International approvals slow for biotech crops

vegetables
The global market for biotech crops will continue to be fractured unless international approvals are harmonized. It took more than two years for Syngenta to receive European Union approval for the Agrisure Viptera trait in corn, but hurdles remain in other countries, China in particular. Each nation has its own unique scientific and political institutions and constituency concerns to respect, but there is a need for more consistent policies on biotechnology.
View the original article here: International approvals slow for biotech crops

Genetic data may be double-edged sword

Another heavyweight addresses the concerns of the burgeoning era of personal medicine: Nancy Andrews, Dean of Medicine at Duke University, spoke to students on Wednesday in a talk titled “When the Genome Gets Really Personal.” Her overall stance was positive, but cautious. Andrews called the aggressive efforts to combat diseases like Hunginton’s and Alzheimer’s genetic techniques a “huge public health success.” But she touched on darker matters like spectre of eugenics, and the danger of knowing too much. (Finding out  Dad is not, in fact, dad.)

This account is most interesting for the student perspectives it offers in response, however:

Junior Biqi Zhang, a neuroscience major with a certificate in genome sciences and policy, has had her own genome analyzed. She said she was not worried about the results when she chose to be tested. “Things don’t run in my family, so I didn’t have any worry,” she said.

But after being tested she gained knowledge of her predisposition to some diseases.

“I do have information on certain markers related to Alzheimer’s and breast cancer,” Zhang said. “I don’t regret [taking the test]. I learned things about myself [but] they’re not serious things.”

View the original article here: Genetic data may help, or reveal too much

Ethnic diversity is hallmark of 10,000-person genetic study of type 2 diabetes

In the search for the genetic basis of type 2 diabetes, a group of researchers have made a point to sample as wide a base of ethnic variation as possible, in the hopes of pinning down universal genetic risk factors for type 2 diabetes. They presented their study design and initial findings at the American Society of Human Genetics 2012 meeting earlier this week.

Analysis of all the data gathered, which began in 2011, will not be complete until the end of 2012, at which point the researchers hope to have catalog of variation, including alleles that are common in the population as well as those that are observed in only a small number of individuals, which will enable them to tease out whether the identified risk factors for type 2 diabetes are specific to one ancestry group or apply across multiple (or all) human populations.

View the original article here: Novel type 2 diabetes genetic study involves five major ancestry groups, researchers report at American Society of Human Genetics 2012 meeting

“Why is a statistician talking to you about personalized medicine?”

At a talk earlier at Elon University earlier this week this week, North Caroline State University statistician Marie Davidian asked her audience “Why is a statistician talking to you about personalized medicine?” This story provides her answer.

According to Davidian, the role of statistics in personalized medicine is to examine the broad, sweeping trends of particular treatments in order to determine the types of people for whom they are best suited. Statisticians do not deem certain treatments better than others, but rather which are best suited for specific groups of people.

View the original article here: Statistician links medicine, genetics in lecture at Elon

Six-year study of salmon genetics represents “a model of stakeholder participation”

A massive study of salmon genetics undertaken in Alaska over the last six years is notable both for its sheer scientific scope and for the diverse group of people and organizations it brought together on matters of genetics, fisheries management, and food:

Some background… the Western Alaska Salmon Stock Identification Project (WASSIP) was created in 2006 by a group of eleven signers to a memorandum of understanding including Aleut Corporation, Aleutians East Borough, Association of Village Council Presidents, Bering Sea Fishermen’s Association, Bristol Bay Native Association, Concerned Area M Fishermen, Kawerak, Lake and Peninsula Borough, Tanana Chiefs Conference, Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association and Alaska Department of Fish and Game

The mission: to sample commercial and subsistence chum and sockeye salmon fisheries from Chignik to Kotzebue. The goal: to gain a better understanding of the origins and composition of harvests in westward fisheries, and the effects that these fisheries have on salmon stocks across the vast region. The driving issue: identifying the origins of chum salmon migrating through Alaska Peninsula waters to Western regions.

The WASSIP reports are to be released on November 19.

View the original article here: Salmon genetics study to be released

Organic versus inorganic: an important distinction, but not for obvious reasons

farmersmarket wide b b ec be a fe d ab dafb bea bf s

Lee Silver, Professor of Molecular Biology and public policy at Princeton University, offers a concise and highly critical look at the scientific and cultural  history of the distinction between organic and inorganic, GMO versus non-GMO — essentially the distinction between  natural versus unnatural and the freight these terms carry. This is all the more relevant in the wake of California’s Proposition 37, which was built upon a supposition that this is a meaningful and important distinction with health implications. Silver begins:

Before the 18th century, scientists and non-scientists alike assumed that the material substance of living organisms was fundamentally different from that of non-living things — organisms and their products were considered organic by definition, while non-living things were mineral or inorganic. 

Silver’s stance can also be seen as a culmination of a growing body of evidence that, at the very least, questions if not outright denies many of the benefits presumed to accompany “natural” foods, or the threats posed by “unnatural” foods. This, in turn, may be the cultural pendulum swinging back from the birth of environmental movement in the 70s. In September, NPR examined the questionable health benefits (or lack thereof) offered by organic foods. Michael Pollan, a figurehead in the food movement, was asked what he thought of these findings. He was somewhat dismissive of the meta-study on which the NRP story was based, focusing instead on related factors like pesticide use and exposure to make the case for organics.

Regardless of whether or not organic or natural or non-GMO foods may be healthier or safer, however, Silver makes a strong case for the positive potential of genetic modification. We need GM crops, modern genetic techniques are a very valuable part of our toolkit — a sentiment shared by the late Norman Borlaug, Nobel laureate and “father of the Green Movement. The fixation on whether something is organic or not, Silver argues, is distracting us from whether something is good or not. To this end, Silver takes a hard stance against what he sees as a socio-economic climate hostile to GMOs:

In the current social and economic climate, much of the critical research required to turn promising [GM] results into viable products is simply not pursued. As a result, anti-GM, organic food advocates may be indirectly responsible for avoidable deaths of future children.

View the original article here: What Is The Meaning Of “Organic” (And Inorganic) Food?

Sheep breeders at the “cutting edge” of genetics

Agriculture and animal husbandry have strong ties to the history of genetics — Darwin, after all, relied heavily on evidence from livestock to shore up his evolutionary theory in Origin. This (rather technical) article illustrates the continued  importance of farmers, in this particular case sheep breeders, in providing practical knowledge and production using modern medical technology and an understanding of genetics.

Having more or less mastered the balance of fat to muscle in their stock, sheep breeders may next be trying to perfect low-heritability traits such as health and reproduction.

View the original article here: Sheep breeders at cutting edge of genetics

Genetic links found between Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis

Another step toward understanding the genetic basis of disease — in particular how separate conditions may be connected at a genetic level — and developing truly personalized healthcare:

A study published recently in Nature found new genetic links between Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, two autoimmune gut diseases that affect as many as 1.4 million people in the United States. The research was an immense collaborative effort, combining the data from 75,000 people from 80 institutions including the Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital—both affiliated with Harvard Medical School—and the the Broad Institute.

View the original article here: Genetic Links Found for Gastrointestinal Diseases

Last 500 Ethiopian wolves endangered by lack of genetic diversity

This post from SciAm’s “Extinction Countdown” blog highlights the importance of genetics in modern conservation efforts. With tiny populations and little genetic diversity, these wolves have precious little of the genetic variation that translates in nature to adaptability and, ultimately, survival:

The last wolves in Africa face a difficult road if they are going to survive. Just 500 Ethiopian wolves (Canis simensis) remain in the mountains of the country for which they are named. The animals now live in six fragmented populations located hundreds of kilometers apart from one another; three of these populations have fewer than 25 wolves each. According to a study published last month in Animal Conservation, the Ethiopian wolf now suffers from low genetic diversity and a weak flow of genes between packs. As we have seen with other rare species such as Florida panthersTasmanian devils and great Indian bustards, low genetic diversity can result in inbreeding, impaired birth rates and the inability to adapt to diseases or other ecological threats. The danger for Ethiopian wolves is not theoretical—rabies outbreaks in 1991–92 and 2003 each killed several hundred wolves.

View the original article here: Last 500 Ethiopian Wolves Endangered by Lack of Genetic Diversity

Rare genetic variants may not as influential in common disease as once thought

Rare tweaks in single letters of DNA are not as powerful a force in health and in common diseases as scientists hoped, new work suggests.

Common genetic variants contribute only a tiny bit to a person’s risk of developing particular diseases, so researchers have turned to rare variants as a possible explanation for why some people inherit a propensity for heart disease, diabetes or other common ailments. These rare variants, present in a small percentage of people, are thought to affect how genes work. Two separate attempts to link rare variants with disease suggest that they may not affect disease risk more than common variants do.

View the original article here: Rare genetic tweaks may not be behind common diseases

Call to arms from Grist in wake of Prop 37 loss

Despite the defeat of Prop 37, the food movement is being urged to keep fighting the good fight. Grist, in particular, notes that “this doesn’t mean an end to the food-labeling movement — on the contrary, things are just getting started.”

“Where electoral politics and California’s crazy proposition system have failed, direct citizen action is picking up the campaign. For some months, “Label It Yourself” has promoted self-regulation at your local grocery store. A “decentralized, autonomous grassroots campaign born out of our broken food system,” its efforts have intensified after Prop 37′s defeat.

In other words, the food movement is taking labeling into their own hands.

View the original article here: GMO labeling fight is out of the polls and into the stores

Scientists cheer death of Prop 37

Scientists, on the whole, are pleased to see Prop 37 fail this week. This blog post from SciAm explains the faulty science at the base of the proposition nicely. An excerpt:

The simple fact is that there is no evidence that GMOs, as a blanket group, are dangerous. There’s a simple reason for this: not all GMOs are the same. Every plant created with genetic technology contains a different modification. More to the point, if the goal is to know more about what’s in your food, a generic GMO label won’t tell you. Adding Bt toxin to corn is different than adding Vitamin A to rice or vaccines to potatoes or heart-protective peptides to tomatoes. If Prop 37 was really about informed decisions, it would have sought accurate labeling of different types of GMOs so consumers can choose to avoid those that they disapprove of or are worried about. Instead, anti-GMO activists put forward a sloppily written mandate in a attempt to discredit all genetic engineering as a single entity. The legislation was considered so poorly worded that most Californian newspapers rallied against it, with the LA Times calling Prop 37 “problematic on a number of levels”.

View the original article here: Prop 37 Loses, Scientists Cheer

Scientists respond to controversial Séralini maize study

golden rice grains
The fallout continues over the questionable study by French molecular biologist Gilles-Eric Seralini of rats fed genetically engineered rice. Food and Chemical Toxicology, which published the article in mid-September, has now printed a series of letters in response to the study.
 
glp menu logo outlined

Newsletter Subscription

* indicates required
Email Lists