Kennedy 1 Billy Kennedy Dr.

Erin Dietel-McLaughlin Multimedia Writing & Rhetoric, Section 13 6 November 2013 The Demand and Need for Genetic Engineering in the Modern Age Since 1953, when James Watson and Francis Crick astonished the world by discovering the double helix structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), the field of biological genetics has evolved rapidly, and in ways people would have never imagined. The discovery of DNAs structure proved to be a powerful force on the momentum of innovation, as it reduced all the past complexities of organisms and life down to a code a genetic code (Goodfield 4). By recognizing the established genes in the genetic sequence, scientists have been able to break down segments of DNA and manipulate the naturally occurring aspects of organisms through genetic engineering. In only 60 years since its discovery, DNA has inspired a whole new field of recombinant genetics, where one can engineer a new organism by mixing genes from several naturally occurring life forms. Today, genetic engineering is utilized to alter aspects of food in order to respond to the high demands of a hungry world; the technology has even made an appearance in our very own bodies, as genetic engineering is used to treat genetic disorders (Barnette 95). However, the well-established debate over the potential health hazards and ethics of genetic engineering has made many look at gene splicing with mixed faces. Being able to alter the very design of life is an extraordinarily powerful weapon, but under good intention, can serve to propel humanity to further heights. As global struggles in agriculture and lethal diseases continue to test humanity, genetic engineering is very much needed in ensuring not only the health of a global community, but also its future prosperity.

Kennedy 2 Considering what past revolutionary benefits genetic engineering has produced is the fields biggest testament to the technologys constructive outcomes for society. In agriculture in particular, we are able to see that the genetic modification of food is able to benefit different countries in different ways. By identifying certain genes that give crops their inherent traits and characteristics, geneticists are able to extend the range of plant properties and change what conditions the crops can actually grow under (Goodfield 32). In many third world countries where the environmental conditions render it difficult to have successful harvests, genetic engineering has proven to be a tool that has allowed many populations to continue sustaining themselves. Many developing nations that are racing the clock against widespread hunger are dismayed at the heated worldwide debate on genetically modified foods, as it jeopardizes their hopes of using genetic engineering methods to produce crops for their environmentally challenged areas (Schuff). In countries where the food supply is not an issue, genetically modified foods are seen as a choice compared to organic alternatives. On the other hand, in locations where sustaining a sufficient food supply is the struggle, there is no choice over what kind of food to eat; the resourcefulness of genetically modified foods are needed to simply keep up with demand, not choice. The development of genetically modified food has allowed developing countries within Africa and many in Southeast Asia to import cheaper grains and grow more efficiently yielding crops. If it were not for the modified foods, crop yields in developing countries would have been 23.5% lower and prices up to 66% higher in the year 2000 (Preventing Hunger). This deficiency in yield and inflation in price could only exacerbate the further problems of malnutrition and hunger in the developing areas. Further problems with generating useful electrical power in these developing countries further complicates the sustainability of food, as refrigeration and prolonged preservation of food can be difficult.

Kennedy 3 Yet, by incorporating genes of slow ripening crops into other produce that waste quickly due to the environment that they are in, we are now able to make fruits that last five times as long as their organic predecessors (McLure). Similarly, this modification benefits more developed countries too, as not as much produce is wasted in transport or on the shelf. Furthermore, as storing food can prove difficult in developing countries, storing perishable medicines, such as vaccines, can also be troublesome without the appropriate refrigeration capabilities. Considering that developing nations could benefit from vaccinations more than any other population, researchers are currently developing edible vaccines in tomatoes and potatoes that will make transporting and preserving vaccinations much more feasible (Whitman). Although it may be easy for the debate over genetically modified and organic foods to surface in first world countries, there simply cannot be the same debate in more agriculturally challenged nations, since the technology is currently what is preventing these nations from falling into a deeper struggle with hunger, malnutrition, and susceptibility to disease (Schuff). Before opposing the use of genetic modification techniques, we must consider the benefits it has on the global perspective, rather than that of a purely personal one. However, it is not only in producing a higher yield where genetic engineering pulls through, but the technology has also fostered designs that have escalated the global nutritional content of food. Every community sustains itself through some type of staple crop. In many first world countries, consumers have a choice and variety as to what staple crops they can consume, as opposed to developing nations that only have the resources to grow a few, or one. Concentrating ones diet so heavily on a single staple good accentuates the absence of whatever nutritional value that good does not offer, promoting malnutrition. This is why in many Southeast Asian countries, where rice is the heavily consumed staple crop, many communities suffer from a severe deficiency in beta-carotene (vitamin A), a fundamental nutrient that is not present in rice (Whitman). Unfortunately, varieties of rice are not able to

Kennedy 4 accumulate vitamin A, like bio-fortified potatoes are able to, rendering prolonged side effects in Southeast Asian communities such as blindness and severe susceptibility to disease, both of which account for the leading reasons in premature death in small children (Mayer). Deciding to address the epidemic, Professors Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer from EHT Zurich, Switzerlands leading technology institute, saw the clear need for a staple crop nutrient rich in beta-carotene for the vulnerable Southeast Asian countries. Potrykus and Beyer noticed that the rice crop actually did produce beta-carotene, just not in the edible part of the rice; instead the beta-carotene in rice is produced in its leaves, making it present, yet inedible in the struggling countries. The nutrients that the people need are simply lost upon milling the rice, foiling a much-needed resource that could be saving lives (Mayer). By the simple addition of two genes to the naturally occurring rice crop in 1999, Potrykus and Beyer were able to alter the complex synthetic pathway of rice to redirect some of the beta-carotene present in the leaves to the actual edible grain (Mayer). Due to the increased nutritional content of beta-carotene in what was white rice, the crop was subsequently formed a golden color, giving it the name Golden Rice. Featured on the cover of Time magazine a dozen years ago, Golden Rice was expected to save millions of childrens lives (McLure). The genetic modification carried out by Potrykus and Beyer proved to be a rather fortunate alteration, not producing any new allergens after the change. Because the duo simply redirected beta-carotene that was already present in the plant to the edible part of the rice, the process did not involve adding any new substances, making the credibility and safety of Golden Rice very appealing at first (Mayer). However, many skeptics were still uneasy with the idea of having the introduction of a genetically modified crop replace such a widely used staple, preventing Golden Rice from ever being commercially planted (McLure). Currently, the crop has only been field-tested for two years in the Philippines, but is expected to begin cultivation starting in 2013 (Mayer). The

Kennedy 5 Philippines government is still debating whether to allow for the expansion of Golden Rice beyond the current five trial fields, especially after one was vandalized by 400 protesters this past August (Should You Worry About GMOs?). Due to the many years of waiting for debate and protesting to pass, the potential benefits of Golden Rice have been dormant. It is estimated that the lives of 2.7 million children could be saved a year through widespread use of the crop (McLure). Adrian Dubock, the director of the Golden Rice Project, believes that the unfounded opposition to genetically modified foods has caused needless delays in technologies that would potentially save hundreds of thousands of livestheres a point where the scientific controversy is over (McLure). It is disappointing to see the aura that the simple label of a genetically modified substance makes. Golden Rice has the chance to completely revive the health of millions of people, but the breakthrough and well-intentioned effort to help out a fellow man has been made redundant due to a controversial label. Despite successfully passing field tests, human tests, and producing no new allergens, Golden Rice has failed to reach the impact it hoped to achieve due to the continued skepticism of its mass introduction (Mayer). If the world aspires to help the difficult situations other countries may have in sustaining themselves in something as simple as food, we cannot turn down the opportunity to try something new, especially after its continued success in testing. As populations continue to grow, nutrition and sufficient sustenance can only be fleeting unless inventions like Golden Rice are put to the use they were designed for. From the perspective of more developed countries, one of the biggest concerns people have about genetically engineered food is its safety. With todays genetic modification methods, many foods are actually safer than how they would be without an altered gene. The most widespread example of recombinant genetics making agriculture safer is the use of the Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.) gene in corn (Whitman). Bacillus thuringiensis is a naturally

Kennedy 6 occurring bacterium found in most soils, which produces certain crystal proteins that are lethal to insect larvae. The crystal protein genes of B.t. have been incorporated in the genetic sequence of corn to create an insect resistant crop. Prior to gene alterations like these, crop insects could devastate entire fields of plants, resulting in terrible financial losses for farmers and starvation for developing countries (Whitman). In order to accommodate for this in the past, farmers would use a large amount of chemical pesticides to keep their crops clean of insects, exposing the food to harmful chemical substances. Overuse of chemical pesticides can have severe adverse effects on the local environment; for instance, after spraying the pesticide, a rainstorm can wash the chemicals through runoff, which can then poison larger bodies of water (Whitman). By utilizing the genetic engineering methods of enhancing corn to produce its own fertilizer, we eliminate the need to spray open-air poisonous pesticides on our plants and the chain reaction of events that occurs because of it. As the world population grows and more land surrounding established towns is used for housing instead of farming, farmers will need to grow crops in location where it was previously unsuitable to plant. Already, geneticists have taken steps to modify crops to better suit different environments. For instance, an antifreeze gene from cold water fish, when combined with plants such as tobacco and potatoes, allows the crop to endure a much more severe frost (Whitman). Genetic enhancements to the sustainability of crops are so beneficial, that they have been used at an ever-increasing rate in the United States. For B.t. corn, between the years of 1997 and 2013, the percentage of genetically modified crops increased from 4% to 95%, showing how much the genetically altered corn has been accepted and adopted (Percentage of Genetically Modified Crops in the U.S. in 1997 and 2013). Genetically engineering crops to make them more sustainable has created a situation where people are not only able to produce a more reliable yield of food, but it has also ridded the need for hazardous methods of treating crops,

Kennedy 7 making our environment and personal health much more sound for the long run. By furthering research in these fields, geneticists will continue to make food more selfsustainable, rendering the global fight for food more efficient and environmentally healthy. Although genetic engineering has made possible a wide array of assets in the field of agriculture, many people are still warned about the dangers of gene splicing. By redesigning the genetic structure of a crop to better suit human needs, new bacterium such as Bacillus thuringiensis may need to be introduced. Introducing any foreign organism to a new ecosystem can be a biological risk, which makes integrating the gene structure of one into another all that more complicated (Barnette 95). The field of recombinant genetics has always been hazed by the fear of introducing new diseases and disruptions that could upset the ecological balance of ordered ecosystems. However, many experts and leading biologists choose to support genetically modification techniques for not only their obvious benefits, but also their reliability and safety. In the summer of 2013, the American Medical Association passed a statement agreeing that there is no proven risk in foods containing ingredients whose DNA has been modified (Should You Worry About GMOs?). International science organizations such as the National Academy of Science and the World Health Organization have concluded that genetically modified crops actually do not pose any more risk than their conventional counterparts. In addition to this, they say genetically modified crops are more productive, pest resistant and environmentally friendly than conventional crops, as they have been consumed by million of people in the U.S. for nearly two decades without any documented health consequences (McLure). Although the possibility for ecological disturbances is very true, genetic engineering methods have not given any type of footprint that could suggest its severe danger to societys health; from examples like Golden Rice and B.t. corn, recombinant genetics has only propelled drastic changes in a prosperous direction, indicating its further needed use and investment.

Kennedy 8 Despite the many benefits of genetically enhancing crops, the public perception of these foods remains in some controversy. Whether it is out of fear over the introduction of new bacterium, diseases, or nutritional content, many consumers simply believe that organic foods are healthier for you than genetically modified ones, where this is simply not the case. Many genetically modified produces actually offer higher nutritional value than their organic counterparts, and because most these fruits and vegetables have been heavily processed before reaching consumers, very little of the engineered genes wind up on the shelf (Should You Worry About GMOs?). Dr. Calestous Juma, who is the director of Science, Technology, and Development Program at the Center for International Development at Harvard University, stated in an interview that, International negotiations over genetically modified organisms continue to focus on risks and pay little attention to potential benefits (Schuff). Unfortunately for genetically modified crops, the fast-growing organic industry and misguided consumer groups are to blame for confusion about the science behind genetic engineering (McLure). Allowing the unwarranted public perception of genetically modified crops as being inherently dangerous jeopardizes the technologys reputation, especially after it has proven itself to be a vessel for sustainability and revival in todays demanding world. The debate over genetic modification becomes much more personal when mankind throws his very self into the equation. Mutations, or errors in the genetic code, account for many abnormal conditions in both the human body and other biotic organisms. These defects can surface naturally due to flaws in the DNA replication process, or through inherited genes (Davis 133). Knowing the genetic code, people are able to treat these conditions by restoring DNA to its normal, healthy state (Davis 145). With recombinant genetics, geneticists have been able to treat genetic conditions with a large degree of success, one example being the treatment of cystic fibrosis. Cystic fibrosis is a disease carried by an inherited recessive gene that has a mutation due to a three base pair deletion (Gene Therapy Case Study). The

Kennedy 9 condition, which is also the most lethal genetic disease in the United States, causes a disorder in the respiratory membrane of the hosts lungs, making water move in towards the lungs, rather than outwards; water is needed outside the lungs in order to keep the respiratory mucus moist and trap debris that could be harmful and cause infection (Davis 146). Victims of the condition are much more susceptible to fatal lung infections, causing many to not live past their twenties. However, through the use of gene therapy, simply replacing the absence of the three base pairs is an easy process that fixes the condition. As the treatment can also be received by simple means, such as through an inhaler, gene therapy for cystic fibrosis has proven to be extraordinarily successful (Gene Therapy Case Study). When it comes to gene therapy, much debate over the ethics of the matter revolves around playing God, questioning whether it is in humanitys right to manipulate the very design of life. David Koepsell, a philosophy professor at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, asserts that those who argue that genetic engineering is a violation of Gods creation must explain why genetic engineering is not also an expression of Gods will, since God gave humans free will, including the ability to create technology (McLure). Henlee Barnette, author of Exploring Medical Ethics, also reasons that The God of biblical revelation wills the health of His childrenWhen genetic engineering, in the control of competent and caring engineers, is used to improve mankind genetically, socially, and culturally, it is in keeping with Gods will of love (Barnette 97). Here we see perspectives on genetic engineering that actually perceive the topic as an asset of Gods love for humanity and want for them to love one another. Considering these points, gene therapy not only allows us to cure parts of the body by modifying the genetic code, but the nature of the act truly has the kindness of humanity in its intention (Davis 145). Genetic engineering has the potential to shape and prosper life in unimaginable ways, and considering its current successes, the technology is very much needed in both todays and

Kennedy 10 tomorrows world. Genetically modified crops have the potential to aid mankinds fight against hunger and malnutrition in developing nations, rendering more sustainable and healthy lives for these communities. Whether it is through higher yield, nutritional content, or environmental safety, the presence of genetically modified foods such as B.t. corn are a testament as to how genetic engineering can make even developed nations healthier and more sustainable. Combined with the assets of gene therapy, genetic engineering has proven itself as the inevitable wave of the future that we cannot afford to ignore due to the technologys enormous potential benefits (Whitman). Genetic engineering must continue to be used, improved, and acknowledged in order to ensure the continuity of humanitys growth in a struggling world.

Kennedy 11 Works Cited Barnette, Henlee H. Exploring Medical Ethics. Macon, GA: Mercer UP, 1982. Print. Davis, Bernard D. The Genetic Revolution: Scientific Prospects and Public Perceptions. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1991. Print. "Gene Therapy Case Study: Cystic Fibrosis." Learn Genetics: Genetic Science Learning Center. The University of Utah, 2013. Web. 4 Nov. 2013. Goodfield, June. Playing God: Genetic Engineering and the Manipulation of Life. New York: Random House, 1977. Print. Mayer, Jorge. "Golden Rice Is Part of the Solution." The Golden Rice Project. Golden Rice Humanitarian Board, n.d. Web. 3 Nov. 2013. McLure, Jason. "Genetically Modified Food." CQ Researcher. 31 Aug. 2012. Web. 3 Nov. 2013. "Percentage of Genetically Modified Crops in the U.S. in 1997 and 2013, by Type (As Percent of Total Acreage)." Statista: The Statistics Portal. N.p., July 2013. Web. 6 Nov. 2013. "Preventing Hunger: Biotechnology Is Key: If African Countries Can't Plant Genetically Modified Crops to Produce More and Healthier Food, Vulnerable Populations Will Be at Risk." Nursing Resource Center. Gale, 24 Nov. 2011. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. Schuff, Sally. "GM Foods Debate Trampling Third-World Hopes for Biotech." Feedstuffs. 14 Feb. 2000. Business Insights: Essentials. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. "Should You Worry About GMOs?" Tufts University Health and Nutrition. Tufts University, Nov. 2013. Web. 8 Nov. 2013. Whitman, Deborah B. "Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?" Proquest. N.p., Apr. 2000. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.