Biotechnology Archives

Courtesy of Benny Peiser's CCNet, I came across this tantalizing thought piece by Freeman Dyson in the March issue of Technology Review. Building on Carl Woese's postulate that before there was "Darwinian" evolution, i.e., genetic evolution driven by the intense competition for survival among noninterbreeding species, there was "horizontal gene transfer". As Dyson explains:

horizontal gene transfer was universal and separate species did not exist. Life was then a community of cells of various kinds, sharing their genetic information so that clever chemical tricks and catalytic processes invented by one creature could be inherited by all of them. ...The whole community advanc[ed] in metabolic and reproductive efficiency as the genes of the most efficient cells were shared. But then, one evil day, a cell resembling a primitive bacterium happened to find itself one jump ahead of its neighbors in efficiency. That cell separated itself from the community and refused to share. Its offspring became the first species. With its superior efficiency, it continued to prosper and to evolve separately. Some millions of years later, another cell separated itself from the community and became another species. And so it went on, until all life was divided into species.

.
Over the following billion years, the products of Darwinian evolution took over the world, but now Darwinian evolution is over, and horizontal gene transfer will be back -- thanks to biotechnology. It was brought to an end, he explains, about 10 thousand years ago when a single species, Homo sapiens, began to dominate and reorganize the biosphere. Since then, he says:

Read More »

Some of the Gristmillers are having second thoughts about the knee-jerk anti-biotechnology sentiment that permeates much of the environmental movement. See here and here. Of course, not all of their readers are as impressed.

Whole Earth Catalog founder Stewart Brand is making a startling prediction about the future of environmentalism.

Over the next ten years, I predict, the mainstream of the environmental movement will reverse its opinion and activism in four major areas: population growth, urbani­zation, genetically engineered organisms, and nuclear power.

Imagine that, a pro-nuke, pro-biotech environmental movement. If it happens, it will be a dramatic change for the better.

Glenn Reynolds adds some thoughts on nuclear power and "going green" here and here. Gristmillers also ponder nuclear power's potential here.

Grist's Dave Roberts has more thoughts on Brand and heresy here and here.

Green blogger Mark Lynas would rather embrace an even more dumbed-down version of the Precautionary Principle (luddism) and impose more costly regulations than use biotech to improve CO2 trapping in trees:

Get this. Belgian biotechnologists have just cracked the DNA for the poplar tree, and issued a jubilant press release claiming that this is a vital step forward in the battle against global warming. How so? Well, now the tree genome is known, the scientists will be able to "modify trees genetically for the benefit of humankind and the environment", for example so that they "work more effectively in trapping CO2". Thanks but no thanks guys. You can stick your mutant trees. Those of us still living in the real world would prefer to carry on trying to reduce fossil fuel emissions.

"Mutant" trees? And what about domesticated plants and animals? (That's different.) Oh.

On a day when the Union of Concerned Scientists makes headlines with a study on Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California that predicts harm to the California wine industry, the Hoover Institute's Henry Miller points out a much more direct threat to the wine industry there: execessive regulation.

An infestation of Pierce's disease threatens severe damage to the state's vines:

"Counting only grapes, the disease now threatens a crop production value of $3.2 billion and associated economic activity in excess of $33 billion. Other crop and ornamental plant resources such as almonds ($897 million) and susceptible species of citrus ($1.07 billion), stone fruits ($905 million), and shade trees are also at risk."

The best answer is to introduce genetic resistance by gene-splicing. But, no:

The EPA discriminates against gene-spliced varieties, by regulating even more stringently than chemical pesticides any plant that has been modified with gene-splicing techniques to enhance its pest- or disease-resistance. This policy, which has been attacked repeatedly by the scientific community as unscientific and irrational, has badly damaged agricultural research and development. It flouts the widespread scientific consensus that gene-splicing is more precise, circumscribed and predictable than other techniques. New gene-spliced varieties can not only increase yields, make better use of existing farmland and conserve water, but -- especially for grains and nuts -- are a potential boon to public health, because the harvest will have lower levels of contamination with toxic fungi and insect parts than conventional varieties. Moreover, by reducing the need for spraying crops with chemical pesticides, they are environmentally and occupationally friendly.

Agbiotech's potential is proven. A decade ago, an epidemic of papaya ringspot virus had virtually destroyed Hawaii's $64 million a year papaya crop, but by 1998 biotech researchers provided virus-resistant varieties that have preserved the industry.

Yet, the EPA holds gene-spliced plants to an inappropriate, extraordinary standard, requiring hugely expensive testing as though these plants were highly toxic chemicals. In effect, these policies impose a hugely punitive tax on a superior, and badly needed, technology.

If we want to save the California wine industry, rescinding those EPA regulations would be a good start. It'd be easier than trying to change the weather.