Team:Calgary Ethics/Collaboration

From 2008.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)
 
(29 intermediate revisions not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
-
{| style="color:#EBFFA4;background-color:#FFC200;" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" border="1" bordercolor="#fff" width="62%" align="center"
+
<table width="90%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
-
!align="center"|[[Team:Calgary_Ethics|Home]]
+
-
!align="center"|[[Team:Calgary_Ethics/Team|The Team]]
+
-
!align="center"|[[Team:Calgary_Ethics/Project|The Project]]
+
-
!align="center"|[[Team:Calgary_Ethics/Surveys|Surveys]]
+
-
!align="center"|[[Team:Calgary_Ethics/Collaboration|Collaboration]]
+
-
!align="center"|[[Team:Calgary_Ethics/Notebook|Notebook]]
+
-
|}
+
 +
<tr>
 +
<td>[[Image:Border-ethics.jpg]]</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
</table>
 +
<table width="90%" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0">
 +
<tr valign="top">
 +
<td valign="top">
 +
<table width="140px" border="0" cellspacing="10" cellpadding="10" valign="top">
 +
<tr valign="top">
 +
<td style="font-size:20px">[https://2008.igem.org/Team:Calgary_Ethics Home]</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr valign="top">
 +
<td style="font-size:20px">[https://2008.igem.org/Team:Calgary_Ethics/Team Team]</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr valign="top">
 +
<td style="font-size:20px">[https://2008.igem.org/Team:Calgary_Ethics/Adult_Surveys Adult Survey]</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr valign="top">
 +
<td style="font-size:20px">[https://2008.igem.org/Team:Calgary_Ethics/High_School_Surveys High School Survey]</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr valign="top">
 +
<td style="font-size:20px">[https://2008.igem.org/Team:Calgary_Ethics/Collaboration Collaboration]</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr valign="top">
 +
<td style="font-size:20px">[https://2008.igem.org/Team:Calgary_Ethics/Future_Plans Future Plans]</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr valign="top">
 +
<td style="font-size:20px">[https://2008.igem.org/Team:Calgary_Ethics/Acknowledgement Acknowledgement]</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
<tr valign="top">
 +
<td style="font-size:20px">[https://2008.igem.org/Team:Calgary_Ethics/Notebook Notebook]</td>
 +
</tr>
 +
</table>
 +
</td>
-
== ''' Collaborating with the Guelph iGEM team 2008''' ==
+
<!--This is where the PAGE INFO STARTS -->
-
+
-
----
 
 +
<td>
 +
<!--This is where the PAGE INFO STARTS -->
 +
<td>
 +
<h2>Overview</h2>
 +
<p>Our ethics team believes all the iGEM projects and products have corresponding ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social (E3LS) issues. We believe they also embody the ability to influence many E3LS issues. When asked to collaborate with the Guelph iGEM team in examining the E3LS implications of their project, we knew it was a great opportunity to explore the types of challenges a synthetic biology product may face and the possible impact it may have locally and globally.</p>
 +
<p>Our collaboration with the Guelph iGEM team involved research into vitamin A delivery systems and an examination of the pro and con arguments related to ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social issues found in the public domain and academic papers for each of the approaches used to alleviate deficiencies.  This research was undertaken to establish perspective on the feasibility and potential of the Guelph iGEM team project; a synthetic biology approach to vitamin A delivery.</p>
 +
<h2>Findings</h2>
 +
<p>We have gathered information on methods used to alleviate Vitamin A deficiency in various countries and the pro and con arguments related to ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social issues found in the public domain and academic papers for each of the approaches.  If synthetic biology is to be successful, its pro/con list has to be seen to generate more pro and less con arguments and sentiments than already existing for applied intervention methods. One of the challenges of implementing a synthetic biology approach is identifying a population where it is appropriate. Supplementation is currently the primary method used to provide Vitamin A to people in developing countries and has proved to be efficient (1). Food fortification, which would include the synthetic biology approach, would have to assume the position of a complementary intervention in an overall effort to reduce Vitamin A deficiency.  Although a complementary approach in the short term, longitudinally, a synthetic biology approach, like other food fortification efforts, may provide more control of Vitamin A deficiency. However, implementing food fortification programs takes years (1). In addition to that, an innovative approach like synthetic biology may take even longer due to the fact it is not well known and gaining public acceptance may introduce yet another barrier.</p>
 +
<p>Much of the effort directed towards accomplishing the 4th millennium development goal, a two- thirds reduction in under-five mortality by the year 2015, has been focused on battling Vitamin A deficiency in children 6-59 months. This is due to the fact they have an increased risk of dying from measles, malaria and diarrhea (1). Therefore, countries considered a high priority for Vitamin A defining by national under 5 child mortality equal to or greater than 70 deaths per 100 000, have been the focus of many campaigns.  Of the 61 countries considered high priority for Vitamin A, only 34 have conducted national assessments of Vitamin A deficiency (1). These are the countries that could be targeted with new approaches for Vitamin A delivery, including a synthetic biology approach. Since deficiency levels are reported in these countries, the efficacy of a new intervention could be roughly assessed and success of a new intervention could be highlighted and promoted for use in other countries. Within these 34 countries, specifically addressing those who have Vitamin A coverage of less than 70% in children 6-59 months is ideal. This percentage is defined as effective coverage. If supplements in these countries have not yet provided effective coverage to the population, it is possible a novel approach may be welcomed and implementation may face fewer barriers.  However, research must examine why, in any given country targeted for synthetic biology intervention, other methods did not work. It might well be that local, regional and national factors that prevented the uptake of existing intervention methods might also make a synthetic biology approach unfeasible.</p>
 +
<p>In the end its important for people involved in the synthetic biology approach to Vitamin A deficiency to be aware of the barriers other Vitamin A intervention methods face, to be able to judge whether their synthetic biology approach is better in the pro/con trade off than the other intervention methods, to be aware whether their synthetic biology approach generates particular pro and con arguments locally and globally not generated by existing  methods and to determine whether their synthetic biology method is more cost effective than existing methods.</p>
 +
<h2>Last Words</h2>
 +
<p>Our research produced evaluations on the Guelph iGEM team product which would have to be considered in order for its successful implementation. We are interested in continuing to collaborate on this project in hopes that it will one day contribute to reducing vitamin A deficiencies worldwide. </p>
 +
<p>As a final note we would like to thank everyone on the Guelph team. They showed great courtesy and we have had a wonderful time collaborating with them. A special thanks goes to David Johnston in the Department of Plant Agriculture at the University of Guelph for keeping in touch, helping things run smoothly in this cross country collaboration, and for being so positive in the judgement of our contribution. It was great fun!</p>
 +
<p>See attached full paper including tables ([[media:Final_Guelph_paper.pdf]]).</p>
 +
<h2>References</h2>
 +
<p>(1) UNICEF The challenge: Vitamin A deficiency. (2008). UNICEF [On-line]. at: http://www.childinfo.org/vitamina.html</p>
 +
</td>
-
'''Part I
+
</tr>
-
== [[Introduction]] ==
+
-
'''
+
-
----
 
-
 
-
Micronutrient deficiency is a major cause of life threatening diseases and mortality through-out the world (1; 2). The UN World Summit on Children Micronutrient goal was:"Achieve sustainable elimination of iodine deficiency disorders by 2005 and vitamin A deficiency by 2010 (3). In poor, developing countries, micronutrient deficiency has been the major cause of impaired mental and physical functioning, mainly among children (1; 2).  The four major micronutrients of concern in the developing world are iron, vitamin A, zinc and iodine(2).  Our focus will be on Vitamin A deficiency. Roughly 400 million people worldwide are at risk of vitamin A deficiency. Of those 400 million affected, 100-200 million are children (1; 4).  It can lead to progressive damage to the eye and eventually causes blindness. The WHO reports that 2/3 of deficient children die within two months of becoming blind(4). 
 
-
 
 
-
Vitamin A deficiency is most prevalent among children located in Southeast Asia and Africa(5; 6), where  staple foods are low in vitamin A (i.e. wheat, rice, maize…etc) and the poor cannot afford foods that would fulfill their Vitamin A requirements .  Mammals must ingest provitamin-A Carotenoids from dark green vegetables, or yellow or orange fruits(7) and vegetables or fat soluble Vitamin A from animal products like eggs, butter and fish liver oils in order to synthesize Vitamin A in the body. Vitamin A is essential for protein metabolism, maintenance of epithelial cells, proper functioning of the immune system and retina, and for growth and reproduction (8). In order to reduce Vitamin A deficiency in developing countries, Beta-Carotene, the pro-vitamin A precursor, or Retinol, the animal version of Vitamin A, must be provided by some means to those who are deficient. There are currently 3 delivery systems for combating micronutrient deficiency; supplementation, increasing or diversifying dietary in-take and food fortification, which includes commercial or industrial fortification, as well as biofortification, microbial biofortification and home fortification(1; 9; 10). There is also a fourth and more recent delivery system, which can be labeled the synthetic biology approach (the approach the Guelph iGEM team takes). This paper will explore and highlight the major E3LS implications of the current and possible future delivery systems, for Beta-Carotene, a Provitamin A carotenoid. The goal of addressing the E3LS implications is to help advance towards realistic applications. These implications must be considered and weighed in an effort to make the best choices for fighting deficiencies all over the world.
 
-
 
-
 
-
'''Part II
 
-
== [[Overview of the different approaches ]] ==
 
-
'''
 
-
----
 
-
 
-
'''Food fortification''' (11) is a food based strategy and includes commerical and industrial fortification, home fortification, biofortification and if implemented crops or animals; microbial biofortification and synthetic biology. In this context, fortification in general means to improve or strengthen the levels of nutrients in a target product.  The several types of food fortification are distinct because different techniques and procedures are used to fortify the target foods.
 
-
 
-
'''Biofortification''' involves creating micronutrient-dense staple crops using traditional breeding techniques(7) and/or biotechnology. Cross breeding has been around for decades and has been used to fortify numerous crops. Using biotechnology to biofortify staple crops is more modern. The most popular example of this approach is the transgenic 'Golden Rice'(12; 13), which has been fortified with Beta-Carotene with the purpose to try to improve Vitamin A levels in people with deficiencies.
 
-
 
-
'''Microbial Biofortification''' involves using probiotic bacteria, which ferment to produce Beta-carotene, in the foods we eat or directly in the human intestine. The probiotic bacteria that are often selected for addition to food are lactic acid bacteria (LAB) because they are presumed to have beneficial effects on the host(14). An example of this would be mixing lactic acid bacteria (LAB) with animal feed so that animal meats and bi-products such as milk are enriched in Vitamin A.
 
-
 
 
-
 
-
'''Commercial and Industrial fortification  ''' This approach involves fortifying commercially available products such as flour, cooking oils and butter with Beta-carotene or Retinol. This fortification process occurs during manufacturing.
 
-
 
-
'''Home Fortification''' This approach consists of supplying deficient populations with home mixed vitamins and minerals in packages or tablets that can be added when cooking meals. This approach is basically a merger of supplements and fortification.
 
-
 
-
 
-
'''Supplementation''' This has been the most widely used approach so far in fighting Vitamin A deficiency. There have been many successful campaigns using supplementation. Vitamin A supplements come in the form of tablets, syrup and capsules and can be provided in biannual large doses (micronutriets: dietary intake V supplement use). In most campaigns, the supplements have been handed out during national immunization days, like those dedicated to polio. However, National Micronutrient Days (NMDs), like those started in Africa in 1999, are becoming a more popular way to ensure supplements are received biannually(15).
 
-
 
-
'''Increasing and diversifying dietary intake ''' This approach involves creating larger and more diverse diets for the target population. This may require the population to increase their production of food which may be paired with educational campaigns to provide the information about which foods promote higher levels of vitamin A in the body. Another possibility is increasing the distribution of food to the region from another area. 
 
-
 
-
 
-
'''Synthetic Biology Approach'''
 
-
 
-
Although techniques of synthetic biology are used in aspects of biofortification and microbial fortification, it is also an individual approach. This approach involves engineering a synthetic operon of beta-carotene metabolic genes in a plasmid, which may then be transferred to a diverse set of bacterial hosts. The biofortified probiotic hosts may be implemented in many ways to produce Beta-Carotene for humans. The probiotics may be place directly in the human intestine or they may be associated with our foods. One possibility may be mixing the probiotics with animal feed so that animal meats and animal bi-products are enriched with  vitamin A. (Guelph iGEM team)
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
'''Part III
 
-
== [[The E3LS Implications of the Various Approaches (Pro V Con)  ]] ==
 
-
'''
 
-
----
 
-
 
-
{| border="1"
 
-
 
-
!  !! Pros !! Cons
 
-
|-
 
-
! Economic argument Biofortification
 
-
|  once introduced, biofortified crop systems are highly sustainable and require minimal intervention (16)  ||
 
-
|-
 
-
! Environmental argument
 
-
|Trace minerals can help plants resist disease and withstand other environmental stressors (16) 
 
-
|Currently there is a lack of adequate knowledge on the impact that GM crops have on local ecosystems (16) 
 
-
 
-
Monocultures reduce biodiversity
 
-
 
-
|-
 
-
! Ethics argument
 
-
| || Many people believe genetically modifying crops is wrong because nature shouldn't be altered
 
-
|-
 
-
! Legal argument
 
-
|
 
-
|Who is responsible for regulation and quality control?
 
-
 
-
|-
 
-
! Social argument
 
-
| || farmers and consumers may not accept sensory changes of biofortified crops (16)
 
-
|-
 
-
! Other
 
-
|biofortification is a well suited approach for developing countries since it utilizes the fact that the daily diet of low income micronutrient deficient populations, is large quantities of staple foods(16)
 
-
|
 
 +
</table>
 +
{| style="color:#1b2c8a;background-color:#ffffff;" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1" border="1" bordercolor="#fff" width="62%" align="center"
 +
!align="center"|[[Team:Calgary_Ethics |Home]]
 +
!align="center"|[[Team:Calgary_Ethics/Team |Team]]
 +
!align="center"|[[Team:Calgary_Ethics/Adult_Surveys|Adult Survey]]
 +
!align="center"|[[Team:Calgary_Ethics/High_School_Surveys| High School Survey]]
 +
!align="center"|[[Team:Calgary_Ethics/Collaboration|Collaboration]]
 +
!align="center"|[[Team:Calgary_Ethics/Future_Plans|Future Plans]]
 +
!align="center"|[[Team:Calgary_Ethics/Acknowledgement |Acknowledgement]]
 +
!align="center"|[[Team:Calgary_Ethics/Notebook |Notebook]]
|}
|}
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
{| border="1"
 
-
 
-
! !! Pros !! Cons
 
-
|-
 
-
! Economic argument
 
-
 
-
Microbial biofortificaitoan
 
-
 
-
|  Additional benefits offered by LAB may lower subsequent health care service costs || Costs for delivering live bacteria and overseeing administering could be high
 
-
|-
 
-
! Environmental argument
 
-
|Vehicle for delivery exists in nature (Lactobacilli)
 
-
 
-
|-
 
-
! Ethics argument
 
-
|Cell B
 
-
|- difficult to establish clinical trials and to prove efficacy
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
- may be seen as inappropriate for direct human application
 
-
 
-
|-
 
-
! Legal argument
 
-
|
 
-
|-Who would be in charge of regulation and quality control?
 
-
-no regulatory definitions for functional foods or prebiotics (17)
 
-
- health claims can be difficult to obtain for probiotic products (14)
 
-
 
-
 
-
|-
 
-
!Social argument
 
-
|- if Lactic acid bacteria used, there may be beneficial effects in addition to reducing VAD deficiency (14)
 
-
|-People may feel uncomfortable ingesting live bacteria
 
-
-intestinal health is not-well understood by consumers (17)
 
-
 
-
|-
 
-
! Other
 
-
|- Lactic acid bacteria are generally recognized as safe ((18) -LAB have beneficial effects on the host in addition to reducing deficiency (14)
 
-
|-difficult to demonstrate the efficiacy of prebiotics in humans (17)
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
|}
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
2) Collaboration with the Calgary Wetlab iGEM team 2008
 
-
We provide also E3LS feedback to the wetlab team from Calgary.
 
-
 
-
3) Collaboration with a presenter at Synbio 4.0 where we provide feedback on synbio regulation ideas.
 

Latest revision as of 19:41, 29 October 2008

Border-ethics.jpg
Home
Team
Adult Survey
High School Survey
Collaboration
Future Plans
Acknowledgement
Notebook

Contents

Overview

Our ethics team believes all the iGEM projects and products have corresponding ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social (E3LS) issues. We believe they also embody the ability to influence many E3LS issues. When asked to collaborate with the Guelph iGEM team in examining the E3LS implications of their project, we knew it was a great opportunity to explore the types of challenges a synthetic biology product may face and the possible impact it may have locally and globally.

Our collaboration with the Guelph iGEM team involved research into vitamin A delivery systems and an examination of the pro and con arguments related to ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social issues found in the public domain and academic papers for each of the approaches used to alleviate deficiencies. This research was undertaken to establish perspective on the feasibility and potential of the Guelph iGEM team project; a synthetic biology approach to vitamin A delivery.

Findings

We have gathered information on methods used to alleviate Vitamin A deficiency in various countries and the pro and con arguments related to ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social issues found in the public domain and academic papers for each of the approaches. If synthetic biology is to be successful, its pro/con list has to be seen to generate more pro and less con arguments and sentiments than already existing for applied intervention methods. One of the challenges of implementing a synthetic biology approach is identifying a population where it is appropriate. Supplementation is currently the primary method used to provide Vitamin A to people in developing countries and has proved to be efficient (1). Food fortification, which would include the synthetic biology approach, would have to assume the position of a complementary intervention in an overall effort to reduce Vitamin A deficiency. Although a complementary approach in the short term, longitudinally, a synthetic biology approach, like other food fortification efforts, may provide more control of Vitamin A deficiency. However, implementing food fortification programs takes years (1). In addition to that, an innovative approach like synthetic biology may take even longer due to the fact it is not well known and gaining public acceptance may introduce yet another barrier.

Much of the effort directed towards accomplishing the 4th millennium development goal, a two- thirds reduction in under-five mortality by the year 2015, has been focused on battling Vitamin A deficiency in children 6-59 months. This is due to the fact they have an increased risk of dying from measles, malaria and diarrhea (1). Therefore, countries considered a high priority for Vitamin A defining by national under 5 child mortality equal to or greater than 70 deaths per 100 000, have been the focus of many campaigns. Of the 61 countries considered high priority for Vitamin A, only 34 have conducted national assessments of Vitamin A deficiency (1). These are the countries that could be targeted with new approaches for Vitamin A delivery, including a synthetic biology approach. Since deficiency levels are reported in these countries, the efficacy of a new intervention could be roughly assessed and success of a new intervention could be highlighted and promoted for use in other countries. Within these 34 countries, specifically addressing those who have Vitamin A coverage of less than 70% in children 6-59 months is ideal. This percentage is defined as effective coverage. If supplements in these countries have not yet provided effective coverage to the population, it is possible a novel approach may be welcomed and implementation may face fewer barriers. However, research must examine why, in any given country targeted for synthetic biology intervention, other methods did not work. It might well be that local, regional and national factors that prevented the uptake of existing intervention methods might also make a synthetic biology approach unfeasible.

In the end its important for people involved in the synthetic biology approach to Vitamin A deficiency to be aware of the barriers other Vitamin A intervention methods face, to be able to judge whether their synthetic biology approach is better in the pro/con trade off than the other intervention methods, to be aware whether their synthetic biology approach generates particular pro and con arguments locally and globally not generated by existing methods and to determine whether their synthetic biology method is more cost effective than existing methods.

Last Words

Our research produced evaluations on the Guelph iGEM team product which would have to be considered in order for its successful implementation. We are interested in continuing to collaborate on this project in hopes that it will one day contribute to reducing vitamin A deficiencies worldwide.

As a final note we would like to thank everyone on the Guelph team. They showed great courtesy and we have had a wonderful time collaborating with them. A special thanks goes to David Johnston in the Department of Plant Agriculture at the University of Guelph for keeping in touch, helping things run smoothly in this cross country collaboration, and for being so positive in the judgement of our contribution. It was great fun!

See attached full paper including tables (media:Final_Guelph_paper.pdf).

References

(1) UNICEF The challenge: Vitamin A deficiency. (2008). UNICEF [On-line]. at: http://www.childinfo.org/vitamina.html

Home Team Adult Survey High School Survey Collaboration Future Plans Acknowledgement Notebook