Team:Edinburgh/ELSI

From 2008.igem.org

(Difference between revisions)

Latest revision as of 02:30, 30 October 2008

Ethical, Legal and Social Implications

As we consider the ethical, legal and social implications of our project, we should bear in mind the uses which we envision for Micromaize:

As a biofuel, freeing up land currently being used for biocrops for the growth of food crops.
As animal feed, freeing up food for human consumption. Additionally, by using our starch as a biofuel or feeding it to animals, we could potentially allow more fertile land (e.g. rainforests) to remain in its natural state instead of being converted for the growth of monocultures.
As food for humans, but only in the most extreme of circumstances (i.e. famine).

We can divide ethical, legal and social issues into the following categories:

Safety
Security
Cultural, economic and environmental concerns
Ownership, sharing and innovation

Safety

Research

The organisms involved in our experiments are not hazardous to humans or animals under normal circumstances. A safety assessment was completed for our research project and was approved by the School of Biological Sciences Genetic Modification and Biological Safety Committee. This is a requirement for all genetic modification work in the School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh. Since the project was classified as level 1, we were allowed to proceed with minimal containment and good microbiological practice; for example, cells had to be killed with ethanol or by boiling before they could be removed from the laboratory for assay by Raman spectroscopy.

Production

We envision producing starch by fermentation, which involves culturing cells in a contained environment. Safety requirements and regulations for contained processes are a lot less strict than those in place for uncontained systems.
Organisms are bound to escape when large quantities of them are present, even in a contained environment. However, our E. coli strain (JM109) is much safer and less potent than organisms naturally present in the environment (which are there by the grace of natural selection). The JM109 strain of E. coli:
- Has multiple disabling mutations,
- Will not colonise the human gut,
- But divides slowly.
Hence, we are considering using an alternative organism - Bacillus subtilis as our final host. B. subtilis is not pathogenic and generally regarded very positively.

Consumption

The final product will be safe for consumption. E. coli can be killed very easily – by simply drying it out. Bacillus subtilis is hard to kill but non-pathogenic; in fact, it is currently consumed as a dietary supplement.
All bacteria contain high levels of RNA, which causes gout. Hence, we envision using the RNAse system developed by the UC Berkeley iGEM team last year to degrade bacterial RNA. Heat treatment of the cells would then disrupt the cell wall allowing the nucleotides to diffuse out.
Concerns amongst the European populace about GM products causing prion diseases are unfounded: prions responsible for BSE, etc. originate in animals, not bacteria or plants.

Security

'Could our organisms be employed to degrade forests or houses?' No:
- There are many cellulose-degrading organisms in the wild which have evolved to be much more adept at the task than our recombinant E. coli or B. subtilis. If plants are able to withstand bacteria and fungi which naturally degrade cellulose, then our organisms should not pose a threat.
- Wood contains large quantities of lignin so it is not susceptible to bacterial cellulose degradation.

Cultural, economic and environmental concerns

Considering people's gut reaction to 'food made from waste products', we must make Micromaize as attractive as possible. Thus, we envision an orange-coloured, citrus-flavoured product thanks to the presence of beta carotene and limonene.
Monocultures will not be necessary: anything and everything contains cellulose, so farmers will be free to grow whatever they wish.
Our product is not intended to replace food for humans but to make use of agriculture's waste products and to supplement normal food in times of crisis. Hence, there is no reason why starch-producing bacteria should have any impact on farmers' livelihood.

Ownership, sharing and innovation

No patent may be filed since we have already released our research into the public domain. However, if a company improves the process we have developed, then we cannot prevent them from patenting their innovation.

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 * Considering people's gut reaction to 'food made from waste products', we must make ''Micromaize'' as attractive as possible. Thus, we envision an orange-coloured, citrus-flavoured product thanks to the presence of beta carotene and limonene.
 * Monocultures will ''not'' be necessary: anything and everything contains cellulose, so farmers will be free to grow whatever they wish.
-* Our product is ''not intended to replace food for humans'' but to make use of agriculture's ''waste products'' and to supplement normal food in times of crisis. Hence, there is no reason why starch-producing bacteria should have any impact on farmers.
+* Our product is ''not intended to replace food for humans'' but to make use of agriculture's ''waste products'' and to supplement normal food in times of crisis. Hence, there is no reason why starch-producing bacteria should have any impact on farmers' livelihood.
 ==Ownership, sharing and innovation==
-No patent may be filed since we have already released our research into the public domain. However, if a company improves the process we have developed, then we cannot stop them from patenting their innovation.
+No patent may be filed since we have already released our research into the public domain. However, if a company improves the process we have developed, then we cannot prevent them from patenting their innovation.