"A bit of thinking provides others uses that are well within the scope of this technology. One such instance could be to insert a desired gene with a code that produces a substance that can kill a plant, and provide it to farmers. Such a variety could have appealing traits (e.g. larger harvests, better quality) to farmers who will plant it in large extents of lands without ever being aware of the hidden gene waiting to spring an ambush on them."_______________________________________
by Jagath Gunewardena
(February 15, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Development Dialogue has devoted its 1999: 1-2 issues entirely to an analysis of erosion of culture, environment and human rights, technological transformations and corporate concentration in the 21st century. It is written by Pat Roy Mooney, the Executive Director of RAFI, the public-interest group that is in the forefront of galvanizing public-support against genetic-trait control technologies (dubbed traitor technologies by them). Therefore, it was expected to contain a discussion on the future trends of these technologies. The section on biological warfare had described a new terminator-type technology. This has been granted to the Purdue Research Institute and has been funded by the United States Department of Agriculture.
The short description in the document is as follows: "The patent, following the paranoid path RAFI had feared, claimed that the suicide trait can be suppressed for several generations before being activated by a remote chemical inducer. The Purdue claims posed a perverse scenario in which the suicide sequence would remain inactive only for as long as a specific chemical (for example, a herbicide) was sprayed on the crop, perhaps requiring several spraying every growing season. If the chemical was not applied, or malevolently denied, the harvested crop would bear sterile seeds. In fact, the trait activated or deactivated by the inducer chemical could conceivably code to immediately impact on the current crop-drop the protein content in rice, up the natural cyanide level in cassava, or launch premature sprouting of wheat for example. This is traitor technology. It is also offensive biological warfare research in contravention of the 1972 chemical and biological, warfare treaty first proposed and adopted by USA".
A database check of patents granted in 1999 yielded the Purdue patent mentioned. It was interesting to note that a short description of it appeared in the RAFI communique of May 2000, which had said that the methodology is basically identical to that of the original terminator. The obtaining of a patent is costly, the analysis of it takes much effort and time. Therefore, we have no option but to concentrate only on these really bad and pernicious ones. For example, the number of patents given to negative trait technologies alone exceeds fifty. It was the description of this in the communique that refrained us from obtaining it and doing an analysis.
The relevant patent, bearing number WO 9911807 titled "Selective Expression of genes in plants" had been published on 11.03.1999. The inventors named are John R. Snyder, Thomas K. Hodges and Leszek A. Kyznik. It is assigned to Purdue Research Foundation in USA. A PCT application bearing the number PCT/US98/18416 had been filed from USA with 89 designated states. The list of states include Sri Lanka, which makes it necessary for us to analyse and understand the nature, scope and implications of it. The technology (invention) had been made with US government support under a grant by USDA and the government has certain rights. The field of invention has been described as a method of producing commercially desirable products in plants and a way of introducing a gene silent during seed multiplication but activated during the last generation of seed production. The second really means that the gene is kept silent while seed is produced by a company but could be activated after being delivered to growers.
The genes that are designed to play the main role in this technology are called "desired genes" in the patent. These genes are kept silent (inactive) by inserting a piece of DNA, called a blocking sequence, between the promoter and the code. The blocking sequence is flanked on both sides by a sequence that breaks down in the presence of a specific enzyme belonging to a class known as site-specific recombines. Unless and until this enzyme is provided to the plant, these genes would remain dormant because the blocking sequence prevents the activation. This mechanism is identical to the one provided in the most infamous of the negative-trait technologies, better known as the Terminator (US patents 5,723,765, 5,925,808, 5,977,441). The Purdue patent says that this mechanism is preferred as the use of inducible promoters is problematic (poor expression, leakiness and narrow range of options available).
Two broad methods have been provided to introduce the site-specific recombines to the desired gene. One method is to have the desired genes in a line of plants (called a maintainer line) which can be inbred to any number of generations without these genes ever being expressed. The gene that produces the recombines is put into another line ( called an inducer line). When there is a need to get the genes expressed, the maintainer line is crossed with an inducer line.
The resulting progeny has both genes and can get the desired genes expressed as needed in the next generation of plants or even in seeds produced by the cross-bred plants. The expression in this method always happens in the subsequent generation. The timing, place and the duration of the expression is determined by the promoters employed in the genes.
The other method is to have both the desired and recombines genes in the same plant. In this method the recombines gene should be equipped with a promoter that responds to an externally provided chemical. The promoter in this could be of two broad types. One type remains inactive until prodded into activity by the chemical. The other needs a chemical at the appropriate stage to become inactive and would get active if the chemical is absent. The most pernicious uses could be obtained by having this second type of promoter in a plant.
The patent is quite open and honest about the possible uses of the desired genes for disruptive purposes. For instance, the second claim covers a structured gene that encodes a product that disrupts normal cell function. These are further elaborated on page 6 of the patent. In one embodiment, new genes would produce a compound that is normally produced in plants but in such high amounts that it would be harmful or deliterious to the normal development of plants and seeds. Examples cited are over production of fatty acids or animal peptide hormones. An alternative is to produce foreign products or those that are not normally found in plants and which are deliterious to the development of plants and seeds even at low concentrations. The example given is the production of plastic in plants.
Another type of genes are those that alter the normal metabolism in plants, or alter the normal development of plants and seeds in ways that are harmful to plants and seeds. The examples cited are those genes that can inhibit embryo development in seeds and make them sterile (the intent of the original terminator and several others as well). Another is to prevent seed germination until the necessary Chemical is provided. Another method is to alter the reproductive mode of a plant. The example provided for this is to make apomictic plants produce seed by normal sexual reproduction. Apomixis is the ability to produce viable seed without pollination and it helps maintain a line unchanged.
This patent, though it shows various deliterious applications of the technology, carefully avoids how and what uses these could provide. Instead, it describes that this selective expression of desired genes could be used to produce some desired product in a specific part of a plant so that it can be easily harvested and processed for the product to be isolated. Another advantage of this kind of expression is to prevent plant functions being disrupted totally due to the presence of a foreign substance or the over-production of a compound. For instance, it is possible to confine the production of a substance to the leaves and seeds which can be harvested to extract the desired product.
The patent states (in page 15) that "one skilled in the art of molecular biology and plant breeding will recognize additional means of practising the present invention." These would include instances where a plant product could be made inedible by producing a toxin which could either be one that is made normally in plants (such as increase in cynide producing substances in cassava) or the production of plastics in leaves and seeds which have to be avoided by using the specified chemical.
A bit of thinking provides others uses that are well within the scope of this technology. One such instance could be to insert a desired gene with a code that produces a substance that can kill a plant, and provide it to farmers. Such a variety could have appealing traits (e.g. larger harvests, better quality) to farmers who will plant it in large extents of lands without ever being aware of the hidden gene waiting to spring an ambush on them. This would pose a problem of how to activate the killer when the company so desires as the spraying of a chemical would be impossible.
The best way to avoid this is to have the recombinese gene equipped with a promoter that activates at a given period in the growth of a crop unless made promoter that would be inactive in the presence of a chemical. This chemical could be provided subtly by mixing it with a fertilizer. It is very easy to see the destruction of a whole crop by withdrawing the chemical from the fertilizer mixture. This could even be employed to punish farmers who may buy a cheaper fertilizer from other sources.
The developer of this technology, the Purdue Research Foundation, is not a seed producing company. Therefore, they would certainly sell the rights to commercialize the production of seeds and plants with these genes to a company. We are not aware whether the rights have already being obtained by a company. A company that get these rights could use it only to produce plants that makes some useful substances and if it happens, then there would be no adverse uses. The recent trends in the enactment of laws, use of laws, agreement and technologies by large companies all indicate that this kind of technology could become a very useful tool to create monopolies and extend corporate control over agriculture.
Since the developers of this potentially dangerous technology have indicated their intention of getting it patented in Sri Lanka, it is necessary for us to know about it and be alert to the possibility of it being used in our country.
(February 15, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) The Development Dialogue has devoted its 1999: 1-2 issues entirely to an analysis of erosion of culture, environment and human rights, technological transformations and corporate concentration in the 21st century. It is written by Pat Roy Mooney, the Executive Director of RAFI, the public-interest group that is in the forefront of galvanizing public-support against genetic-trait control technologies (dubbed traitor technologies by them). Therefore, it was expected to contain a discussion on the future trends of these technologies. The section on biological warfare had described a new terminator-type technology. This has been granted to the Purdue Research Institute and has been funded by the United States Department of Agriculture.
The short description in the document is as follows: "The patent, following the paranoid path RAFI had feared, claimed that the suicide trait can be suppressed for several generations before being activated by a remote chemical inducer. The Purdue claims posed a perverse scenario in which the suicide sequence would remain inactive only for as long as a specific chemical (for example, a herbicide) was sprayed on the crop, perhaps requiring several spraying every growing season. If the chemical was not applied, or malevolently denied, the harvested crop would bear sterile seeds. In fact, the trait activated or deactivated by the inducer chemical could conceivably code to immediately impact on the current crop-drop the protein content in rice, up the natural cyanide level in cassava, or launch premature sprouting of wheat for example. This is traitor technology. It is also offensive biological warfare research in contravention of the 1972 chemical and biological, warfare treaty first proposed and adopted by USA".
A database check of patents granted in 1999 yielded the Purdue patent mentioned. It was interesting to note that a short description of it appeared in the RAFI communique of May 2000, which had said that the methodology is basically identical to that of the original terminator. The obtaining of a patent is costly, the analysis of it takes much effort and time. Therefore, we have no option but to concentrate only on these really bad and pernicious ones. For example, the number of patents given to negative trait technologies alone exceeds fifty. It was the description of this in the communique that refrained us from obtaining it and doing an analysis.
The relevant patent, bearing number WO 9911807 titled "Selective Expression of genes in plants" had been published on 11.03.1999. The inventors named are John R. Snyder, Thomas K. Hodges and Leszek A. Kyznik. It is assigned to Purdue Research Foundation in USA. A PCT application bearing the number PCT/US98/18416 had been filed from USA with 89 designated states. The list of states include Sri Lanka, which makes it necessary for us to analyse and understand the nature, scope and implications of it. The technology (invention) had been made with US government support under a grant by USDA and the government has certain rights. The field of invention has been described as a method of producing commercially desirable products in plants and a way of introducing a gene silent during seed multiplication but activated during the last generation of seed production. The second really means that the gene is kept silent while seed is produced by a company but could be activated after being delivered to growers.
The genes that are designed to play the main role in this technology are called "desired genes" in the patent. These genes are kept silent (inactive) by inserting a piece of DNA, called a blocking sequence, between the promoter and the code. The blocking sequence is flanked on both sides by a sequence that breaks down in the presence of a specific enzyme belonging to a class known as site-specific recombines. Unless and until this enzyme is provided to the plant, these genes would remain dormant because the blocking sequence prevents the activation. This mechanism is identical to the one provided in the most infamous of the negative-trait technologies, better known as the Terminator (US patents 5,723,765, 5,925,808, 5,977,441). The Purdue patent says that this mechanism is preferred as the use of inducible promoters is problematic (poor expression, leakiness and narrow range of options available).
Two broad methods have been provided to introduce the site-specific recombines to the desired gene. One method is to have the desired genes in a line of plants (called a maintainer line) which can be inbred to any number of generations without these genes ever being expressed. The gene that produces the recombines is put into another line ( called an inducer line). When there is a need to get the genes expressed, the maintainer line is crossed with an inducer line.
The resulting progeny has both genes and can get the desired genes expressed as needed in the next generation of plants or even in seeds produced by the cross-bred plants. The expression in this method always happens in the subsequent generation. The timing, place and the duration of the expression is determined by the promoters employed in the genes.
The other method is to have both the desired and recombines genes in the same plant. In this method the recombines gene should be equipped with a promoter that responds to an externally provided chemical. The promoter in this could be of two broad types. One type remains inactive until prodded into activity by the chemical. The other needs a chemical at the appropriate stage to become inactive and would get active if the chemical is absent. The most pernicious uses could be obtained by having this second type of promoter in a plant.
The patent is quite open and honest about the possible uses of the desired genes for disruptive purposes. For instance, the second claim covers a structured gene that encodes a product that disrupts normal cell function. These are further elaborated on page 6 of the patent. In one embodiment, new genes would produce a compound that is normally produced in plants but in such high amounts that it would be harmful or deliterious to the normal development of plants and seeds. Examples cited are over production of fatty acids or animal peptide hormones. An alternative is to produce foreign products or those that are not normally found in plants and which are deliterious to the development of plants and seeds even at low concentrations. The example given is the production of plastic in plants.
Another type of genes are those that alter the normal metabolism in plants, or alter the normal development of plants and seeds in ways that are harmful to plants and seeds. The examples cited are those genes that can inhibit embryo development in seeds and make them sterile (the intent of the original terminator and several others as well). Another is to prevent seed germination until the necessary Chemical is provided. Another method is to alter the reproductive mode of a plant. The example provided for this is to make apomictic plants produce seed by normal sexual reproduction. Apomixis is the ability to produce viable seed without pollination and it helps maintain a line unchanged.
This patent, though it shows various deliterious applications of the technology, carefully avoids how and what uses these could provide. Instead, it describes that this selective expression of desired genes could be used to produce some desired product in a specific part of a plant so that it can be easily harvested and processed for the product to be isolated. Another advantage of this kind of expression is to prevent plant functions being disrupted totally due to the presence of a foreign substance or the over-production of a compound. For instance, it is possible to confine the production of a substance to the leaves and seeds which can be harvested to extract the desired product.
The patent states (in page 15) that "one skilled in the art of molecular biology and plant breeding will recognize additional means of practising the present invention." These would include instances where a plant product could be made inedible by producing a toxin which could either be one that is made normally in plants (such as increase in cynide producing substances in cassava) or the production of plastics in leaves and seeds which have to be avoided by using the specified chemical.
A bit of thinking provides others uses that are well within the scope of this technology. One such instance could be to insert a desired gene with a code that produces a substance that can kill a plant, and provide it to farmers. Such a variety could have appealing traits (e.g. larger harvests, better quality) to farmers who will plant it in large extents of lands without ever being aware of the hidden gene waiting to spring an ambush on them. This would pose a problem of how to activate the killer when the company so desires as the spraying of a chemical would be impossible.
The best way to avoid this is to have the recombinese gene equipped with a promoter that activates at a given period in the growth of a crop unless made promoter that would be inactive in the presence of a chemical. This chemical could be provided subtly by mixing it with a fertilizer. It is very easy to see the destruction of a whole crop by withdrawing the chemical from the fertilizer mixture. This could even be employed to punish farmers who may buy a cheaper fertilizer from other sources.
The developer of this technology, the Purdue Research Foundation, is not a seed producing company. Therefore, they would certainly sell the rights to commercialize the production of seeds and plants with these genes to a company. We are not aware whether the rights have already being obtained by a company. A company that get these rights could use it only to produce plants that makes some useful substances and if it happens, then there would be no adverse uses. The recent trends in the enactment of laws, use of laws, agreement and technologies by large companies all indicate that this kind of technology could become a very useful tool to create monopolies and extend corporate control over agriculture.
Since the developers of this potentially dangerous technology have indicated their intention of getting it patented in Sri Lanka, it is necessary for us to know about it and be alert to the possibility of it being used in our country.
![](https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2008/02/technology-ambushing-our-farmers.html&media=https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhU9fFlr_O91vUpQ17jLuvuzQ3WJPpFhNOzAkMjaDWi91ec4uaTTriRDuc42gwAcuCO-ZIpKI10V7UxCXJcH4Z8igHOSGigvlCNcLpWcnqfEoQgDLC29kA56UzwMzOxkwU4JZj2XEssXnY/s72-c/srilanka33.jpg&description="A bit of thinking provides others uses that are well within the scope of this technology. One such instance could be to insert a desir...){kind=link}
Post a Comment