NewGenics

US FDA's Statement on Genetically Modified Animals

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 01:30:00 +0000

The FDA has released its final statement on the production of genetically modified animals. The agency's guidelines assert that GM animals are to be regulated as animals receiving drug treatments, such as hormones or antibiotics. According this logic, the genetic modification - a change made to animal's DNA, often with the help of a virus - is the same as a chemical-based modification of the animal's system. The guidelines are merely a statement that current regulations are sufficient for GM animal production.
As readers may remember, cloning is not considered to be a genetic engineering process, but simply a form of assisted reproduction since the original DNA is not modified.
Currently, there are no genetically modified animals or products from such animals used for food. However, despite some reporting that we are now likely to see GM meat products in the supermarket, as a recent LA Times article speculates, we are far more likely to see products from GM animals in the form of drugs or other medical treatments. According to Q&A page on the FDA site:

Q: What kinds of GE animals are in development?

A. Many kinds of GE animals are in development. At this time, the largest class of GE animals is being developed for biopharm purposes—that is, they are intended to produce substances (for example, in their milk or blood) that can be used as human or animal pharmaceuticals. Another group of GE animals are under development for use as sources of scarce cells, tissues, or organs for transplantation into humans (xenotransplant sources). Yet others are intended for use as food and may be disease resistant, or have improved nutritional or growth characteristics. And others include animals that produce high value industrial or consumer products, such as highly specific antimicrobials against human and animal pathogens (e.g., E. coli 0157 or Salmonella).

More than likely, drugs produced by genetically engineered animals will be much less of a problem for consumers than meat, eggs or dairy products. How many people currently even know what most of the compounds in their medications are?
A question that I have, and one not addressed (that I could find) by the FDA, is when the genetic modification performed on an animal would cease to be treated as a drug treatment. For how many generations will offspring of GM animals, who will inherit the modification, be treated as if receiving drug treatments?

Ge(o)nomics

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:05:00 +0000

Or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love Climate Change

There has been some chatter in the scientific press, especially when concerning climate change and efforts at geoengineering, you know, the process of attempting to alter global systems (like climate) through various forms of chemical, mechanical or other forms of intervention.
An apparent "big deal" in this regard is underway (recently being cleared by the German Federal Ministry of Research) with the beginning of an Indo-German experiment (named LOHAFEX) at "fertilizing" an area (115 square miles) of ocean, in the Scotia Sea east of Argentina. The German ship RV Polarstern is headed there to dump 20 tons of iron sulphate particals in the hopes that it will help produce a booming plankton population (plankton apparently needs iron). The idea is that the plankton will intake a large amount of carbon, and take it with them to the bottom of the ocean as they die. Basically, it sounds like a creating a lawn on the ocean' surface, where it will do what plants do... intake carbon, output oxygen.
Some people, however, are concerned that this initiative isn't considering possible unintended consequences, like what an increase in iron sulphate and a geographical shifting of marine life might mean. There are also concerns over accountability and regulation - who's responsible for regulating and monitoring such globally situated experiments.
What groups like ETC fear in terms of this experimentation is that it will unfold along the lines of the biotechnology revolution, where the technology was established and covering much of the globe before many people even knew what it was, with very little oversight, and directed by profit motives. Geoengineering also follows the same philosophical and technical methods as biotechnology, treating the Earth as an organism that can be manipulated and treated by altering its components, its genetic make up, if you will. Let's just hope that the Earth, and we, fair better than the early test subjects for genetic therapies.
Wired Magazine's coverage of LOHAFEX
image above: source

Interview with Philip Ross

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 20:51:00 +0000

Rhizome.org has an interview with artist and organizer Philip Ross, who curated the BioTechnique exhibit at Yerba Buena Center for the Arts and is currently organizing a series of events called Critter for the very interesting San Francisco based space Studio for Urban Projects. Check out the line up:

Clone Home
In this afternoon open house CRITTER will be a home for plant cloning, grafting and trading. Learn how to make multiple plants from one, using techniques that range from simple to superdork. Denise King from the Exploratorium, Philip Ross, and other plant propagators will be on hand to expand your library of plant possibilities. Hormones! Sexing your plant! Wooooo!

Kim-Chee Contest
A bay area competition for the makers of this pickled cabbage. Open tasting to the public, and a prize of $200 for best in show by a juried panel.

24 Hour Microscopy People
For an entire day the space will be occupied by a rotating crew of microscopists who will be on hand to magnify and project all samples brought in. Multiple visualization and projection technologies will be on hand, from simple water drop lenses to some fancy-shmancy I’m trying to cook up. The images will be projected onto the windows, accompanying buildings, screens, monitors, water vapor, etc. with live musical accompaniment to interpret the unfolding organic displays.

Living Wall Workshop
Living walls are architectural structures covered with vegetation and, in some cases, soil or an inorganic growing medium. These can be integrated into available vertical surfaces of urban areas for use in agriculture, grey water cleaning systems, and as organic air purifiers. Learn how to build your own green wall with easy to find materials, plants and parts.

Grey Water Now!
Grey water constitutes 50-80% of residential wastewater, and is made from domestic processes such as dish washing, laundry and bathing. In this workshop the Grey Water Guerillas will provide hands on demonstrations, techniques and information on how this rerouted water can be conserved, utilized, and kept out of the municipal waste water system.

Whiskey Still Workshop

Cheese Making 101

An event for exchanging and expanding mother cultures.

The Geography of Biodefense

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:20:00 +0000

Two recent stories in the press have drawn attention to some really questionable decisions to site biodefense facilities.
Wired magazine looks at the possibility of a level 4 biosafety lab, specifically a National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility, being built at the existing Plum Island Animal Disease Center just off of the tip of Long Island. Of course, the primary question being the wisdom of such a facility being located so close to the most populated city in the country.
The New York Times looks at the existing Robert E. Shope Medical Laboratory at the University of Texas in Galveston, one of two facilities pushed by the post 9-11 Bush Administration. The second facility, to be located in Boston University Medical Center, has met much more resistance than has emerged in Galveston. Both facilities will study highly contagious and lethal pathogens, from Ebola to drug-resistant tuberculosis.
While no longer active, the Sunshine Project is a great resource for how these facilities are funded, regulated and sited.

Will Sweet Energy Give Us Cavities?

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:44:00 +0000

It's been a while since I've posted here, but I just received news from our friends at the ETC Group. This weekend, they've been in attendance at SynBio 4.0 conference in Hong Kong. The meeting is obviously the fourth in a series where leaders in the emerging field of synthetic biology come together to plan our shiny new future. Even though I've been posting about synthetic biology here for a few years now, apparently, most of us in the U.S. don't have any idea what it is. OK, I don't really think this blog is a barometer of public knowledge... I'd be surprised if anyone is even reading it other than me.
Anyway... The ETC Group has a new report about the potential, and existing, problems surrounding the push to develop fuels from plant-derived sugars. Lots of familiar arguments against biofuels, but some welcome specificity with regard to genetic engineering.
And if you're interested in their first hand accounts of the SynBio 4.0 conference, check their blog.

Transgenics and Fascism in Germany

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:36:00 +0000

How would this compare in the States?

Via StrangeMaps.

DR. STEVEN KURTZ CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES!

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Thu, 22 May 2008 20:33:00 +0000

On April 21, Federal Judge Richard J. Arcara dismissed the government’s entire indictment against Dr. Steven Kurtz as “insufficient on its face.” This means that even if the actions alleged in the indictment (which the judge must accept as “fact”) were true, they would not constitute a crime. The US Department of Justice (DoJ) had thirty days from the date of the ruling to appeal. No action has been taken in this time period, thus stopping any appeal of the dismissal. The only option left for the DoJ would be to re-indict Kurtz.

A Press Release with details will be coming soon.

Biopiracy + Climate Change

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Mon, 19 May 2008 19:31:00 +0000

The ETC Group (yes, I report on their reports a lot) just release a couple of significant news releases...
1. The US Patent & Trademark Office (this past April) ruled against the controversial patent on the "Enola" bean. This story is particularly interesting in a number of ways. The bean's nume, at least as it's known in the US, is derived from the (former) patent holder's wife's name. The "Enola" bean is actually a quite common variety of yellow-colored beans (such as the azufrado and mayocoba - the ones that the Enola is derived from) that John Proctor brought back from Mexico and cultivated in the US in the mid 1990s (the patent was issued in 1999). Proctor's patent actually had the effect of preventing these beans - grown for centuries - from being imported into the US, as they were considered in violation of patent law.
The ETC Group is less than celebratory of the decision, however, noting that:

the U.S. patent system allowed the owner of a flagrantly unjust patent to legally monopolize markets and destroy competition - for close to half the 20-year patent term.

2. Biotech companies - like Monsanto, DuPont, BASF, Bayer, Mendel, Ceres, Evogene and Dow - are reportedly stockpiling patents on genetic material related to climate change. They assert that these companies see an opportunity to cash in on the environmental stresses of impending climate change by gaining ownership over advantageous genetic traits. ETC levels a critique of catastrophic climate change scare tactics being used by some government and corporate interests to advance their accumulation of capital, while also pointing out the problems with the utopian rhetoric that biotechnology will save the world from a climate-driven food crisis. The ETC Group's report is available here.

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act Passed

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Sat, 03 May 2008 03:52:00 +0000

The New York Times reports on the recent unanimous US Senate passage of a bill that has been in the works for about 12 years. Of course, read against the developments of genetic databases like CODIS, discussed in my last post, it's difficult to know what to make of this exactly. Of course, genetic discrimination in the workplace and obtaining health insurance is a reality, so GINA at least addresses the legal obligation of the state to intervene in obvious instances of corporate abuse. But, if, as synthetic biology guru Craig Venter has supposedly said, genetic testing would render virtually everyone uninsurable by insurers' definitions of risk, then there's obviously a much more complicated situation unfolding here than a simple one of easily identifiable discrimination.
The general discussion doesn't even touch on concerns of bio-colonialism, or how this wave of science and commerce will differ from previous waves in its effects on expendable and oppressed peoples.

DNA Databasing

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 17:57:00 +0000

I recently ran across an AP story on a US Federal program authorized by Congress that would allow the Justice Department to collect DNA from anyone arrested or detained, even if not charged. Some thirteen states already had similar laws: Alaska, Arizona, California, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia. What is of concern, is not just the collection of genetic material but the archiving of it in the National DNA Index System and larger CODIS (Combined DNA Index System). CODIS is actually a software system for organizing and making accessible genetic data, between National, State and Local agencies.
Of course, the development of CODIS involves private corporations in its creation and application. Companies like Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). SAIC, is also notable for its joint venture with Bechtel working on the controversial Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility. Other companies, like Orchid Cellmark, are involved in genetic testing for both self-surveillance applications (i.e. consumer DNA testing) and state-sponsored surveillance, like CODIS.
With the boom in consumer DNA "consulting" that I have written about here in the past, the increase in state indexing takes on some new meaning. As we have seen with communications surveillance, with telecos sharing data with the National Security Agency, for example, there should be little doubt that genetic information could and would cross state-corporate boundaries.

Direct-to-Consumer DNA Testing

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 21:47:00 +0000

The ETC Group has released a special report on Human Genomics titled "Direct-to-Consumer DNA Testing and the Myth of Personalized Medicine: Spit Kits, SNP Chips and Human Genomics". The introduction states:

In the coming months, ETC Group will publish a series of reports on the impact and implications of human genomics. The topic of the first report in the series is the burgeoning Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) genetic testing industry, which is promising consumers a guidebook for maintaining health as well as a gene-based horoscope predicting future illness. The second report will examine large-scale human genomics projects and their relation to biopiracy. A third report will examine the corporate context – the industry players vying to control and profit from the genomics revolution.

Doomsday Vaults and Seed Saving

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 15:48:00 +0000

The ETC Group has a fascinating analysis of the Global Seed Vault that's been getting some attention following its opening by the Norwegian government. It's much too complicated and lengthy to summarize here, but they put the notion of seed saving and genetic vaulting in historic and political context, challenging the notion that such archiving is an adequate measure - I recommend reading it.

The Pinky Show on GMOs

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:34:00 +0000

Monsanto and USDA Corn Insurance Policy

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 01:14:00 +0000

Last Fall, I took a class to witness the "Mobile Technology Unit" - a PR machine created to sell Monsanto's version of corporate agriculture (check out the video they made of its construction). Since that visit, I've been receiving Monsanto newsletters and other PR materials (visitors signed in). Most recently, they sent out a reproduction of a Brownfield news article (Brownfield is an Ag news org - talk about picking a strange name) about the USDA Risk Management Agency's (RMA) approval of a crop insurance program called the "Biotech Yield Endorsement." Available to corn growers in Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota and Illinois, the plan gives insurance premium reductions to those who plant a specific Monsanto produced variety of corn (YieldGard (r) and Roundup Ready (r) combinations). According to USDA RMA officials, this is the first time that such an insurance discount has been offered based on a specific technology.
The politics of corn continues...

More on Consumer Genetic Testing

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:57:00 +0000

The New York Times has another, much needed, piece on the rise in genetic tests being offered to people on a consumer level and the lack of oversight and regulation of them.

The First Billion- or Trillion-Dollar Organism?

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 16:51:00 +0000

According to a recent ETC Group press release, Synthetic Genomics founder Craig Venter is applying for some very broad and sweeping patents on a speculated first human-engineered species. The report cites a statement made by Venter to Newsweek: “If we made an organism that produced fuel, that could be the first billion- or trillion-dollar organism. We would definitely patent that whole process.”
The ETC Group report is available as a PDF and we also recommend looking over their explanations of the synthetic biology industry in comic form (the image above is from the "Syndustry" comic).

The Logic of Biotech Bets

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 02:12:00 +0000

I just read a business report about the corporate biotech moves in the realm of "biologic" drugs - drugs produced by living matter, rather than chemically derived in a lab. Or to put it more specifically: A biologic is a prophylactic, an in vivo diagnostic, or a therapeutic substance that can be made only by a living system and that has a large, complex, inherently heterogeneous molecular structure. Basically, the benefit of such drugs is their supposed ability to be much more specific in how they interact with the body, meaning fewer side effects. But the shocker is that:

unlike traditional drugs, biologics aren't vulnerable to generic competition, because the U.S. Food & Drug Administration is still mulling over how to regulate them. So instead of getting exclusive marketing rights for a decade as is the case with many other drugs, manufacturers of biologics get protection indefinitely—or at least until the FDA develops regulations.

Importantly, this doesn't mean that they aren't licensed and tested, but that the production and testing of them is significantly different because of their biological starting point. As the FDA states:

Because, in many cases, there is limited ability to identify the identity of the clinically active component(s) of a complex biological product, such products are often defined by their manufacturing processes. Changes in the manufacturing process, equipment or facilities could result in changes in the biological product itself and sometimes require additional clinical studies to demonstrate the product's safety, identity, purity and potency. Traditional drug products usually consist of pure chemical substances that are easily analyzed after manufacture. Since there is a significant difference in how biological products are made, the production is monitored by the agency from the early stages to make sure the final product turns out as expected.

Determinism2.0

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 18:23:00 +0000

So the move towards a consumer-based form of genetic profiling continues... The New York Times has a story today about companies that will, for a fee, provide the genetic equivalent of a personal tarot card reading, providing a genetic answer to your nagging questions about why you don't like brussel sprouts. But, of course, more serious questions are in the cards, like your predisposition to breast cancer or arthritis. While the author does briefly remind us that genetics isn't definitive proof of very much (literally in one sentence), she spends the rest of the entire article discussing how it might as well be.
I have just finished reading about a group in the San Francisco Bay area called the Toxic Links Coalition who has been actively working to put the environmental causes of cancer more on the front burner in a time when "prevention" of breast cancer really means detection, through mammograms and genetic screening.
In such a context, this move to consumer genetic profiling is very disturbing indeed. We are on the cusp of what could be called Eugenics2.0... just as we now subject ourselves to data-surveillance in exchange for easy-to-use, networked communications tools, we can see the same happening with our genetic data. Many of us would likely supply our genetic code to corporations in exchange for knowledge about predispositions to cancer and genealogical information. And in effect, we create genetic "gated communities" where those with resources use such test results to get medicalized treatments (what else is the point of knowing if you're likely to get cancer?), while further privatizing medicine and removing any responsibility for the creation of toxic environments, leaving those without access to the testing/treatments to suffer the consequences.

Patenting Bird Flu

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 02:53:00 +0000

The Sunshine Project and the Third World Network have released a report about various patents being filed on H5N1 viruses - otherwise known as bird flu. From the report:

According to data from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) PatentScope database, a dramatic surge in patent claims related to bird flu has occurred in the past 18 months. In 2004 there were no claims on H5N1-specific vaccines, sequences, diagnostics, and related items. However in 2006, 14 such patent applications were filed while in the first half of 2007, already 20 such applications have been filed. Half of these patent claims originate from the United States, while most of the rest are from Europe.

Putting the AG in Iraq

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:36:00 +0000

AlterNet has a follow up story to previous (and slightly misrepresented) reports about the sexily titled Order 81 [PDF], otherwise known as "Amendments to Patent, Industrial Design, Undisclosed Information, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety Law", a piece of legislation enacted way back in 2004 by Paul Bremmer before leaving his position as administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. The AlterNet piece explains the order as basically setting up a favorable Intellectual Property regime for US biotech /seed companies, one similar to that operating in much of India, especially where cotton farming is becoming dominated by Monsanto's Bollgard ® Bt patented seed variety. Disturbingly, the parallel rise in suicides (over 4,500 in the last 6 years) by farmers in these regions is linked to the corporate domination and financial tactics used to create the IP environment so beneficial to companies like Monsanto, an environment that practically forces these farmers into unresolvable debt. PBS's Wide Angle Series has an episode on the Indian situation as well.
While the debate about the war goes on, and US withdrawal becomes more and more imminent, it looks like there are other questions yet to surface about the kind of Iraq being left in the wake of the US occupation. Such developments also reveal that it takes much more than oil to lubricate the "free market".
[image from Hindu Net]

The Beginnings of "Life Sciences"

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:59:00 +0000

The New York Times has a video about the continuing effects of dioxin, a primary ingredient in Agent Orange, on life in Vietnam. One of the primary companies involved in the production of Agent Orange was Monsanto, along with Dow and 5 other corporations. These companies have been sued by both Vietnamese groups and US Veterans.

The BRCA Gene and Pre-emptive Surgeryhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 16:47:00 +0000

The New York Times has an article about genetic screening and the search for the hereditary BRCA gene, the genetic marker identified as the culprit responsible for a large percentage of breast cancer cases. The BRCA genes (BRCA-1 and BRCA-2) have been in the news in the past, not just because of their link to breast cancer, but because they were effectively patented by Myriad Genetics - the patent being primarily based on the series of test that Myriad developed to "locate" the genes. These patents were initially used to control any research that involves those genes, thus prohibiting a lot of other work being done on breast cancer.
The absolute linkage of genetics to disease, a hermetically sealed narrative of cause-and-effect, remains dominant in the reportage and popular understanding of cancer, despite more and more research that points to the scientific inaccuracy of the single-gene theory.
Barbara Ehrenreich has written a terrificly critical account of the cult of breast cancer "awareness from her own experience with the disease - identifying the problems of how "prevention" is imagined when it comes to breast cancer. "Prevention" is explicitly constructed through the promotion of screening - both genetic testing and physical (mammograms). Prevention equals detection. As Ehrenreich points out, this is not accurately prevention, which would require much more investment in locating the complex causes of cancer. And as she also points out, this presents a conflict of interest for pharmaceutical companies that seek to make a profit off of potential "cures" as well as continuing the chemical dependence driving large parts of our economy, at the expense of our bodies. Prevention isn't the desired outcome, it's treatment. And genetics provides a perfect alibi.

2 Small 2 Regulate

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 03:08:00 +0000

In an unsurprising move, the US FDA has ruled that products made with nanotechnology do not need special labeling. Just as in their decisions on genetically modified foods, the US government seems to think industry is better served if citizens consumers don't know what they are putting into and on their bodies and their surroundings.
Here is the FDA's official response to health and environmental concerns:

We believe we do not have scientific evidence about nano-sized materials posing safety questions that merit being mentioned on the label. (Dr. Randall Lutter, FDA's associate commissioner for policy and planning)

They believe? Do they have scientific evidence otherwise, that it does not pose safety questions?
The FDA is making a pretty good case for citizen review boards I must say. A little discussion around this flared up earlier in the month on a discussion list devoted to synthetic biology where a European study on implementing "participatory technology assessment" was referenced.

Welcome Guest Bloggers!

noreply@blogger.com (ryan griffis) — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:21:00 +0000

We are lucky to have two new contributors, Jennifer Rutledge and Lisa Tucker.

Jennifer Rutledge is currently a PhD candidate and instructor in Political Science at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cites. Her research interests are Food politics, Politics of Children, International Development, Socio-political Change, International Organizations, Human Rights and International Law.

Lisa Tucker is an artist and organizer in Southern California. Lisa most recently organized a multidisciplinary series of events at the University of California, Irvine titled Food Bioneering: Hybrid Investigations of Food.

Thanks Jennifer and Lisa, and welcome!

Ethanol and GMOs

noreply@blogger.com (Jennifer) — Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:00:00 +0000

Much of the criticism of ethanol has focused on the exorbitant amount of water and oil needed to produce ethanol, the continued mono-cropping of US farmland, and the subsequent rising cost of food. What has been less widely criticized is the rise in genetically modified corn that ethanol production will create. Currently 61 percent of the US corn crop is genetically modified and that number grows every year. The increase in corn production demanded by ethanol production will result in an automatic increase in genetically modified corn being planted.

In addition, companies are working to create genetically modified strains of corn that will be most readily converted into ethanol, largely by increasing the starch content of the corn. For instance, Monsanto and Cargill are working together and have formed Renessen, a biotechnology and processing company. Renessen has created MAVERA corn, a corn high in starch, that can only be processed in a specific processing plant, owned by Renessen. In addition, if a farmer wishes to sell corn to Renessen, she/he will have to purchase the seed from Renessen since the Renessen processing plant can only process Renessen corn. Thus, the closed loop of corporate control that GM food creates is yet again on display.