PERSPECTIVES Chancellor Pushes the Red Button High-level visit to the control room of the Wendelstein 7-X nuclear fusion re- actor: Chancellor Angela Merkel, a physicist herself, visited Greifswald in early February to switch on the first hydrogen plasma at the fusion reactor. “Every step we have taken toward the fusion power plant over the course of a century represents a success,” under- scored Merkel before a large audience from the realms of science and politics before getting down to action. For the all-important push of the button, em- ployees from the Max Planck Institute of Plasma Physics had a glass cube structure with the silhouette of the fu- sion reactor specially constructed and positioned on a steel column. Shortly after Angela Merkel spiritedly pressed the button, a bright light flickered on the monitors. These screens provided a glimpse inside the plasma vessel, where the brief fusion reaction the Chancellor had set in motion via the 2-megawatt pulse of microwave heat could be seen. Reaching a temperature of 80 million degrees and lasting a quarter of a second, the first hydrogen plasma in the system fully met the ex- Before the start: Project manager Thomas Klinger, Managing Director Sibylle Günter, pectations of scientists and engineers Helmholtz President Otmar Wiestler, Chancellor Angela Merkel, Max Planck President Martin at the Institute. Stratmann and Erwin Sellering, Minister President of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (from left). New Network for Alumni Former Max Planck scientists join together Every year scientists from many different countries visit the sizes that: “Their skills are nevertheless important to the Max Max Planck Institutes and, conversely, many head off to all Planck Society as a whole, across institute boundaries.” parts of the world as alumni. For some time now, the Max This was reason enough for him and five other alumni Planck Society has endeavored to cooperate with them in es- from different institutes to establish the Max Planck Alum- tablishing a global, cross-disciplinary network. The alumni ni Association e.V. This new union will enable all alumni to work has thus far focused on former working locations. “Max work on independent projects autonomously and for the Planck alumni feel an affinity primarily with their institute,” benefit of the entire organization and its scientists – for in- said Filippo Guarnieri, who previously worked at the Max stance to foster knowledge sharing, career development Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics. But he also empha- and recruiting. Photo: Norbert Fellechner/IPP 6 MaxPlanckResearch 2 | 16 PERSPECTIVES “The end product is what matters” Detlef Weigel, Director at the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, explains why genome editing offers a targeted way of breeding better crops Greater resistance to pests, less sensitivi- DNA with a protein at a predefined loca- ty to drought, higher yields – this is just a tion. The genome editing method known small selection of the requirements that as CRISPR/Cas9 has become the most crops will have to fulfill in the future. Hu- common method. We can then modify the manity needs new crops that can with- DNA at the interface or insert new sec- stand the changes arising from global tions. So genome editing should be viewed warming and meet the growing demand as a variant of mutation breeding, with the for food. With the help of a new method difference that the generation of particu- called genome editing, scientists are seek- lar mutations is targeted. ing to develop new crop varieties more ef- The major advantage here is that these ficiently than before. If no foreign genes modifications can be obtained in the same are inserted into these plants, they can’t way as they are made in traditional breed- be distinguished from plants that have ing and crossing experiments. For exam- been bred using traditional methods. For ple, individual letters of the genetic code this reason, Detlef Weigel from the Tübin- can be exchanged. This corresponds to a gen-based Max Planck Institute for Devel- modification that can also arise through Detlef Weigel is in favor of opmental Biology, together with col- natural mutation. Short sections of DNA classifying genome-edited plants as traditionally bred plants. leagues from the US and China, is asking can also be inserted and, in this way, genes for genome-edited plant varieties of this from a species can be replaced with genes kind not to be classified as genetically from its other varieties or from closely re- nome was altered through breeding. At modified plants. lated species – something that is also done the end of the process, there is nothing to in traditional cross-breeding. indicate how the new variety arose. Mr. Weigel, how are new varieties bred from crops today? The criticism regarding genetically modified So genome-edited plants shouldn’t be Detlef Weigel: It’s important to realize plants is aroused by the aforementioned treated like genetically modified plants if that traditional breeding also aims to alter “foreign genes” in particular. Do genome-edited they don’t contain any foreign DNA? the DNA of the plants. For example, if you plants also contain such foreign DNA? Exactly! This is why we are asking for them would like to obtain a new plant that can The genetic information for the cutting to be classified as traditionally bred plants. withstand drought and produce high protein is usually inserted into the plant’s In our view, how a plant variety came into yields, you can cross existing varieties that DNA so that it can be formed in the plant being doesn’t make any difference; the end are resistant to drought or produce partic- cells. This gene doesn’t arise naturally in product alone is what matters. In my view, ularly high yields. The genes for these traits plants and is, therefore, foreign DNA. Fol- it doesn’t make any sense to classify plants are newly mixed in the descendants’ DNA, lowing the successful modification of the as different if it isn’t possible to say how and some plants receive the genes for both genome, however, it can be completely they came into being. traits. Chemical substances or radiation removed. Using the analysis methods can also be used to generate mutations available today, it is possible to ensure Is this possible from a legal point of view, or somewhere in the genetic code. Plants that a genome-edited plant no longer would it require a change in the law? with new traits can also arise in this way. contains any foreign DNA. Genome edit- The German Genetic Engineering Act states However, it is very time-consuming and ing can also be used to insert completely that the descendants of a genetically mod- complicated to seek out plants with the de- foreign genes into the genome – as is the ified plant must also be classified as genet- sired traits from thousands of mutants. case in traditional genetic engineering. ically modified. So the fact that genome-ed- However, this kind of genome editing ited plants temporarily contained the gene What is the difference between genome-edited should be subject to different regulations for the cutting protein would make them and genetically modified plants? than the kind that is used to make minor and their descendants genetically modified With traditional genetic engineering, modifications. plants forever – despite the fact that the for- genes are often introduced into a plant’s eign gene was removed without trace. This DNA that do not arise naturally in the spe- Is it possible to distinguish at all between was certainly not the intention of the legis- cies, for example genes for resistance to a genome-edited and traditionally bred plants? lator, as genome engineering didn’t yet ex- herbicide. Different processes exist for If no foreign genes are inserted, then, no, ist when the Genetic Engineering Act was this: for example, the genes can be “shot” it isn’t possible. A plant that has been passed. So we suggest that the Genetic En- into the plant cells using a kind of “gene modified using genome editing doesn’t gineering Act should not be applied to ge- Photo: Jens Abendroth for the MPI Developmental Biology gun.” With genome editing, we cut the differ in any way from a plant whose ge- nome-edited plants. Interview: Harald Rösch 2 | 16 MaxPlanckResearch 7 PERSPECTIVES Leibniz Prizes Awarded to Three Max Planck Researchers Prestigious award presented to Marina Rodnina, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Benjamin List The Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Prize, awarded annually by the German Re- search Foundation, is one of the most prestigious scientific prizes in Germa- ny. The prize is endowed with up to 2.5 million euros, and once again, three Max Planck Directors received the award in March 2016. Marina Rodnina from the Max Planck Institute for Biophysical Chem- istry was honored for her pioneering efforts on understanding the function of ribosomes. She succeeded in shed- Great honor: The winners of this year’s Leibniz Prizes include Max Planck Directors Marina ding light on the fundamental princi- Rodnina, Emmanuelle Charpentier and Benjamin List. ples of how ribosomes – the protein factories of living cells – function. Em- bacteria, can be deployed as a high-pre- the prize for establishing an entirely manuelle Charpentier, Director at the cision tool to investigate the function new field of catalysis research. List dis- Max Planck Institute for Infection Bi- of genes and to manipulate genetic covered one of the foundations of or- ology, was presented the award for de- material. Benjamin List, Director at ganocatalysis, which allows natural veloping the CRISPR/Cas9 technique. the Max-Planck-Institut für Kohlen- substances rather than metals to be This mechanism, which stems from forschung (Coal Research), received used as catalysts for the first time.