GENETIC MANIPULATION AND PATENTING OF GENES AND GMO S Uko Zylstra - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
GENETIC MANIPULATION AND PATENTING OF GENES AND GMO S Uko Zylstra Professor Emeritus Biology Department Calvin College ASA Conference July 26, 2014 Session overview Key court cases What is a gene? Rationale for genetic
Uko Zylstra Professor Emeritus Biology Department Calvin College
July 26, 2014
Key court cases What is a gene? Rationale for genetic engineering (GE);
Patenting of genes and life forms (GMOs): is
Ethics of “gene power”
1980: Diamond v. Chakrabarty June 2013: Association for Molecular
Useful Novel; did not previously exist Nonobvious
Key issue is one of patenting a life form What was actually “created”? Did he really create an oil digesting
bacterium?
Formation of plasmids containing different oil digesting genes
isolated from different stains of oil digesting bacteria. Then mixing these plasmids (containing genes for an oil digesting enzyme) with a more hardy Pseudomonas bacterium that then took up the plasmid as bacteria are wont to do?
Decision was a 5-4 in favor of Chakrabarty (& GE) Chief Justice Warren Burger: “anything under the sun that is made
by man” could be patented
Thus: was the bacterium a ‘product of nature’ or a human
invention?
What does it mean to have a patent on a self replicating organism?
“Owning life”: owning a mule vs owning mule
June 2013: Association for Molecular Pathology vs. Myriad Genetics
Key issue: can a human gene be patented?
Court decision: the genes are a product of nature and
thus could not be patented
But indicated that cDNA is not a “product of nature” Is cDNA really a ‘synthetic’ molecule and not a product of
nature? It’s sequence information is in the DNA transcribed into mRNA
animal genes as well as for the numerous human genes already patented
Do we really understand what is being
Can living beings be ‘reduced’ to genes or
DNA as information – not just a molecule The motives of patenting is a separate issue
Tendency for mechanistic – reductionist/materialist interpretations DNA as ‘blueprint’
Illustrative questions: Is there a gene for blue or brown eyes? Is there a gene for cystic fibrosis? Is there a gene for the shape of your nose?
Is the ‘gene’ the subject (causal agent) or the object (of cell or development program)?
Central Dogma: “one gene – one protein” “Human cells carry nearly 24,000 genes that constitute the blueprint for the 100 trillion cells of our body (Sci Am, Feb 2006) But there are more than 24,000 proteins that can be synthesized during the course of an individual’s life Human inner ear gene can give rise to 576 different proteins
Neuron, 20(2): 165 (1998)
Three neuroexine category genes can give rise to 2258 polypeptides
Nature, 423: 939-948 (2003)
Thus we have more proteins than genes; therefore: A “gene” may be responsible for a whole range of proteins Many regulatory means may exist in the production of proteins
Textbook Definition: A gene is the segment of DNA involved in producing a polypeptide chain; it includes regions preceding and following the coding region (leader and trailer) as well as intervening sequences (introns) between individual coding segments (exons).
this definition? If genes are ‘causal agents’ how does location fit into that causal agency?
Genes have a context –an environment Thus, can a ‘gene’ really be ‘isolated’ from its
‘isolated genes’ are really ‘reduced’ genes DNA is not just a molecule; it’s information But information in cells/organisms is more than
Genes/DNA are defined by relationships: “Genes-cell-organism-environment-community”
Can relationships be patented or “owned”? Analogy to factory farms where food company
Also:
consider the relationship between employer and
employee; we consider slavery to be immoral
Consider parent and child relationship: parents
don’t ‘own’ children
Does it imply that all the interrelationships of
Regulatory relationships:
■ Extracellular signals ■ Signal transduction ■ Intracellular signals ■ Activation of transcription factors ■ Regulatory binding sites on DNA ■ Position effect in chromosome ■ Insertional mutagenesis is indication of context Can one patent a relation? What does that
What is a GENE? If a gene can be patented, what is
If it is the cell (not the ‘inventor’) that
Pharmaceuticals Crops Animals
Pharma animals Increase growth (e.g. rBGH)
Feed the world (9 billion human population in 2050) Increase yields More drought resistant crops More salt tolerant crops Improve nutrition (e.g. Golden Rice) 70 patents needed to be waived Reduce pesticide and herbicide use Reduce soil erosion (no-till agriculture) Increase profits
Are they safe for human consumption? Possible allergens? Antibiotic resistance? Toxicity? Are they safe for environment? Pesticide resistance (refuge requirement) Harm beneficial insects Herbicide sprays are not always confined to HT crop Superweeds Contamination of non GMOs (e.g. canola) Affect on soil microorganisms
Food power (gene control (patents) ->> food control) Increase control in industrial food system)
Framework of ‘deregulation” Different responsibilities No overall oversight Congressional failure to implement GAO recommendations for single agency Policies ‘drafted’ by industry (revolving door)
who is responsible? Transparency of testing? What are scientifically appropriate procedures for testing?
GRAS
■ argument that DNA is basically same in all organism, etc. ■ BT bacteria (and thus BT toxin) has been ingested with foods for decades
Double speak; if substantially equivalent, then what is basis for patent?
Pusztai affair (Rowett Institute) Tested GE potato (1996 -Lectins) using toxicological protocol fed to rats; examined effects on intestinal mucosa (lesions) and
growth of mucosal epithelium
■ Non GE potato ■ Potato laced with lectin toxin (no effect) ■ GE potato (showed lesions and epithelial growth)
After prepublication relay of results on TV, subject to smear campaign
GE canola GE contamination of conventional canola (e.g. Percy Schmeizer
affair)
Transgenic contamination is not reversible GMOs infringe on freedom of farmer to choose crops to plant
concentration of power and control at
0% 5% 9% 14% 18%
Monsanto Syngenta Land O' Lakes Bayer
Should a basic human need be under
GE crops may have a good potential for addressing
But patenting of GE crops is a hindrance to reducing
Patenting of GE crops serves to supoort and