3/26/2020



Resource: Genetic Technology Case Studies

Case Study Type Case Study Resource

Bt Corn Bt Corn Resource Card Genetic (Mild) Technology and Plants Golden Rice Golden Rice Resource Card (Mild)

Genetic GM Mosquitos GM Mosquitos Resource Card Technology and (Medium) GM Mosquitos Video Animals (non- human) De-Extincting the Woolly Mammoth Resource Card Woolly Mammoth (Spicy)

Genetic Human Germline Human Germline and Embryo Editing Technology and and Embryo Editing Resource Card Humans (Spicy)

Personal Genetic Personal Genetic Testing Kits Resource Card Testing Kits (Medium)

 Bt Corn Resource Card

What is Bt Corn?

https://www.summitlearning.org/docs/84010?fromType=ProjectAsset&fromId=23623142 1/10 3/26/2020 Bt-corn is a type of genetically modified organism, called a GMO. A GMO is a plant or animal that has been genetically changed through the addition of a small amount of genetic material from another donor organism. This allows the GMO plant or animal to produce new proteins using the genes from the donor organism. In the case of Bt corn, the donor organism is a bacteria, Bacillus thuringiensis (or Bt). This bacteria produces a protein that is able to kill corn-eating caterpillars. This protein is considered very safe to humans, and only is harmful to specific groups of insects. By putting the genes for this protein from the bacteria into corn, the corn can avoid being eaten by caterpillars. This means that farmers do not need to spray on caterpillar-killing pesticides onto their Bt corn because the genetic change allows the corn to defend itself. One benefit of Bt corns is that it reduces the use of pesticides sprayed onto crops. Pesticides are chemicals used to repel or kill animals and plants that would damage a farmer’s crops. When farmers grow more Bt corn, they spray less insect-killing chemicals on their crops. However, Bt corn may harm other organisms unintentionally. Some research shows that when plant parts from Bt corn get washed into streams, the Bt protein in the plants can harm insects living in the stream. Other animals, like fish, that eat those insects could also be harmed if they rely on those insects for food.

Adapted from: Entomology.edu - Bt Corn - What It Is and How It Works; Harvard.edu - GMOs and Pesticides: Helpful or Harmful?; Sciencedaily.com - Genetically Engineered Corn Could Harm Aquatic Ecosystems

 Golden Rice Resource Card

What is Golden Rice?

Golden Rice is a type of genetically modified organism, called a GMO. A GMO is a plant or animal that has been genetically changed through the addition of a small amount of genetic material from another donor organism. This allows the GMO plant or animal to produce new proteins using the genes from the donor organism.

https://www.summitlearning.org/docs/84010?fromType=ProjectAsset&fromId=23623142 2/10 3/26/2020 In Golden Rice, genes have been added to the rice so that it produces Vitamin A. These genes come from the daffodil flower and corn, and they are also found in squash, carrots, and  melons. These genes cause the Golden Rice to have a golden yellow color. Vitamin A is a nutrient that many poorer people do not get enough of in many countries. If a person does not get enough Vitamin A, especially children, they can lose their sight and become blind.

Some of the research on Golden Rice has caused concern. One study on the rice showed that humans will easily be able to absorb the Vitamin A. This study was done on children in China. However, the researchers did not tell the parents and children that the rice they were eating was genetically modified. This made many people angry.

A possible benefit of Golden Rice is that this rice will provide a large amount of Vitamin A to the diet. One serving of Golden Rice can provide 60% of a daily dose of Vitamin A. Golden Rice also seems to be low risk for environmental impacts. The pollen from Golden Rice is not likely to spread to other plants or harm the surrounding ecosystem.

People disagree about whether Golden Rice is the best way to solve the problem of not enough Vitamin A. Some suggest that Golden Rice is more expensive than other options for helping people get Vitamin A into their diet, like nutritional education programs. However, Golden Rice would be the same cost as regular rice, and may be easier to transport than fresh vegetables.

Adapted from: npr.org - In a Grain of Golden Rice, a World of Controversy Over GMO Foods; nytimes.com - Golden Rice: Lifesaver?

 GM Mosquitos Resource Card

What are GM Mosquitos?

GM Mosquitos are a type of genetically modified organism, called a GMO. A GMO is a plant or animal that has been genetically changed through the addition of a small amount of genetic material from another donor organism. This allows the GMO plant or animal to produce new https://www.summitlearning.org/docs/84010?fromType=ProjectAsset&fromId=23623142 3/10 3/26/2020 proteins using the genes from the donor organism.

Many dangerous viruses are spread by a species of mosquitoes called Aedes aegypti. To reduce the number of infections, health officials use various methods aimed at reducing mosquito populations. One of those methods is to produce genetically modified (GM) Aedes aegypti mosquitoes that, when released into the wild, reproduce with wild mosquitoes and cause their offspring to die.

GM mosquitoes were engineered mosquitoes to carry a “killer” gene that prevents mosquito larvae from growing into adults unless they are fed an antidote. The killer gene comes from a species of coral. This antidote to the killer gene is given to the mosquitoes in the lab where they are raised, but not in the wild. When GM mosquitoes are released and mate with wild mosquitoes, the offspring will die before becoming adults because of the killer gene. Because the offspring of these mosquitos die before they become adults, there is little chance that these genetic modifications could spread to other populations in the ecosystem.

In 2015, male mosquitoes from this GM colony were released in some areas of Brazil to help stop the spread of Zika virus, a dangerous mosquito-carried virus that causes birth defects. Scientists are hopeful that the GM mosquitoes will reduce the spread of Zika by causing the mosquito population to drop. Experiments show that releasing GM mosquitoes can cause the mosquito population to drop by 50–90%. However, scientists do not yet know if this will be enough to reduce the spread of Zika.

Other diseases, like malaria, are spread by many species of mosquito. It may be harder to use GM mosquitoes to reduce disease transmission with diseases carried by many different mosquito species, instead of only one species.

Adapted from: Labocine.com - Genetically Modified Mosquitoes; ScientificAmerican.com - FDA Says Deploying Genetically Modified Mosquitoes is Environmentally Safe

 Woolly Mammoth Resource Card

https://www.summitlearning.org/docs/84010?fromType=ProjectAsset&fromId=23623142 4/10 3/26/2020 Earth is in the midst of its sixth mass extinction: Somewhere between 30 and 159 species disappear every day, thanks largely to humans. But what if extinction wasn’t permanent? New advances in genetic engineering have researchers saying it’s time to think about which animals we might be able to bring back, and which ones would do the most good for the  ecosystems they left behind. Ecologists at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), published guidelines for how to choose which species to revive if we want to do the most good for our planet's ecosystems.

One animal at the forefront of this discussion is the woolly mammoth, a hairy, close relative of the elephant that lived in the Arctic. The last mammoths died about 4000 years ago.

As cool as it might be to visit a zoo filled with woolly mammoths, saber-toothed tigers, and giant tortoises, the best reasons for bringing back extinct animals have more to do with ecology. “If this is always going to be a zoo animal, then stop,” says ecologist Ben Novak, the lead researcher at Revive & Restore—a foundation devoted to genetically rescuing endangered and extinct species in San Francisco, California. “The goals have to be about ecological restoration and function.”

When the woolly mammoth went extinct, their habitats changed dramatically. Harvard University’s George Church, the lead researcher working to de-extinct the mammoth, says that bringing back the giants could help convert the Arctic tundra back to grasslands that existed during the last ice age. Reviving the mammoth, Church says, could help slow climate change by shifting the landscape back toward the grasslands.

How de-extinction could work

One option is cloning. Scientists would take a preserved cell from a recently extinct animal (ideally before the last of its kind died) and extract the nucleus. They would then swap this nucleus into an egg cell from the animal’s closest living relative and implant the egg into a surrogate host. (Researchers actually did this in 2007, and a common goat gave birth to an extinct species, the Pyrenean ibex. The infant lived only 7 minutes however, because of genetic problems with its lungs.)

https://www.summitlearning.org/docs/84010?fromType=ProjectAsset&fromId=23623142 5/10 3/26/2020 The newest option is genetic engineering. Here, researchers would line up the genome of an extinct animal with that of its closest living relative. They would then use gene- editing tools to swap relevant genes from the extinct animal into the living species and implant the hybrid genome into a closely related animal (or grow it in an artificial womb). This approach doesn’t produce genetically identical copies of extinct animals, but rather modern versions of an animal engineered to look and behave like its extinct relatives. This is the technology being used by the mammoth research groups.

What are the risks?

The spread of genes can be difficult to control. “It becomes hard to control those sorts of populations,” Seddon says. “And there are the same fears one might have about genetically modified crops—the idea that a modification may move into relatives, may jump in and out, or may not be expressed in the way that you expect.” Scientists are confident that there’s a safe way to proceed, but mistakes may come at a high cost.

McCauley says his biggest concern isn’t a runaway genetic experiment wreaking havoc on a fragile ecosystem. “Honestly, the thing that scares me most is that the public absorbs the misimpression that extinction is no longer scary,” he says. “That the mindset becomes: Deforest, no biggie, we can reforest. If we drive something extinct, no biggie, we can de-extinct it.”

Introducing (or reintroducing) a new species to a habitat always comes with some risk, but de-extinction scientists point out that we’ve been able to manage that risk successfully with living animals like reintroducing wolves into Yellowstone National Park or beavers into the United Kingdom. There have also been disasters, like the poisonous cane toad in Australia, which was originally imported to help control the gray-backed cane beetles that were damaging sugar crops, but is now spreading across the continent and harming the ecosystems.

Regardless, de-extinction is speeding closer to reality, and now is the time to start thinking about it, McCauley says. “For a long time it was easy to just put it aside because the technology wasn’t there,” he says. “But I don’t think we can do that anymore.”

Adapted from: LiveScience.com - Woolly Mammoth Clones Closer Than Ever, Thanks to Genetic Sequencing; ScienceMag.org - Should we bring extinct species back from the dead?

https://www.summitlearning.org/docs/84010?fromType=ProjectAsset&fromId=23623142 6/10 3/26/2020  Human Germline and Embryo Editing Resource Card

Gene therapy isn’t new, but the development of a new genetic editing technique has made it much easier to change a genome. The new technique enables researchers to specifically target a region of DNA and add or remove genes – both a useful tool for research, and a technique that can treat diseases in people.

Scientists and politicians are debating how this tool should be used. One possibility is to use this tool to make germline edits, which could be passed down to a person’s children. “Germline” is a biologists’ word for the egg and sperm, which combine to form an embryo. By editing the DNA of these cells or the embryo itself, it could be possible to correct disease genes and pass those genetic fixes on to future generations. Such a technology could be used to get rid of genetic illnesses like cystic fibrosis. It might also be possible to install genes that offer lifelong protection against infection, Alzheimer’s, and maybe the effects of aging.

The genetic changes created by germline editing would be passed on, and that’s what has made many people concerned. A dozen countries, not including the United States, have banned germline editing, and the European Union’s convention on human rights and biomedicine says tampering with the gene pool would be a crime against “human dignity” and human rights.

What are the risks?

Gene editing treatments in general are not without some risk. There’s a chance, for instance, that a therapy will have “off-target effects”, changing other genes accidentally.

The risks are higher when it comes to germline editing. Beyond off-target effects, there’s a chance that attempts to perform gene editing on an embryo will create a mix of treated and untreated cells. This problem has been common in genetic editing experiments on mouse embryos, says Robin Lovell-Badge of the Francis Crick Institute. Lovell-Badge is part of the Committee on Human Genome Editing, a group of 22 researchers, lawyers and ethicists, who released a report on this topic recently. https://www.summitlearning.org/docs/84010?fromType=ProjectAsset&fromId=23623142 7/10 3/26/2020

Lovell-Badge and his colleagues concluded that germline editing could be performed in humans, but only after much more research to minimize the risks. Even then, the public must have a say, and any trials must be performed under strict oversight.

Ethical and social concerns

Would people only use the genetic technique to treat illnesses, or to make themselves stronger and more intelligent than average? In the future, human enhancement might be considered acceptable, says Lovell-Badge. “We may need to modify aspects of our physiology to adapt to climate change,” he says.

If germline editing becomes part of medical practice, it could lead to major changes in human well-being. But it would also create ethical dilemmas and social challenges. What if these improvements were available only to the richest societies, or the richest people? And it would affect people not yet born, without their being able to agree to it.

The Committee on Human Genome Editing report is not in favour of gene editing techniques to enhance people, or create “designer babies” with enhanced traits. “It’s the thing that worries people the most, because it is felt to be unfair,” says Lovell- Badge. “It’s the same as using drugs to cheat.”

Jennifer Doudna is a Berkeley scientist who co-discovered the new genetic editing technique. She had become aware that scientists might be thinking of using her technique to do germline editing in humans, and she was concerned. “There are moral and ethical issues, but one of the profound questions is just the appreciation that if germ-line editing is conducted in humans, that is changing human evolution. It makes you ask if humans should be exercising that kind of power.”

“We as scientists have come to appreciate that genetic editing is incredibly powerful. But that swings both ways. We need to make sure that it’s applied carefully,” Doudna says.

Adapted from: NewScientist.com - Human genome editing shouldn’t be used for enhancement – yet; TechnologyReview.com - Engineering the perfect baby

https://www.summitlearning.org/docs/84010?fromType=ProjectAsset&fromId=23623142 8/10 3/26/2020  Personal Genetic Testing Kits Resource Card

When companies tried selling consumers personal genetics testing kits, doctors and health experts were worried. What if the tests were inaccurate or inconsistent? What if  people didn’t understand the results and made bad decisions from them? What if they were traumatized by learning they were at high risk for Alzheimer’s or breast cancer or another disease?

The what-ifs prompted New York State to ban the direct sale of the genetic tests to consumers. Members of a national advisory commission concluded that personal DNA testing needed to be carefully supervised by experts.

However, in two separate studies of genetic tests, researchers have found that people want to know information about their own bodies. Most people say they’ll pay for genetic tests even if the predictions are sometimes wrong, and most people don’t seem to be traumatized even when they receive bad news.

In fact, the researchers were surprised to see how little effect the test results had. While some people discussed the results with their doctor, they generally did not change their diets or their exercise habits even when they’d been told these steps might lower some of their risks.

“We had theorized there would be an improvement in lifestyle, but we saw no sign whatsoever,” says Dr. Topol, the senior author of one of the reports. “Instead of turning inward and becoming activists about their health, they turned to medical screening, like a colonoscopy test if they were at higher risk for colon cancer.”

However, some people in the studies didn’t want the tests, even if they were free. They explained that they didn’t want to live with the knowledge of their genetic risks. The those in favor of the ban argue that it’s still unclear how to interpret some of these

https://www.summitlearning.org/docs/84010?fromType=ProjectAsset&fromId=23623142 9/10 3/26/2020 genetic tests. The tests may also seem unnecessary or wasteful in situations where there’s nothing doctors can do to prevent the disease.

Risks and limitations of personal genetic testing

Many of the risks associated with genetic testing involve the emotional, social, or financial consequences of the test results. People may feel angry, depressed, anxious, or guilty about their results. In some cases, genetic testing creates tension within a family because the results can reveal information about other family members in addition to the person who is tested. The possibility of genetic discrimination in employment or insurance is also a concern.

Genetic testing can provide only limited information about an inherited condition. The test often can't determine if a person will show symptoms of a disorder, how severe the symptoms will be, or whether the disorder will progress over time. Another major limitation is the lack of treatment strategies for many genetic disorders once they are diagnosed.

A genetics professional can explain in detail the benefits, risks, and limitations of a particular test. It is important that any person who is considering genetic testing understand and weigh these factors before making a decision.

Adapted from: NYTimes.com - Heavy Doses of DNA Data, With Few Side Effects, NIH.gov - What are the risks and limitations of genetic testing?

https://www.summitlearning.org/docs/84010?fromType=ProjectAsset&fromId=23623142 10/10