Week 4 Discussion

docx

School

University of Maryland, University College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

640

Subject

Biology

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by AmbassadorJayPerson232

1 Why are genetically modified organisms so controversial? Genetic engineering is a new and frequently advancing technology with benefits and risks associated with the alteration and modification of genetic blueprints of many living organisms. These genetically engineered organisms such as plants, animals, and microorganisms are usually traded to consumers for profit. There are many risk factors associated with genetic engineering of food and crops even though some think that there are benefits as well. For example, genetic engineers argue that modification of crops may lead to new products which then make agriculture sustainable and hence help to eliminate world hunger. They insist that genetic engineering can be a source of cure to diseases and would improve public health (Legge Jr., 2010). Some of the benefits they state in bioengineered traits in crops are the ability to avoid the use of harmful pesticides, increased nutrition, quality, appearance, and shelf life (Legge Jr., 2010). Anti-GM groups point out some potential risks to public health, safety, and the environment. They insist on the risk of disruption or silencing of existing genes, activation of silent genes, modification in the expression of existing genes, and formation of new or altered patterns of metabolites (Legge Jr., 2010). This modification can give rise to new allergic reactions and toxins that the body cannot handle, hence causing sickness and death among living organisms. Anti-GM food activists also posit that a rise in antibiotic resistance in humans could occur due to gene splicing (Legge Jr., 2010). Increased health hazards to humans and other living organisms are one of the hazards cited by anti-GM groups. This includes concerns of development of issues such as cancer, food allergies, antibiotic resistance, damage to food quality and nutrition due to increased pesticide residues in the soil, crops, and environmental pollution. With genetically modified foods and biotech food production, the farmers are at risk of being eliminated and families driven off the land whereas consumers' food choices are dictated by a cartel of transnational corporations which leads hundreds of millions of farmers and agricultural workers worldwide to unemployment (Cummins, 1999). Ethical Hazards cannot be overlooked by the anti-GM group because of the significant effort put into understanding the divergence between objectively assessed risks and what many call socially constructed risks (Smyth, 2014). These are legit concerns because genetic engineering of food and fiber products is inherently unpredictable and dangerous. One of the British molecular scientists stated the dangers of gene-splicing and how it has resulted in the unexpected production of toxic substances in genetically engineered bacteria, yeast, plants, and animals with the problem remaining undetected until a major health hazard arises. More and more scientists around the world are warning against genetic manipulation that can increase the levels of natural plant toxins in foods and or create entirely new toxins in unexpected ways by switching on genes that produce poisons (Legge Jr., 2010).

2 Over the years, regulation of GM food products has been investigated and proved that there are no identifiable risks corresponding to an increase in either food risks or food safety. Margaret Mellon among other scientists has also confirmed that currently available GMO foods are probably safe to eat. Science-based risk assessments have proven that GM foods are safe to consume, while politicized risks continue advocating that consuming GM foods is a danger to one’s health. She states that researchers often spot risks for potential allergies and for environmental contamination and this has a great impact on reassuring the public about the safety of the GMOs (Hindo, 2007). Genetically modified (GM) mosquitoes have both benefits and risks being introduced into the community where they are released. According to Resnik, GM male mosquitos are mutated to overproduce a protein that causes toxicity that is meant to kill the offspring before maturity. These GM males are released into the wild, where they mate with females, and because the offspring die before they can reproduce, the population of mosquitoes decreases (Resnik, 2018). Even though Resnik states that the GM mosquitoes are not likely to become established in the wild due to the lethal mutation, they have to be reintroduced periodically, and therefore what else are we genetically introducing into the environment? And if they have to keep being reintroduced into the environment, then the problem has not been fully solved. Multiple studies from government agencies such as EPA and CDC state that there has been successful completion of projects in some parts of the world where they have released more than a billion of mosquitoes over the years with no risk to the environment or humans (Taylor, 2020), however, some scientific experts have questioned the validity of these studies, instead of pointing to a 2019 study that examined the negative effect of Oxitec’s mosquitoes in Brazil (Taylor, 2020). The main concern with the use of genetically modified mosquitoes is the population around the fields where these mosquitoes are being released. First, they are already dealing with diseases caused by mosquitoes, and then now they will have to deal with unknown effects of the modified mosquitoes. The population must be made aware of the risks and benefits associated with the introduction of GM mosquitoes. Sometimes when the population is desperate about a situation, for example, areas that suffer from malaria and other diseases due to mosquito infestation would agree to sign up for anything with expectations of a better living condition. They should be made aware and given some type of knowledge to understand what is being introduced. It is important that for research programs involving the genetic modification of diseases to move forward, they must have public acceptance and support, which cannot be achieved without effective community engagement (Resnik, 2018). Another major concern is the introduction of target disease-resistant genes into mosquitoes and releasing them into the wild to proliferate. Research has shown that an increase in disease resistance among targeted mosquitoes can decrease the likelihood that humans will contract those diseases from mosquitoes but on the other hand, the pathogen carried by the mosquitoes can evolve so that it can overcome the disease-resistance genes which might end up being difficult to control than the previous version (Resnik, 2018). Also, with this mutation, targeted mosquitoes might become more susceptible to carrying other diseases that can infect human beings. Even though researchers claim that GM mosquitoes are not capable of transmitting the diseases, the mutation can lead to permanent genetic changes in the mosquito population hence introduction to unknown diseases. I think additional research is needed on the effectiveness of different methods by engaging communities in field trials and responding to public opposition to genetically modified organisms. The population that is likely to be impacted by a proposed public health research project such as this, should have a voice and be engaged in meaningful input into decision-making related to the intervention. Studies should also be approved by ethics committees that oversee research involving human subjects (Resnik, 2018).

3 GM mosquito field trials that perform interventions on or collect private data or biological samples from human research subjects should include provisions for securing appropriate regulatory approvals and obtaining informed consent from individuals (Resnik, 2018). An article by Taylor confirms that Aedes aegypt , one of the most used mosquitoes has developed a tolerance for many of the pesticides in the Florida area, making them less effective (Taylor, 2020). If there is data indicating the development of disease resistance in genetically modified mosquitoes, then why introduce them to the environment. Again, are there backup rescue plans in case the results are not as expected? Reference Cummins, R. (1999, August 24). Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops: Why We Need a Global Moratorium. Campaign for Food Safety News, 21. http://www.purefood.org Smyth, S. J., & Phillips, P.W.B. (2014, May 9). Risk, regulation and biotechnology: The case of GM crops. GM Crops & Food , 5(3) 170-177. http://dx.doi.org/10.4161/21645698.2014.945880 Legge, J.S. Jr., & Durant, R.F. (2010, January 19). Public Opinion, Risk Assessment, and Biotechnology: Lessons from attitudes toward Genetically Modified Foods in the European Union. Review of Policy Research , 27(1), 59-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2009.00427.x Hindo, B. (2007, December 17). Monsanto: Winning the ground war. Business Week , 4063, 34-41. Resnik, D. B. (2018). Ethics of community engagement in field trials of genetically modified mosquitoes. Developing World Bioethics, 18(2), 135-143. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12147 Taylor, M. (2020, August 26). Florida keys to release 750 million genetically modified mosquitoes. Laboratory Equipment . https://www.laboratoryequipment.com/567531-Florida-Keys-to-Release-750- Million-Genetically-Modified-Mosquitoes/

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version