88]

Genetic engineering is also used to create animal models of human diseases. Genetically modified mice are the most common genetically engineered animal model.[89] They have been used to study and model cancer (the oncomouse), obesity, heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, substance abuse, anxiety, aging and Parkinson disease.[90] Potential cures can be tested against these mouse models.

Gene therapy is the genetic engineering of humans, generally by replacing defective genes with effective ones. Clinical research using somatic gene therapy has been conducted with several diseases, including X-linked SCID,[91] chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL),[92] [93] and Parkinson's disease.[94] In 2012, Alipogene tiparvovec became the first gene therapy treatment to be approved for clinical use.[95] [96] In 2015 a virus was used to insert a healthy gene into the skin cells of a boy suffering from a rare skin disease, epidermolysis bullosa, in order to grow, and then graft healthy skin onto 80 percent of the boy's body which was affected by the illness.[97]

Germline gene therapy would result in any change being inheritable, which has raised concerns within the scientific community.[98] [99] In 2015, CRISPR was used to edit the DNA of non-viable human embryos,[100] [101] leading scientists of major world academies to call for a moratorium on inheritable human genome edits.[102] There are also concerns that the technology could be used not just for treatment, but for enhancement, modification or alteration of a human beings' appearance, adaptability, intelligence, character or behavior.[103] The distinction between cure and enhancement can also be difficult to establish.[104] In November 2018, He Jiankui announced that he had edited the genomes of two human embryos, to attempt to disable the CCR5 gene, which codes for a receptor that HIV uses to enter cells. The work was widely condemned as unethical, dangerous, and premature.[105] Currently, germline modification is banned in 40 countries. Scientists that do this type of research will often let embryos grow for a few days without allowing it to develop into a baby.[106]

Researchers are altering the genome of pigs to induce the growth of human organs, with the aim of increasing the success of pig to human organ transplantation.[107] Scientists are creating "gene drives", changing the genomes of mosquitoes to make them immune to malaria, and then looking to spread the genetically altered mosquitoes throughout the mosquito population in the hopes of eliminating the disease.[108]

Research

Genetic engineering is an important tool for natural scientists, with the creation of transgenic organisms one of the most important tools for analysis of gene function.[109] Genes and other genetic information from a wide range of organisms can be inserted into bacteria for storage and modification, creating genetically modified bacteria in the process. Bacteria are cheap, easy to grow, clonal, multiply quickly, relatively easy to transform and can be stored at -80 °C almost indefinitely. Once a gene is isolated it can be stored inside the bacteria providing an unlimited supply for research.[110]

Organisms are genetically engineered to discover the functions of certain genes. This could be the effect on the phenotype of the organism, where the gene is expressed or what other genes it interacts with. These experiments generally involve loss of function, gain of function, tracking and expression.

Industrial

See main article: Industrial microbiology. Organisms can have their cells transformed with a gene coding for a useful protein, such as an enzyme, so that they will overexpress the desired protein. Mass quantities of the protein can then be manufactured by growing the transformed organism in bioreactor equipment using industrial fermentation, and then purifying the protein.[114] Some genes do not work well in bacteria, so yeast, insect cells or mammalian cells can also be used.[115] These techniques are used to produce medicines such as insulin, human growth hormone, and vaccines, supplements such as tryptophan, aid in the production of food (chymosin in cheese making) and fuels.[116] Other applications with genetically engineered bacteria could involve making them perform tasks outside their natural cycle, such as making biofuels,[117] cleaning up oil spills, carbon and other toxic waste[118] and detecting arsenic in drinking water.[119] Certain genetically modified microbes can also be used in biomining and bioremediation, due to their ability to extract heavy metals from their environment and incorporate them into compounds that are more easily recoverable.[120]

In materials science, a genetically modified virus has been used in a research laboratory as a scaffold for assembling a more environmentally friendly lithium-ion battery.[121] [122] Bacteria have also been engineered to function as sensors by expressing a fluorescent protein under certain environmental conditions.[123]

Agriculture

See main article: Genetically modified crops and Genetically modified food.

One of the best-known and controversial applications of genetic engineering is the creation and use of genetically modified crops or genetically modified livestock to produce genetically modified food. Crops have been developed to increase production, increase tolerance to abiotic stresses, alter the composition of the food, or to produce novel products.[124]

The first crops to be released commercially on a large scale provided protection from insect pests or tolerance to herbicides. Fungal and virus resistant crops have also been developed or are in development.[125] [126] This makes the insect and weed management of crops easier and can indirectly increase crop yield.[127] [128] GM crops that directly improve yield by accelerating growth or making the plant more hardy (by improving salt, cold or drought tolerance) are also under development. In 2016 Salmon have been genetically modified with growth hormones to reach normal adult size much faster.[129]

GMOs have been developed that modify the quality of produce by increasing the nutritional value or providing more industrially useful qualities or quantities.[130] The Amflora potato produces a more industrially useful blend of starches. Soybeans and canola have been genetically modified to produce more healthy oils.[131] [132] The first commercialised GM food was a tomato that had delayed ripening, increasing its shelf life.[133]

Plants and animals have been engineered to produce materials they do not normally make. Pharming uses crops and animals as bioreactors to produce vaccines, drug intermediates, or the drugs themselves; the useful product is purified from the harvest and then used in the standard pharmaceutical production process.[134] Cows and goats have been engineered to express drugs and other proteins in their milk, and in 2009 the FDA approved a drug produced in goat milk.[135] [136]

Other applications

Genetic engineering has potential applications in conservation and natural area management. Gene transfer through viral vectors has been proposed as a means of controlling invasive species as well as vaccinating threatened fauna from disease.[137] Transgenic trees have been suggested as a way to confer resistance to pathogens in wild populations.[138] With the increasing risks of maladaptation in organisms as a result of climate change and other perturbations, facilitated adaptation through gene tweaking could be one solution to reducing extinction risks.[139] Applications of genetic engineering in conservation are thus far mostly theoretical and have yet to be put into practice.

Genetic engineering is also being used to create microbial art.[140] Some bacteria have been genetically engineered to create black and white photographs.[141] Novelty items such as lavender-colored carnations,[142] blue roses,[143] and glowing fish[144] [145] have also been produced through genetic engineering.

Regulation

See main article: Regulation of genetic engineering.

The regulation of genetic engineering concerns the approaches taken by governments to assess and manage the risks associated with the development and release of GMOs. The development of a regulatory framework began in 1975, at Asilomar, California.[146] The Asilomar meeting recommended a set of voluntary guidelines regarding the use of recombinant technology.[29] As the technology improved the US established a committee at the Office of Science and Technology,[147] which assigned regulatory approval of GM food to the USDA, FDA and EPA.[148] The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, an international treaty that governs the transfer, handling, and use of GMOs,[149] was adopted on 29 January 2000.[150] One hundred and fifty-seven countries are members of the Protocol, and many use it as a reference point for their own regulations.[151]

The legal and regulatory status of GM foods varies by country, with some nations banning or restricting them, and others permitting them with widely differing degrees of regulation.[152] [153] [154] [155] Some countries allow the import of GM food with authorisation, but either do not allow its cultivation (Russia, Norway, Israel) or have provisions for cultivation even though no GM products are yet produced (Japan, South Korea). Most countries that do not allow GMO cultivation do permit research.[156] Some of the most marked differences occur between the US and Europe. The US policy focuses on the product (not the process), only looks at verifiable scientific risks and uses the concept of substantial equivalence.[157] The European Union by contrast has possibly the most stringent GMO regulations in the world. All GMOs, along with irradiated food, are considered "new food" and subject to extensive, case-by-case, science-based food evaluation by the European Food Safety Authority. The criteria for authorisation fall in four broad categories: "safety", "freedom of choice", "labelling", and "traceability".[158] The level of regulation in other countries that cultivate GMOs lie in between Europe and the United States.

Regulatory agencies by geographical region!Region!Regulators!Notes
USUSDA, FDA and EPA
EuropeEuropean Food Safety Authority
CanadaHealth Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency[159] [160] Regulated products with novel features regardless of method of origin[161] [162]
AfricaCommon Market for Eastern and Southern Africa[163] Final decision lies with each individual country.
ChinaOffice of Agricultural Genetic Engineering Biosafety Administration[164]
IndiaInstitutional Biosafety Committee, Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation and Genetic Engineering Approval Committee[165]
ArgentinaNational Agricultural Biotechnology Advisory Committee (environmental impact), the National Service of Health and Agrifood Quality (food safety) and the National Agribusiness Direction (effect on trade)[166] Final decision made by the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Fishery and Food.
BrazilNational Biosafety Technical Commission (environmental and food safety) and the Council of Ministers (commercial and economical issues)
AustraliaOffice of the Gene Technology Regulator (oversees all GM products), Therapeutic Goods Administration (GM medicines) and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (GM food).[167] [168] The individual state governments can then assess the impact of release on markets and trade and apply further legislation to control approved genetically modified products.
One of the key issues concerning regulators is whether GM products should be labeled. The European Commission says that mandatory labeling and traceability are needed to allow for informed choice, avoid potential false advertising[169] and facilitate the withdrawal of products if adverse effects on health or the environment are discovered.[170] The American Medical Association[171] and the American Association for the Advancement of Science[172] say that absent scientific evidence of harm even voluntary labeling is misleading and will falsely alarm consumers. Labeling of GMO products in the marketplace is required in 64 countries.[173] Labeling can be mandatory up to a threshold GM content level (which varies between countries) or voluntary. In Canada and the US labeling of GM food is voluntary,[174] while in Europe all food (including processed food) or feed which contains greater than 0.9% of approved GMOs must be labelled.[175]

Controversy

See main article: Genetically modified food controversies.

Critics have objected to the use of genetic engineering on several grounds, including ethical, ecological and economic concerns. Many of these concerns involve GM crops and whether food produced from them is safe and what impact growing them will have on the environment. These controversies have led to litigation, international trade disputes, and protests, and to restrictive regulation of commercial products in some countries.[176]

Accusations that scientists are "playing God" and other religious issues have been ascribed to the technology from the beginning.[177] Other ethical issues raised include the patenting of life,[178] the use of intellectual property rights,[179] the level of labeling on products,[180] [181] control of the food supply[182] and the objectivity of the regulatory process.[183] Although doubts have been raised,[184] economically most studies have found growing GM crops to be beneficial to farmers.[185] [186] [187]

Gene flow between GM crops and compatible plants, along with increased use of selective herbicides, can increase the risk of "superweeds" developing.[188] Other environmental concerns involve potential impacts on non-target organisms, including soil microbes,[189] and an increase in secondary and resistant insect pests.[190] [191] Many of the environmental impacts regarding GM crops may take many years to be understood and are also evident in conventional agriculture practices.[192] With the commercialisation of genetically modified fish there are concerns over what the environmental consequences will be if they escape.[193]

There are three main concerns over the safety of genetically modified food: whether they may provoke an allergic reaction; whether the genes could transfer from the food into human cells; and whether the genes not approved for human consumption could outcross to other crops.[194] There is a scientific consensus[195] [196] [197] [198] that currently available food derived from GM crops poses no greater risk to human health than conventional food,[199] [200] [201] [202] [203] but that each GM food needs to be tested on a case-by-case basis before introduction.[204] [205] [206] Nonetheless, members of the public are less likely than scientists to perceive GM foods as safe.[207] [208] [209] [210]

In popular culture

Genetic engineering features in many science fiction stories.[211] Frank Herbert's novel The White Plague describes the deliberate use of genetic engineering to create a pathogen which specifically kills women. Another of Herbert's creations, the Dune series of novels, uses genetic engineering to create the powerful Tleilaxu.[212] Few films have informed audiences about genetic engineering, with the exception of the 1978 The Boys from Brazil and the 1993 Jurassic Park, both of which make use of a lesson, a demonstration, and a clip of scientific film.[213] [214] Genetic engineering methods are weakly represented in film; Michael Clark, writing for the Wellcome Trust, calls the portrayal of genetic engineering and biotechnology "seriously distorted" in films such as The 6th Day. In Clark's view, the biotechnology is typically "given fantastic but visually arresting forms" while the science is either relegated to the background or fictionalised to suit a young audience.

See also

Further reading

External links

Notes and References

  1. Web site: Genetic Engineering. 2022-02-20. Genome.gov. en.
  2. Web site: How does GM differ from conventional plant breeding?. royalsociety.org. en-gb. 2017-11-14.
  3. Book: Ethical Issues in Scientific Research: An Anthology . Erwin . Edward . Gendin . Sidney . Kleiman . Lowell . vanc . 2015-12-22 . Routledge . 978-1-134-81774-0 . 338 .
  4. Alexander DR . Uses and abuses of genetic engineering . Postgraduate Medical Journal . 79 . 931 . 249–51 . May 2003 . 12782769 . 1742694 . 10.1136/pmj.79.931.249 .
  5. Nielsen J . Production of biopharmaceutical proteins by yeast: advances through metabolic engineering . Bioengineered . 4 . 4 . 207–11 . 2013-07-01 . 23147168 . 3728191 . 10.4161/bioe.22856 .
  6. Qaim M, Kouser S . Genetically modified crops and food security . PLOS ONE . 8 . 6 . e64879 . 2013-06-05 . 23755155 . 3674000 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0064879 . 2013PLoSO...864879Q . free .
  7. Directive on the release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) Directive 2001/18/EC ANNEX I A. Official Journal of the European Communities. 12 March 2001. The European Parliament and the council of the European Union.
  8. Web site: Economic Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops on the Agri-Food Sector; p. 42 Glossary – Term and Definitions . https://web.archive.org/web/20130514202621/http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/gmo/gmo.pdf . 14 May 2013 . The European Commission Directorate-General for Agriculture . Genetic engineering: The manipulation of an organism's genetic endowment by introducing or eliminating specific genes through modern molecular biology techniques. A broad definition of genetic engineering also includes selective breeding and other means of artificial selection.
  9. Web site: Is Livestock Cloning Another Form of Genetic Engineering? . Van Eenennaam . Alison . vanc . agbiotech . https://web.archive.org/web/20110511121055/http://agribiotech.info/details/Alison%20-%20cloning%20March%208%20-%2003.pdf . 11 May 2011 .
  10. Suter DM, Dubois-Dauphin M, Krause KH . Genetic engineering of embryonic stem cells . Swiss Medical Weekly . 136 . 27–28 . 413–5 . July 2006 . 10.4414/smw.2006.11406 . 16897894 . 4945176 . https://web.archive.org/web/20110707003215/http://www.smw.ch/docs/pdf200x/2006/27/smw-11406.PDF . 7 July 2011 .
  11. Andrianantoandro E, Basu S, Karig DK, Weiss R . Synthetic biology: new engineering rules for an emerging discipline . Molecular Systems Biology . 2 . 2006.0028 . 2006.0028 . 16 May 2006 . 16738572 . 1681505 . 10.1038/msb4100073 .
  12. Web site: What is genetic modification (GM)?. CSIRO.
  13. 10.1007/s11540-008-9097-y . Cisgenesis, a New Tool for Traditional Plant Breeding, Should be Exempted from the Regulation on Genetically Modified Organisms in a Step by Step Approach . 2008 . Jacobsen E, Schouten HJ . Potato Research . 51 . 75–88. 38742532 .
  14. Capecchi MR . Generating mice with targeted mutations . Nature Medicine . 7 . 10 . 1086–90 . October 2001 . 11590420 . 10.1038/nm1001-1086 . 14710881 .
  15. Staff Biotechnology – Glossary of Agricultural Biotechnology Terms United States Department of Agriculture, "Genetic modification: The production of heritable improvements in plants or animals for specific uses, via either genetic engineering or other more traditional methods. Some countries other than the United States use this term to refer specifically to genetic engineering.", Retrieved 5 November 2012
  16. Web site: Genetically Engineered Foods. James H. . Maryanski . vanc . Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the Food and Drug Administration. 19 October 1999.
  17. Staff (28 November 2005) Health Canada – The Regulation of Genetically Modified Food Glossary definition of Genetically Modified: "An organism, such as a plant, animal or bacterium, is considered genetically modified if its genetic material has been altered through any method, including conventional breeding. A 'GMO' is a genetically modified organism.", Retrieved 5 November 2012
  18. Book: Root, Clive . [{{google books |plainurl=y |id=WGDYHvOHwmwC}} Domestication]. vanc . 2007. Greenwood Publishing Groups.
  19. Book: [{{google books |plainurl=y |id=tc6vr0qzk_4C}} Domestication of Plants in the Old World: The origin and spread of plants in the old world]. Daniel . Zohary . Maria . Hopf . Ehud . Weiss . vanc . 2012. Oxford University Press.
  20. Timofeev-Ressovsky NW . The Experimental Production of Mutations . Biological Reviews . 9 . 4 . 411–457 . October 1934 . 10.1111/j.1469-185X.1934.tb01255.x . 86396986 .
  21. Book: Stableford, Brian M.. vanc . [{{google books |plainurl=y |id=nzmIPZg5xicC|page=9}} Historical dictionary of science fiction literature]. 133. 2004. Scarecrow Press . 978-0-8108-4938-9.
  22. Hershey AD, Chase M . Independent functions of viral protein and nucleic acid in growth of bacteriophage . The Journal of General Physiology . 36 . 1 . 39–56 . May 1952 . 12981234 . 2147348 . 10.1085/jgp.36.1.39 .
  23. Encyclopedia: Genetic Engineering. 2 April 2015. Encyclopedia of Science Fiction.
  24. Book: Modern Concepts in Nanotechnology, Volume 5. 2008. 978-81-8356-296-6. Discovery Publishing House . Shiv Kant Prasad . Ajay Dash.
  25. Jackson DA, Symons RH, Berg P . Biochemical method for inserting new genetic information into DNA of Simian Virus 40: circular SV40 DNA molecules containing lambda phage genes and the galactose operon of Escherichia coli . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America . 69 . 10 . 2904–9 . October 1972 . 4342968 . 389671 . 10.1073/pnas.69.10.2904 . David A. Jackson Robert H. Symons and Paul Berg . 1972PNAS...69.2904J . free .
  26. Web site: History of Genetics: Genetic Engineering Timeline. Arnold. Paul. vanc . 2009.
  27. Gutschi S, Hermann W, Stenzl W, Tscheliessnigg KH . [Displacement of electrodes in pacemaker patients (author's transl)] . Zentralblatt für Chirurgie . 104 . 2 . 100–4 . 1 May 1973 . 433482.
  28. Jaenisch R, Mintz B . Simian virus 40 DNA sequences in DNA of healthy adult mice derived from preimplantation blastocysts injected with viral DNA . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America . 71 . 4 . 1250–4 . April 1974 . 4364530 . 388203 . 10.1073/pnas.71.4.1250. 1974PNAS...71.1250J . free .
  29. Berg P, Baltimore D, Brenner S, Roblin RO, Singer MF . Summary statement of the Asilomar conference on recombinant DNA molecules . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America . 72 . 6 . 1981–4 . June 1975 . 806076 . 432675 . 10.1073/pnas.72.6.1981 . 1975PNAS...72.1981B . free .
  30. Web site: NIH Guidelines for research involving recombinant DNA molecules . Office of Biotechnology Activities . U.S. Department of Health and Human Services . https://web.archive.org/web/20120910070047/http://oba.od.nih.gov/rdna/nih_guidelines_oba.html . 10 September 2012 .
  31. Goeddel DV, Kleid DG, Bolivar F, Heyneker HL, Yansura DG, Crea R, Hirose T, Kraszewski A, Itakura K, Riggs AD . Expression in Escherichia coli of chemically synthesized genes for human insulin . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America . 76 . 1 . 106–10 . January 1979 . 85300 . 382885 . 10.1073/pnas.76.1.106 . 1979PNAS...76..106G . free .
  32. Web site: Diamond V Chakrabarty. 447. US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez. Justia . 16 June 1980 . 17 July 2010 . 303.
  33. Artificial Genes . https://web.archive.org/web/20111027011602/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949646-1,00.html . 27 October 2011 . . 15 November 1982 . 17 July 2010.
  34. Bratspies . Rebecca . vanc . 2007 . Some Thoughts on the American Approach to Regulating Genetically Modified Organisms . 1017832 . Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy . 16 . 3 . 101–31 .
  35. News: 2002-06-14. GM crops: A bitter harvest?. en-GB. 2023-03-30.
  36. News: Maugh . Thomas H. II . 9 June 1987 . Altered Bacterium Does Its Job: Frost Failed to Damage Sprayed Test Crop, Company Says . Los Angeles Times.
  37. Web site: James . Clive . vanc . Global Review of the Field Testing and Commercialization of Transgenic Plants: 1986 to 1995 . https://web.archive.org/web/20100616175626/http://isaaa.org/kc/Publications/pdfs/isaaabriefs/Briefs%201.pdf . 2010-06-16 . live . The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications. 17 July 2010 . 1996.
  38. James . Clive . vanc . 1997 . Global Status of Transgenic Crops in 1997 . ISAAA Briefs No. 5. . 31 . https://web.archive.org/web/20090116155014/http://www.isaaa.org/Resources/Publications/briefs/05/download/isaaa-brief-05-1997.pdf . 2009-01-16 . live.
  39. 10.3733/ca.v054n04p6 . The case of the FLAVR SAVR tomato . 2000 . Bruening G, Lyons JM . California Agriculture . 54 . 4 . 6–7. free .
  40. Transgenic tobacco is European first. 18 June 1994 . MacKenzie . Debora . vanc . New Scientist.
  41. Web site: Lawrence Journal-World - Google News Archive Search. 2023-03-30. news.google.com.
  42. Web site: Executive Summary: Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2009 - ISAAA Brief 41-2009 | ISAAA.org. 2023-03-30. www.isaaa.org.
  43. Pennisi E . Elizabeth Pennisi . Genomics. Synthetic genome brings new life to bacterium . Science . 328 . 5981 . 958–9 . May 2010 . 20488994 . 10.1126/science.328.5981.958 . free .
  44. Gibson DG, Glass JI, Lartigue C, Noskov VN, Chuang RY, Algire MA, Benders GA, Montague MG, Ma L, Moodie MM, Merryman C, Vashee S, Krishnakumar R, Assad-Garcia N, Andrews-Pfannkoch C, Denisova EA, Young L, Qi ZQ, Segall-Shapiro TH, Calvey CH, Parmar PP, Hutchison CA, Smith HO, Venter JC . 6 . Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesized genome . Science . 329 . 5987 . 52–6 . July 2010 . 20488990 . 10.1126/science.1190719 . 2010Sci...329...52G . 10.1.1.167.1455 . 7320517 .
  45. Malyshev DA, Dhami K, Lavergne T, Chen T, Dai N, Foster JM, Corrêa IR, Romesberg FE . A semi-synthetic organism with an expanded genetic alphabet . Nature . 509 . 7500 . 385–8 . May 2014 . 24805238 . 4058825 . 10.1038/nature13314 . 2014Natur.509..385M .
  46. Thyer R, Ellefson J . 4399670 . Synthetic biology: New letters for life's alphabet . Nature . 509 . 7500 . 291–2 . May 2014 . 24805244 . 10.1038/nature13335 . 2014Natur.509..291T . free .
  47. News: Jennifer Doudna, a Pioneer Who Helped Simplify Genome Editing. https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220102/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/science/jennifer-doudna-crispr-cas9-genetic-engineering.html . 2022-01-02 . limited . live . Pollack. Andrew . vanc . 2015-05-11 . . 2017-11-15.
  48. Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I, Hauer M, Doudna JA, Charpentier E . A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity . Science . 337 . 6096 . 816–21 . August 2012 . 22745249 . 6286148 . 10.1126/science.1225829 . 2012Sci...337..816J .
  49. Ledford H . CRISPR: gene editing is just the beginning . Nature . 531 . 7593 . 156–9 . March 2016 . 26961639 . 10.1038/531156a . 2016Natur.531..156L . free .
  50. Book: Current Technologies in Plant Molecular Breeding: A Guide Book of Plant Molecular Breeding for Researchers. Koh. Hee-Jong. Kwon. Suk-Yoon. Thomson. Michael. vanc . 2015-08-26. Springer. 978-94-017-9996-6. 242. en.
  51. News: How to Make a GMO. 2015-08-09. Science in the News. 2017-04-29. en-US.
  52. Book: Nicholl, Desmond S.T.. An Introduction to Genetic Engineering. 2008-05-29. Cambridge University Press. 978-1-139-47178-7. 34. en.
  53. Book: Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J, etal . Isolating, Cloning, and Sequencing DNA . Molecular Biology of the Cell . 4th . New York. Garland Science. 2002 . https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26837/ . 0-8153-3218-1.
  54. Kaufman RI, Nixon BT . Use of PCR to isolate genes encoding sigma54-dependent activators from diverse bacteria . Journal of Bacteriology . 178 . 13 . 3967–70 . July 1996 . 8682806 . 232662 . 10.1128/jb.178.13.3967-3970.1996 .
  55. Liang J, Luo Y, Zhao H . Synthetic biology: putting synthesis into biology . Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Systems Biology and Medicine . 3 . 1 . 7–20 . 2011 . 21064036 . 3057768 . 10.1002/wsbm.104 .
  56. Web site: 5. The Process of Genetic Modification. www.fao.org. 2017-04-29.
  57. J M Blatny, T Brautaset, C H Winther-Larsen, K Haugan and S Valla: "Construction and use of a versatile set of broad-host-range cloning and expression vectors based on the RK2 replicon", Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1997, Volume 63, Issue 2, p. 370
  58. Berg P, Mertz JE . Personal reflections on the origins and emergence of recombinant DNA technology . Genetics . 184 . 1 . 9–17 . January 2010 . 20061565 . 2815933 . 10.1534/genetics.109.112144 .
  59. Chen I, Dubnau D . DNA uptake during bacterial transformation . Nature Reviews. Microbiology . 2 . 3 . 241–9 . March 2004 . 15083159 . 10.1038/nrmicro844 . 205499369 .
  60. Book: Methods and Mechanisms for Genetic Manipulation of Plants, Animals, and Microorganisms. National Research Council (US) Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health . 2004-01-01. National Academies Press (US). en.
  61. Gelvin SB . Agrobacterium-mediated plant transformation: the biology behind the "gene-jockeying" tool . Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews . 67 . 1 . 16–37, table of contents . March 2003 . 12626681 . 150518 . 10.1128/MMBR.67.1.16-37.2003 .
  62. Book: Graham . Head . Hull . Roger H . Tzotzos . George T. . vanc . Genetically Modified Plants: Assessing Safety and Managing Risk . limited . Academic Pr . London . 2009 . 244 . 978-0-12-374106-6 .
  63. Tuomela M, Stanescu I, Krohn K . Validation overview of bio-analytical methods . Gene Therapy . 12 Suppl 1 . S1 . S131-8 . October 2005 . 16231045 . 10.1038/sj.gt.3302627 . 23000818 .
  64. Book: Narayanaswamy, S.. Plant Cell and Tissue Culture. 1994. Tata McGraw-Hill Education. 978-0-07-460277-5. vi. en.
  65. Book: Methods and Mechanisms for Genetic Manipulation of Plants, Animals, and Microorganisms. National Research Council (US) Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health . 2004. National Academies Press (US). en.
  66. Hohn B, Levy AA, Puchta H . Elimination of selection markers from transgenic plants . Current Opinion in Biotechnology . 12 . 2 . 139–43 . April 2001 . 11287227 . 10.1016/S0958-1669(00)00188-9 .
  67. Book: Setlow, Jane K. . Genetic Engineering: Principles and Methods. vanc . 2002-10-31. Springer Science & Business Media. 978-0-306-47280-0. 109. en.
  68. Deepak S, Kottapalli K, Rakwal R, Oros G, Rangappa K, Iwahashi H, Masuo Y, Agrawal G . Real-Time PCR: Revolutionizing Detection and Expression Analysis of Genes . Current Genomics . 8 . 4 . 234–51 . June 2007 . 18645596 . 2430684 . 10.2174/138920207781386960 .
  69. Grizot S, Smith J, Daboussi F, Prieto J, Redondo P, Merino N, Villate M, Thomas S, Lemaire L, Montoya G, Blanco FJ, Pâques F, Duchateau P . Efficient targeting of a SCID gene by an engineered single-chain homing endonuclease . Nucleic Acids Research . 37 . 16 . 5405–19 . September 2009 . 19584299 . 2760784 . 10.1093/nar/gkp548 .
  70. Gao H, Smith J, Yang M, Jones S, Djukanovic V, Nicholson MG, West A, Bidney D, Falco SC, Jantz D, Lyznik LA . Heritable targeted mutagenesis in maize using a designed endonuclease . The Plant Journal . 61 . 1 . 176–87 . January 2010 . 19811621 . 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2009.04041.x .
  71. Townsend JA, Wright DA, Winfrey RJ, Fu F, Maeder ML, Joung JK, Voytas DF . High-frequency modification of plant genes using engineered zinc-finger nucleases . Nature . 459 . 7245 . 442–5 . May 2009 . 19404258 . 2743854 . 10.1038/nature07845 . 2009Natur.459..442T .
  72. Shukla VK, Doyon Y, Miller JC, DeKelver RC, Moehle EA, Worden SE, Mitchell JC, Arnold NL, Gopalan S, Meng X, Choi VM, Rock JM, Wu YY, Katibah GE, Zhifang G, McCaskill D, Simpson MA, Blakeslee B, Greenwalt SA, Butler HJ, Hinkley SJ, Zhang L, Rebar EJ, Gregory PD, Urnov FD . Precise genome modification in the crop species Zea mays using zinc-finger nucleases . Nature . 459 . 7245 . 437–41 . May 2009 . 19404259 . 10.1038/nature07992 . 2009Natur.459..437S . 4323298 .
  73. Christian M, Cermak T, Doyle EL, Schmidt C, Zhang F, Hummel A, Bogdanove AJ, Voytas DF . Targeting DNA double-strand breaks with TAL effector nucleases . Genetics . 186 . 2 . 757–61 . October 2010 . 20660643 . 2942870 . 10.1534/genetics.110.120717 .
  74. Li T, Huang S, Jiang WZ, Wright D, Spalding MH, Weeks DP, Yang B . TAL nucleases (TALNs): hybrid proteins composed of TAL effectors and FokI DNA-cleavage domain . Nucleic Acids Research . 39 . 1 . 359–72 . January 2011 . 20699274 . 3017587 . 10.1093/nar/gkq704 .
  75. Esvelt KM, Wang HH . Genome-scale engineering for systems and synthetic biology . Molecular Systems Biology . 9 . 641 . 2013 . 23340847 . 3564264 . 10.1038/msb.2012.66 .
  76. Book: Tan WS, Carlson DF, Walton MW, Fahrenkrug SC, Hackett PB . Precision editing of large animal genomes . 80 . 37–97 . 2012 . 23084873 . 3683964 . 10.1016/B978-0-12-404742-6.00002-8 . 978-0-12-404742-6 . Advances in Genetics Volume 80 .
  77. Malzahn A, Lowder L, Qi Y . Plant genome editing with TALEN and CRISPR . Cell & Bioscience . 7 . 21 . 2017-04-24 . 28451378 . 5404292 . 10.1186/s13578-017-0148-4 . free .
  78. Ekker SC . Zinc finger-based knockout punches for zebrafish genes . Zebrafish . 5 . 2 . 121–3 . 2008 . 18554175 . 2849655 . 10.1089/zeb.2008.9988 .
  79. Geurts AM, Cost GJ, Freyvert Y, Zeitler B, Miller JC, Choi VM, Jenkins SS, Wood A, Cui X, Meng X, Vincent A, Lam S, Michalkiewicz M, Schilling R, Foeckler J, Kalloway S, Weiler H, Ménoret S, Anegon I, Davis GD, Zhang L, Rebar EJ, Gregory PD, Urnov FD, Jacob HJ, Buelow R . Knockout rats via embryo microinjection of zinc-finger nucleases . Science . 325 . 5939 . 433 . July 2009 . 19628861 . 2831805 . 10.1126/science.1172447 . 2009Sci...325..433G .
  80. Web site: Genetic Modification of Bacteria. Annenberg Foundation. 4 October 2012. 24 December 2013. https://web.archive.org/web/20131224110848/http://www.learner.org/courses/biology/textbook/gmo/gmo_2.html.
  81. Panesar, Pamit et al. (2010) "Enzymes in Food Processing: Fundamentals and Potential Applications", Chapter 10, I K International Publishing House,
  82. Web site: GM traits list. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.
  83. Web site: ISAAA Brief 43-2011: Executive Summary. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications.
  84. News: The mouse that shook the world. Connor. Steve. vanc . 2 November 2007. The Independent.
  85. Book: Avise, John C.. [{{google books |plainurl=y |id=gR8cWf2-UY4C}} The hope, hype & reality of genetic engineering: remarkable stories from agriculture, industry, medicine, and the environment]. vanc . Oxford University Press US. 2004. 978-0-19-516950-8. 22.
  86. News: 10 December 2012. Engineering algae to make complex anti-cancer 'designer' drug. PhysOrg. 15 April 2013.
  87. Roque AC, Lowe CR, Taipa MA . Antibodies and genetically engineered related molecules: production and purification . Biotechnology Progress . 20 . 3 . 639–54 . 2004 . 15176864 . 10.1021/bp030070k . 23142893 .
  88. Rodriguez LL, Grubman MJ . Foot and mouth disease virus vaccines . Vaccine . 27 . D90-4 . November 2009 . Suppl 4 . 19837296 . 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.08.039 .
  89. Web site: Background: Cloned and Genetically Modified Animals. 14 April 2005. Center for Genetics and Society. 9 July 2010. https://web.archive.org/web/20161123110939/http://geneticsandsociety.org/article.php?id=386. 23 November 2016.
  90. Web site: Knockout Mice. 2009. Nation Human Genome Research Institute.
  91. Fischer A, Hacein-Bey-Abina S, Cavazzana-Calvo M . 20 years of gene therapy for SCID . Nature Immunology . 11 . 6 . 457–60 . June 2010 . 20485269 . 10.1038/ni0610-457 . 11300348 .
  92. 10.1038/news.2011.472 . Cell therapy fights leukaemia . 2011 . Ledford . Heidi . vanc . Nature .
  93. Brentjens RJ, Davila ML, Riviere I, Park J, Wang X, Cowell LG, Bartido S, Stefanski J, Taylor C, Olszewska M, Borquez-Ojeda O, Qu J, Wasielewska T, He Q, Bernal Y, Rijo IV, Hedvat C, Kobos R, Curran K, Steinherz P, Jurcic J, Rosenblat T, Maslak P, Frattini M, Sadelain M . 6 . CD19-targeted T cells rapidly induce molecular remissions in adults with chemotherapy-refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia . Science Translational Medicine . 5 . 177 . 177ra38 . March 2013 . 23515080 . 3742551 . 10.1126/scitranslmed.3005930 .
  94. LeWitt PA, Rezai AR, Leehey MA, Ojemann SG, Flaherty AW, Eskandar EN, Kostyk SK, Thomas K, Sarkar A, Siddiqui MS, Tatter SB, Schwalb JM, Poston KL, Henderson JM, Kurlan RM, Richard IH, Van Meter L, Sapan CV, During MJ, Kaplitt MG, Feigin A . 6 . AAV2-GAD gene therapy for advanced Parkinson's disease: a double-blind, sham-surgery controlled, randomised trial . The Lancet. Neurology . 10 . 4 . 309–19 . April 2011 . 21419704 . 10.1016/S1474-4422(11)70039-4 . 37154043 .
  95. News: 2012-11-02. Gene therapy: Glybera approved by European Commission. en-GB. BBC News. 2023-03-30.
  96. Web site: Richards. Sabrina. vanc . Gene Therapy Arrives in Europe. The Scientist. 16 November 2012.
  97. News: Genetically Altered Skin Saves A Boy Dying of a Rare Disease. NPR.org. 2017-11-15. en.
  98. Web site: 1990 The Declaration of Inuyama . 5 August 2001 . bot: unknown . https://web.archive.org/web/20010805085535/http://www.cioms.ch/frame_1990_texts_of_guidelines.htm . 5 August 2001 .
  99. Smith KR, Chan S, Harris J . Human germline genetic modification: scientific and bioethical perspectives . Archives of Medical Research . 43 . 7 . 491–513 . October 2012 . 23072719 . 10.1016/j.arcmed.2012.09.003 .
  100. News: Kolata . Gina . vanc . Chinese Scientists Edit Genes of Human Embryos, Raising Concerns . https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220102/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/health/chinese-scientists-edit-genes-of-human-embryos-raising-concerns.html . 2022-01-02 . limited . live . 23 April 2015 . The New York Times . 24 April 2015 .
  101. Liang P, Xu Y, Zhang X, Ding C, Huang R, Zhang Z, Lv J, Xie X, Chen Y, Li Y, Sun Y, Bai Y, Songyang Z, Ma W, Zhou C, Huang J . 6 . CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes . Protein & Cell . 6 . 5 . 363–372 . May 2015 . 25894090 . 4417674 . 10.1007/s13238-015-0153-5 .
  102. News: Wade . Nicholas . vanc . Nicholas Wade . Scientists Place Moratorium on Edits to Human Genome That Could Be Inherited . https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220102/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/science/crispr-cas9-human-genome-editing-moratorium.html . 2022-01-02 . limited . live . 3 December 2015 . The New York Times . 3 December 2015 .
  103. Web site: The Ethics of Gene Therapy. Emilie R. . Bergeson. vanc . 1997.
  104. Web site: Kathi E. . Hanna. vanc . Genetic Enhancement. National Human Genome Research Institute.
  105. News: Begley . Sharon . vanc . Amid uproar, Chinese scientist defends creating gene-edited babies – STAT . STAT . 28 November 2018.
  106. Li . Emily . Diagnostic Value of Spiral CT Chest Enhanced Scan . Journal of Clinical and Nursing Research . July 31, 2020 .
  107. News: 21 September 2003. GM pigs best bet for organ transplant. Medical News Today. 9 July 2010. 10 May 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20110510121726/http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/4344.php.
  108. News: Open Season Is Seen in Gene Editing of Animals. https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220102/https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/us/2015-11-27-us-animal-gene-editing.html . 2022-01-02 . limited . live. Harmon. Amy. vanc . 2015-11-26. The New York Times. 2017-09-27. en-US. 0362-4331.
  109. Book: Praitis V, Maduro MF . Caenorhabditis elegans: Molecular Genetics and Development . Transgenesis in C. elegans . Methods in Cell Biology . 106 . 161–85 . 2011 . 22118277 . 10.1016/B978-0-12-544172-8.00006-2 . 978-0-12-544172-8 .
  110. Web site: Rediscovering Biology – Online Textbook: Unit 13 Genetically Modified Organisms. www.learner.org. 2017-08-18. 3 December 2019. https://web.archive.org/web/20191203123559/http://www.learner.org/courses/biology/textbook/gmo/gmo_2.html.
  111. Book: Alberts . Bruce . Johnson . Alexander . Lewis . Julian . Raff . Martin . Roberts . Keith . Walter . Peter . vanc . 2002 . Studying Gene Expression and Function. Molecular Biology of the Cell . 4th . New York. Garland Science . 0-8153-3218-1.
  112. Book: Protein Engineering and Design. Park. Sheldon J.. Cochran. Jennifer R.. vanc . 2009-09-25. CRC Press. 978-1-4200-7659-2. en.
  113. Book: Kurnaz, Isil Aksan. Techniques in Genetic Engineering. vanc . 2015-05-08. CRC Press. 978-1-4822-6090-8 .
  114. Web site: Applications of Genetic Engineering . Microbiologyprocedure . 9 July 2010 . https://web.archive.org/web/20110714085807/http://www.microbiologyprocedure.com/microbial-genetics/applications-of-genetic-engineering.htm . 14 July 2011 .
  115. Web site: Biotech: What are transgenic organisms? . Easyscience . 2002 . 9 July 2010 . https://web.archive.org/web/20100527060202/http://www.easyscience.co.nz/ubbiology/biotech/lesson4.htm . 27 May 2010 .
  116. Making Gasoline from Bacteria: A biotech startup wants to coax fuels from engineered microbes. Neil. Savage. vanc. 1 August 2007. MIT Technology Review. 16 July 2015. 9 April 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20200409015344/https://www.technologyreview.com/biztech/19128/.
  117. Web site: Summers . Rebecca . vanc . 24 April 2013 . Bacteria churn out first ever petrol-like biofuel . New Scientist . 27 April 2013 .
  118. Web site: Applications of Some Genetically Engineered Bacteria . 9 July 2010 . https://web.archive.org/web/20101127053814/http://molecular-plant-biotechnology.info/use-of-microbes-in-industry-and-agriculture/applications-of-genetically-engineered-bacteria.htm . 27 November 2010 .
  119. Web site: Sanderson . Katherine . vanc . 24 February 2012 . New Portable Kit Detects Arsenic in Wells . Chemical and Engineering News . 23 January 2013 .
  120. Book: Campbell Biology Ninth Edition. Reece. Jane B.. Lisa A.. Urry. Cain. Michael L.. Wasserman. Steven A.. Minorsky. Peter V.. Jackson. Robert B.. vanc. Pearson Benjamin Cummings. 2011. 978-0-321-55823-7. San Francisco. 421.
  121. Web site: New virus-built battery could power cars, electronic devices . Web.mit.edu . 2 April 2009 . 17 July 2010.
  122. News: Hidden Ingredient in New, Greener Battery: A Virus . Npr.org . 17 July 2010.
  123. Web site: Researchers Synchronize Blinking 'Genetic Clocks' – Genetically Engineered Bacteria That Keep Track of Time. ScienceDaily. 24 January 2010.
  124. Magaña-Gómez JA, de la Barca AM . Risk assessment of genetically modified crops for nutrition and health . Nutrition Reviews . 67 . 1 . 1–16 . January 2009 . 19146501 . 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2008.00130.x . free .
  125. 10.3329/ptcb.v16i2.1113 . Fungus Resistant Transgenic Plants: Strategies, Progress and Lessons Learnt . 2008 . Islam . Aparna . vanc . Plant Tissue Culture and Biotechnology . 16 . 2 . 117–38. free .
  126. Web site: Disease resistant crops. GMO Compass. https://web.archive.org/web/20100603215011/http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/agri_biotechnology/breeding_aims/148.disease_resistant_crops.html. 3 June 2010.
  127. 10.1111/j.1744-7348.2004.tb00376.x . First impact of biotechnology in the EU: Bt maize adoption in Spain . 2004 . Demont M, Tollens E . Annals of Applied Biology . 145 . 2 . 197–207.
  128. Book: Sustaining Life . Chivian. Eric. Bernstein. Aaron . vanc . Oxford University Press, Inc. 2008. 978-0-19-517509-7 . registration.
  129. News: Genetically Engineered Salmon Approved for Consumption. 19 November 2015. The New York Times. Pollack. Andrew. vanc . 21 April 2016.
  130. Web site: Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?. 2000. Deborah B.. Whitman. vanc. 9 July 2010. 16 February 2015. https://web.archive.org/web/20150216145707/http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php.
  131. Rapeseed (canola) has been genetically engineered to modify its oil content with a gene encoding a "12:0 thioesterase" (TE) enzyme from the California bay plant (Umbellularia californica) to increase medium length fatty acids, see: Geo-pie.cornell.edu
  132. Bomgardner MM . 2012 . Replacing Trans Fat: New crops from Dow Chemical and DuPont target food makers looking for stable, heart-healthy oils . Chemical and Engineering News . 90 . 11. 30–32 . 10.1021/cen-09011-bus1 .
  133. Kramer. Matthew G.. Redenbaugh. Keith. vanc . 1994-01-01. Commercialization of a tomato with an antisense polygalacturonase gene: The FLAVR SAVR™ tomato story. Euphytica. en. 79. 3. 293–97. 10.1007/BF00022530. 45071333. 0014-2336.
  134. 10.1051/agro:2007050 . Pharmaceutical crops in California, benefits and risks. A review . 2008 . Marvier . Michelle . vanc . Agronomy for Sustainable Development . 28 . 1 . 1–9. 29538486 . https://web.archive.org/web/20180719040330/https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00886450/file/hal-00886450.pdf . 2018-07-19 . live .
  135. Web site: FDA Approves First Human Biologic Produced by GE Animals. US Food and Drug Administration.
  136. Web site: GM cow milk 'could provide treatment for blood disease'. Paulo . Rebêlo. vanc . 15 July 2004. SciDev.
  137. Angulo E, Cooke B . First synthesize new viruses then regulate their release? The case of the wild rabbit . Molecular Ecology . 11 . 12 . 2703–9 . December 2002 . 12453252 . 10.1046/j.1365-294X.2002.01635.x . 2002MolEc..11.2703A . 10261/45541 . 23916432 . free .
  138. Adams JM, Piovesan G, Strauss S, Brown S . 2 August 2002. The Case for Genetic Engineering of Native and Landscape Trees against Introduced Pests and Diseases . Conservation Biology . 16 . 4. 874–79. 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.00523.x . 2002ConBi..16..874A . 86697592.
  139. Thomas MA, Roemer GW, Donlan CJ, Dickson BG, Matocq M, Malaney J . Ecology: Gene tweaking for conservation . Nature . 501 . 7468 . 485–6 . September 2013 . 24073449 . 10.1038/501485a . free .
  140. Web site: Bio-artists bridge gap between arts, sciences: Use of living organisms is attracting attention and controversy. Jessica M. . Pasko. vanc . msnbc. https://web.archive.org/web/20131004234217/http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17387568/. dead. 4 October 2013. 2007-03-04.
  141. Web site: Genetically Modified Bacteria Produce Living Photographs. Joab . Jackson. vanc . National Geographic News. 6 December 2005. https://web.archive.org/web/20051216101532/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/12/1206_051206_bacteria_photos.html. dead. 16 December 2005.
  142. Web site: Plant gene replacement results in the world's only blue rose. 2023-03-30. phys.org. en.
  143. Katsumoto Y, Fukuchi-Mizutani M, Fukui Y, Brugliera F, Holton TA, Karan M, Nakamura N, Yonekura-Sakakibara K, Togami J, Pigeaire A, Tao GQ, Nehra NS, Lu CY, Dyson BK, Tsuda S, Ashikari T, Kusumi T, Mason JG, Tanaka Y . Engineering of the rose flavonoid biosynthetic pathway successfully generated blue-hued flowers accumulating delphinidin . Plant & Cell Physiology . 48 . 11 . 1589–600 . November 2007 . 17925311 . 10.1093/pcp/pcm131 . 10.1.1.319.8365 .
  144. Web site: WIPO - Search International and National Patent Collections. 2023-03-30. patentscope.wipo.int.
  145. Stewart CN . Go with the glow: fluorescent proteins to light transgenic organisms . Trends in Biotechnology . 24 . 4 . 155–62 . April 2006 . 16488034 . 10.1016/j.tibtech.2006.02.002 . 25 October 2017 . 3 July 2010 . https://web.archive.org/web/20100703194009/http://plantsciences.utk.edu/pdf/stewart-TIBTECH-FPs-2006.pdf .
  146. Berg P, Baltimore D, Boyer HW, Cohen SN, Davis RW, Hogness DS, Nathans D, Roblin R, Watson JD, Weissman S, Zinder ND . Letter: Potential biohazards of recombinant DNA molecules . Science . 185 . 4148 . 303 . July 1974 . 4600381 . 388511 . 10.1126/science.185.4148.303 . 1974Sci...185..303B . 3 May 2017 . 12 August 2011 . https://web.archive.org/web/20110812073943/http://beck2.med.harvard.edu/week13/The%20Science%20Letter.pdf . dead .
  147. McHughen A, Smyth S . US regulatory system for genetically modified [genetically modified organism (GMO), rDNA or transgenic] crop cultivars . Plant Biotechnology Journal . 6 . 1 . 2–12 . January 2008 . 17956539 . 10.1111/j.1467-7652.2007.00300.x . free .
  148. Coordinated framework for regulation of biotechnology; announcement of policy; notice for public comment . Federal Register . June 1986 . 11655807 . https://web.archive.org/web/20110516173328/http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/CoordinatedFrameworkForRegulationOfBiotechnology1986.pdf . 16 May 2011 . U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy . 51 . 123 . 23302–23350 .
  149. Redick, T.P.. 2007. The Cartagena Protocol on biosafety: Precautionary priority in biotech crop approvals and containment of commodities shipments, 2007. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy. 18. 51–116.
  150. Web site: About the Protocol. The Biosafety Clearing-House (BCH). 29 May 2012.
  151. Web site: AgBioForum 13(3): Implications of Import Regulations and Information Requirements under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety for GM Commodities in Kenya. 28 October 2010. 3 May 2017. 4 March 2016. https://web.archive.org/web/20160304190534/http://www.agbioforum.org/v13n3/v13n3a02-gruere.htm#R13.
  152. https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/llglrd/2014427358/2014427358.pdf Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms.
  153. Web site: FDA and Regulation of GMOs. Bashshur. Ramona. vanc. February 2013. American Bar Association. 24 February 2016. 29 September 2016. https://web.archive.org/web/20160929163558/http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_1302_bashshur.html. dead.
  154. Sifferlin. Alexandra. vanc . 3 October 2015. Over Half of E.U. Countries Are Opting Out of GMOs. Time.
  155. Web site: The Regulation of GMOs in Europe and the United States: A Case-Study of Contemporary European Regulatory Politics. Diahanna. Lynch. Vogel. David. vanc. 5 April 2001. Council on Foreign Relations. 24 February 2016. https://web.archive.org/web/20160929200540/http://www.cfr.org/agricultural-policy/regulation-gmos-europe-united-states-case-study-contemporary-european-regulatory-politics/p8688. 29 September 2016.
  156. Web site: Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms - Law Library of Congress. Library of Congress. 22 January 2017.
  157. Risk and Regulation: U.S. Regulatory Policy on Genetically Modified Food and Agriculture . Marden . Emily . 1 May 2003 . Boston College Law Review . 44 . 3 . 733 .
  158. http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/regulation/regulatory_process/156.european_regulatory_system_genetic_engineering.html GMO Compass: The European Regulatory System.
  159. Web site: Information for the general public. Government of Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency. www.inspection.gc.ca. 20 March 2015. 3 May 2017. 22 April 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20110422171028/http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/sci/biotech/bioteche.shtml. dead.
  160. Encyclopedia: Genetically Modified Foods . Cecil W. . Forsberg . 23 April 2013 . The Canadian Encyclopedia . 4 October 2017 . 18 September 2013 . https://web.archive.org/web/20130918203331/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/genetically-modified-foods .
  161. Evans, Brent and Lupescu, Mihai (15 July 2012) Canada – Agricultural Biotechnology Annual – 2012 GAIN (Global Agricultural Information Network) report CA12029, United States Department of Agriculture, Foreifn Agricultural Service, Retrieved 5 November 2012
  162. Book: McHugen, Alan. Pandora's Picnic Basket. vanc. 14 September 2000. Oxford University Press. 978-0-19-850674-4. Chapter 1: Hors-d'oeuvres and entrees/What is genetic modification? What are GMOs?. https://archive.org/details/pandoraspicnicba00mchu.
  163. 10.1038/467633b . 467 . Editorial: Transgenic harvest . 2010 . Nature . 7316 . 633–634. 20930796 . free . 2010Natur.467R.633. .
  164. Web site: AgBioForum 5(4): Agricultural Biotechnology Development and Policy in China. 5 September 2003. 3 May 2017. 25 July 2016. https://web.archive.org/web/20160725141840/http://www.agbioforum.org/v5n4/v5n4a01-huang.htm.
  165. Web site: TNAU Agritech Portal :: Bio Technology. agritech.tnau.ac.in.
  166. Web site: BASF presentation. https://web.archive.org/web/20110928104527/http://www.eurofins.com/media/11753/dcontri.pdf. 28 September 2011.
  167. http://www.new.dpi.vic.gov.au/agriculture/science-and-research/biotechnology/genetically-modified-crops/federal-and-state-responsibilities Agriculture – Department of Primary Industries
  168. Web site: Welcome to the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator Website. Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. 25 March 2011.
  169. Web site: The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union . 2003 . Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 On Genetically Modified Food And Feed . Official Journal of the European Union . L 268/3 (21) . The labeling should include objective information to the effect that a food or feed consists of, contains or is produced from GMOs. Clear labeling, irrespective of the detectability of DNA or protein resulting from the genetic modification in the final product, meets the demands expressed in numerous surveys by a large majority of consumers, facilitates informed choice and precludes potential misleading of consumers as regards methods of manufacture or production. . https://web.archive.org/web/20140120113714/http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/animalnutrition/labelling/Reg_1829_2003_en.pdf . 20 January 2014 .
  170. Web site: The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union . 2003 . Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 concerning the traceability and labeling of genetically modified organisms and the traceability of food and feed products produced from genetically modified organisms and amending Directive 2001/18/EC . Official Journal L 268. 24–28 . (3) Traceability requirements for GMOs should facilitate both the withdrawal of products where unforeseen adverse effects on human health, animal health or the environment, including ecosystems, are established, and the targeting of monitoring to examine potential effects on, in particular, the environment. Traceability should also facilitate the implementation of risk management measures in accordance with the precautionary principle. (4) Traceability requirements for food and feed produced from GMOs should be established to facilitate accurate labeling of such products. .
  171. Web site: American Medical Association . 2012 . Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health: Labeling of Bioengineered Foods. https://web.archive.org/web/20120907023039/http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf . 7 September 2012 .
  172. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Board of Directors (2012). Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors On Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods, and associated Press release: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers
  173. News: Hallenbeck . Terri . vanc . How GMO labeling came to pass in Vermont . Burlington Free Press . 2014-04-27 . 2014-05-28 .
  174. Web site: The Regulation of Genetically Modified Foods. 5 November 2012. https://web.archive.org/web/20170610170104/http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/biotech/reg_gen_mod-eng.php. 10 June 2017.
  175. Davison . John . vanc . 2010 . GM plants: Science, politics and EC regulations . Plant Science . 178 . 2. 94–98 . 10.1016/j.plantsci.2009.12.005.
  176. Sheldon. Ian M.. vanc . 2002-03-01. Regulation of biotechnology: will we ever 'freely' trade GMOs?. European Review of Agricultural Economics. 29. 1. 155–76. 10.1093/erae/29.1.155. 0165-1587. 10.1.1.596.7670.
  177. Dabrock P . Playing God? Synthetic biology as a theological and ethical challenge . Systems and Synthetic Biology . 3 . 1–4 . 47–54 . December 2009 . 19816799 . 2759421 . 10.1007/s11693-009-9028-5 .
  178. Brown C . Patenting life: genetically altered mice an invention, court declares . CMAJ . 163 . 7 . 867–8 . October 2000 . 11033718 . 80518 .
  179. News: The Patent Landscape of Genetically Modified Organisms . Zhou. Wen. vanc . 2015-08-10. Science in the News. 2017-05-05.
  180. Web site: Why The New GMO Food-Labeling Law Is So Controversial. Puckett. Lily. vanc . 2016-04-20. Huffington Post. 2017-05-05.
  181. News: GMO food labels are meaningless. Miller. Henry. vanc . 2016-04-12. Los Angeles Times. 2017-05-05. 0458-3035.
  182. News: Who Controls The Food Supply?. Savage. Steven. vanc . Forbes. 2017-05-05.
  183. Book: Knight, Andrew J.. Science, Risk, and Policy. vanc . 2016-04-14. Routledge. 978-1-317-28081-1. 156.
  184. News: Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops. https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220102/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html . 2022-01-02 . limited . live. Hakim. Danny. vanc . 2016-10-29. The New York Times. 2017-05-05. 0362-4331.
  185. Areal FJ, Riesgo L, Rodríguez-Cerezo E . 2013-02-01. Economic and agronomic impact of commercialized GM crops: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Agricultural Science. 151. 1. 7–33. 10.1017/S0021859612000111 . 85891950.
  186. Finger . Robert . El Benni . Nadja . Kaphengst . Timo . Evans . Clive . Herbert . Sophie . Lehmann . Bernard . Morse . Stephen . Stupak . Nataliya. vanc . 2011-05-10. A Meta Analysis on Farm-Level Costs and Benefits of GM Crops . Sustainability. 3. 5. 743–62. 10.3390/su3050743. https://web.archive.org/web/20180719124037/https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/bitstream/20.500.11850/42242/1/sustainability-03-00743.pdf . 2018-07-19 . live . free .
  187. Klümper W, Qaim M . A meta-analysis of the impacts of genetically modified crops . PLOS ONE . 9 . 11 . e111629 . 2014-11-03 . 25365303 . 4218791 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0111629 . 2014PLoSO...9k1629K . free .
  188. Qiu. Jane. Jane Qiu. vanc . Genetically modified crops pass benefits to weeds. Nature. 10.1038/nature.2013.13517. 2013. 87415065. free.
  189. Web site: GMOs and the environment . www.fao.org. 2017-05-07.
  190. Dively GP, Venugopal PD, Finkenbinder C . Field-Evolved Resistance in Corn Earworm to Cry Proteins Expressed by Transgenic Sweet Corn . PLOS ONE . 11 . 12 . e0169115 . 2016-12-30 . 28036388 . 5201267 . 10.1371/journal.pone.0169115 . 2016PLoSO..1169115D . free .
  191. Qiu. Jane. 2010-05-13. GM crop use makes minor pests major problem . Nature News. 10.1038/news.2010.242. 10.1.1.464.7885.
  192. Gilbert N . Case studies: A hard look at GM crops . Nature . 497 . 7447 . 24–6 . May 2013 . 23636378 . 10.1038/497024a . 2013Natur.497...24G . 4417399 .
  193. Web site: Are GMO Fish Safe for the Environment? Accumulating Glitches Learn Science at Scitable. www.nature.com. 2017-05-07.
  194. Web site: Q&A: genetically modified food. World Health Organization. 2017-05-07.
  195. Nicolia A, Manzo A, Veronesi F, Rosellini D . An overview of the last 10 years of genetically engineered crop safety research . Critical Reviews in Biotechnology . 34 . 1 . 77–88 . March 2014 . 24041244 . 10.3109/07388551.2013.823595 . 9836802 . We have reviewed the scientific literature on GE crop safety for the last 10 years that catches the scientific consensus matured since GE plants became widely cultivated worldwide, and we can conclude that the scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazard directly connected with the use of GM crops. The literature about Biodiversity and the GE food/feed consumption has sometimes resulted in animated debate regarding the suitability of the experimental designs, the choice of the statistical methods or the public accessibility of data. Such debate, even if positive and part of the natural process of review by the scientific community, has frequently been distorted by the media and often used politically and inappropriately in anti-GE crops campaigns. .
  196. Web site: State of Food and Agriculture 2003–2004. Agricultural Biotechnology: Meeting the Needs of the Poor. Health and environmental impacts of transgenic crops. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Currently available transgenic crops and foods derived from them have been judged safe to eat and the methods used to test their safety have been deemed appropriate. These conclusions represent the consensus of the scientific evidence surveyed by the ICSU (2003) and they are consistent with the views of the World Health Organization (WHO, 2002). These foods have been assessed for increased risks to human health by several national regulatory authorities (inter alia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, the United Kingdom and the United States) using their national food safety procedures (ICSU). To date no verifiable untoward toxic or nutritionally deleterious effects resulting from the consumption of foods derived from genetically modified crops have been discovered anywhere in the world (GM Science Review Panel). Many millions of people have consumed foods derived from GM plants – mainly maize, soybean and oilseed rape – without any observed adverse effects (ICSU).. 8 February 2016.
  197. Ronald P . Plant genetics, sustainable agriculture and global food security . Genetics . 188 . 1 . 11–20 . May 2011 . 21546547 . 3120150 . 10.1534/genetics.111.128553 . "There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, no adverse health or environmental effects have resulted from commercialization of genetically engineered crops (Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources, Committee on Environmental Impacts Associated with Commercialization of Transgenic Plants, National Research Council and Division on Earth and Life Studies 2002). Both the U.S. National Research Council and the Joint Research Centre (the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission) have concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of genetically engineered crops (Committee on Identifying and Assessing Unintended Effects of Genetically Engineered Foods on Human Health and National Research Council 2004; European Commission Joint Research Centre 2008). These and other recent reports conclude that the processes of genetic engineering and conventional breeding are no different in terms of unintended consequences to human health and the environment (European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation 2010)." .
  198. But see also:

    Domingo JL, Giné Bordonaba J . A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants . Environment International . 37 . 4 . 734–42 . May 2011 . 21296423 . 10.1016/j.envint.2011.01.003 . 2011EnInt..37..734D . In spite of this, the number of studies specifically focused on safety assessment of GM plants is still limited. However, it is important to remark that for the first time, a certain equilibrium in the number of research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was observed. Moreover, it is worth mentioning that most of the studies demonstrating that GM foods are as nutritional and safe as those obtained by conventional breeding, have been performed by biotechnology companies or associates, which are also responsible of commercializing these GM plants. Anyhow, this represents a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies. .

    Krimsky. Sheldon. vanc. 2015. An Illusory Consensus behind GMO Health Assessment. Science, Technology, & Human Values. 40. 6. 883–914. 10.1177/0162243915598381. 40855100. I began this article with the testimonials from respected scientists that there is literally no scientific controversy over the health effects of GMOs. My investigation into the scientific literature tells another story.. 30 October 2016. https://web.archive.org/web/20160207171524/http://www.tufts.edu/~skrimsky/PDF/Illusory%20Consensus%20GMOs.PDF. 7 February 2016.

    And contrast:

    Panchin AY, Tuzhikov AI . Published GMO studies find no evidence of harm when corrected for multiple comparisons . Critical Reviews in Biotechnology . 37 . 2 . 213–217 . March 2017 . 26767435 . 10.3109/07388551.2015.1130684 . 11786594 . Here, we show that a number of articles some of which have strongly and negatively influenced the public opinion on GM crops and even provoked political actions, such as GMO embargo, share common flaws in the statistical evaluation of the data. Having accounted for these flaws, we conclude that the data presented in these articles does not provide any substantial evidence of GMO harm. The presented articles suggesting possible harm of GMOs received high public attention. However, despite their claims, they actually weaken the evidence for the harm and lack of substantial equivalency of studied GMOs. We emphasize that with over 1783 published articles on GMOs over the last 10 years it is expected that some of them should have reported undesired differences between GMOs and conventional crops even if no such differences exist in reality. .

    and

    Yang YT, Chen B . Governing GMOs in the USA: science, law and public health . Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture . 96 . 6 . 1851–5 . April 2016 . 26536836 . 10.1002/jsfa.7523 . 2016JSFA...96.1851Y . "It is therefore not surprising that efforts to require labeling and to ban GMOs have been a growing political issue in the USA (citing Domingo and Bordonaba, 2011). Overall, a broad scientific consensus holds that currently marketed GM food poses no greater risk than conventional food... Major national and international science and medical associations have stated that no adverse human health effects related to GMO food have been reported or substantiated in peer-reviewed literature to date. Despite various concerns, today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the World Health Organization, and many independent international science organizations agree that GMOs are just as safe as other foods. Compared with conventional breeding techniques, genetic engineering is far more precise and, in most cases, less likely to create an unexpected outcome." .

  199. Web site: Statement by the AAAS Board of Directors on Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods. 20 October 2012. American Association for the Advancement of Science. "The EU, for example, has invested more than €300 million in research on the biosafety of GMOs. Its recent report states: "The main conclusion to be drawn from the efforts of more than 130 research projects, covering a period of more than 25 years of research and involving more than 500 independent research groups, is that biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." The World Health Organization, the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the British Royal Society, and every other respected organization that has examined the evidence has come to the same conclusion: consuming foods containing ingredients derived from GM crops is no riskier than consuming the same foods containing ingredients from crop plants modified by conventional plant improvement techniques.". 8 February 2016. Web site: AAAS Board of Directors: Legally Mandating GM Food Labels Could "Mislead and Falsely Alarm Consumers". Pinholster. Ginger. vanc . 25 October 2012. American Association for the Advancement of Science. 8 February 2016.
  200. Book: A decade of EU-funded GMO research (2001–2010). https://web.archive.org/web/20101224152216/http://ec.europa.eu/research/biosociety/pdf/a_decade_of_eu-funded_gmo_research.pdf . 2010-12-24 . live. 2010. Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. Biotechnologies, Agriculture, Food. European Commission, European Union.. 10.2777/97784. 978-92-79-16344-9. 8 February 2016. European Commission. Directorate-General for Research.
  201. Web site: AMA Report on Genetically Modified Crops and Foods (online summary). January 2001. American Medical Association. "A report issued by the scientific council of the American Medical Association (AMA) says that no long-term health effects have been detected from the use of transgenic crops and genetically modified foods, and that these foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts. (from online summary prepared by ISAAA)" "Crops and foods produced using recombinant DNA techniques have been available for fewer than 10 years and no long-term effects have been detected to date. These foods are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts.". 19 March 2016. Web site: Report 2 of the Council on Science and Public Health (A-12): Labeling of Bioengineered Foods. 2012. American Medical Association. Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.. 19 March 2016. bot: unknown. https://web.archive.org/web/20120907023039/http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/csaph/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf. 7 September 2012.
  202. Web site: Restrictions on Genetically Modified Organisms: United States. Public and Scholarly Opinion. 9 June 2015. Library of Congress. "Several scientific organizations in the US have issued studies or statements regarding the safety of GMOs indicating that there is no evidence that GMOs present unique safety risks compared to conventionally bred products. These include the National Research Council, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Medical Association. Groups in the US opposed to GMOs include some environmental organizations, organic farming organizations, and consumer organizations. A substantial number of legal academics have criticized the US's approach to regulating GMOs.". 8 February 2016.
  203. Book: Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. 2016. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (US). 149. "Overall finding on purported adverse effects on human health of foods derived from GE crops: On the basis of detailed examination of comparisons of currently commercialized GE with non-GE foods in compositional analysis, acute and chronic animal toxicity tests, long-term data on health of livestock fed GE foods, and human epidemiological data, the committee found no differences that implicate a higher risk to human health from GE foods than from their non-GE counterparts.". 19 May 2016. 10.17226/23395. 28230933. 978-0-309-43738-7. National Academies of Sciences. Engineering. Division on Earth Life Studies. Board on Agriculture Natural Resources. Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops: Past Experience Future Prospects.
  204. Web site: Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods. World Health Organization. Different GM organisms include different genes inserted in different ways. This means that individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods. GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods.. 8 February 2016.
  205. Haslberger AG . Codex guidelines for GM foods include the analysis of unintended effects . Nature Biotechnology . 21 . 7 . 739–41 . July 2003 . 12833088 . 10.1038/nbt0703-739 . 2533628 . These principles dictate a case-by-case premarket assessment that includes an evaluation of both direct and unintended effects. .
  206. Some medical organizations, including the British Medical Association, advocate further caution based upon the precautionary principle:Web site: Genetically modified foods and health: a second interim statement. https://web.archive.org/web/20140322224425/http://www.argenbio.org/adc/uploads/pdf/bma.pdf . 2014-03-22 . live. March 2004. British Medical Association. In our view, the potential for GM foods to cause harmful health effects is very small and many of the concerns expressed apply with equal vigour to conventionally derived foods. However, safety concerns cannot, as yet, be dismissed completely on the basis of information currently available. When seeking to optimise the balance between benefits and risks, it is prudent to err on the side of caution and, above all, learn from accumulating knowledge and experience. Any new technology such as genetic modification must be examined for possible benefits and risks to human health and the environment. As with all novel foods, safety assessments in relation to GM foods must be made on a case-by-case basis. Members of the GM jury project were briefed on various aspects of genetic modification by a diverse group of acknowledged experts in the relevant subjects. The GM jury reached the conclusion that the sale of GM foods currently available should be halted and the moratorium on commercial growth of GM crops should be continued. These conclusions were based on the precautionary principle and lack of evidence of any benefit. The Jury expressed concern over the impact of GM crops on farming, the environment, food safety and other potential health effects. The Royal Society review (2002) concluded that the risks to human health associated with the use of specific viral DNA sequences in GM plants are negligible, and while calling for caution in the introduction of potential allergens into food crops, stressed the absence of evidence that commercially available GM foods cause clinical allergic manifestations. The BMA shares the view that there is no robust evidence to prove that GM foods are unsafe but we endorse the call for further research and surveillance to provide convincing evidence of safety and benefit.. 21 March 2016.
  207. Web site: Cary. Funk. Rainie. Lee. vanc. Public and Scientists' Views on Science and Society. 29 January 2015. Pew Research Center. The largest differences between the public and the AAAS scientists are found in beliefs about the safety of eating genetically modified (GM) foods. Nearly nine-in-ten (88%) scientists say it is generally safe to eat GM foods compared with 37% of the general public, a difference of 51 percentage points.. 24 February 2016. 9 January 2019. https://web.archive.org/web/20190109232405/http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/. dead.
  208. Marris C . Public views on GMOs: deconstructing the myths. Stakeholders in the GMO debate often describe public opinion as irrational. But do they really understand the public? . EMBO Reports . 2 . 7 . 545–8 . July 2001 . 11463731 . 1083956 . 10.1093/embo-reports/kve142 .
  209. Web site: Public Perceptions of Agricultural Biotechnologies in Europe. December 2001. Commission of European Communities. Final Report of the PABE research project. 24 February 2016.
  210. Scott SE, Inbar Y, Rozin P . 261060 . Evidence for Absolute Moral Opposition to Genetically Modified Food in the United States . Perspectives on Psychological Science . 11 . 3 . 315–324 . May 2016 . 27217243 . 10.1177/1745691615621275 .
  211. Web site: Genetic Engineering . The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction . 19 July 2018 . 15 May 2017 .
  212. Web site: The Science of Sci-Fi: How Science Fiction Predicted the Future of Genetics. Koboldt. Daniel. vanc . 29 August 2017. Outer Places. https://web.archive.org/web/20180719233445/https://www.outerplaces.com/science/item/16677-genetics-science-fiction-future. 19 July 2018. live. 19 July 2018.
  213. Moraga. Roger. vanc . November 2009. Modern Genetics in the World of Fiction. live. Clarkesworld Magazine. 38. https://web.archive.org/web/20180719114128/http://clarkesworldmagazine.com/moraga_11_09/. 19 July 2018.
  214. Web site: Clark . Michael . vanc . Genetic themes in fiction films: Genetics meets Hollywood . . 19 July 2018 . https://web.archive.org/web/20120518055848/http://genome.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD023539.html . 18 May 2012.

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Genetic engineering".

Except where otherwise indicated, Everything.Explained.Today is © Copyright 2009-2024, A B Cryer, All Rights Reserved. Cookie policy.