Genetic Modification

This topic seemed to be a recurring theme in this month's New Scientists, and it got my attention. My first main interest was in a study being conducted by Oxitec, who were using GM mosquitos to fight the spread of dengue fever. The mosquitos were modified to die before reaching adulthood. A group of male GM mosquitos would be released into an affected area and then mate with normal (infected) females. Their offspring would die being reaching adulthood and the spread of the disease would be cut. Primary test in the Jacobina region of Brazil show that the number of eggs fell by up to 92% but there was no fall in the incidence of dengue fever. This, however, could be due to an extremely small sample size. The article states that a full epidemiological study must be conducted before results can be seriously considered. This concept is really topical in the world of medicine, with diseases like malaria causing so many deaths every year. If this study proves successful, could we be looking at seriously fighting malaria?
The second incidence of modification was in worms. Scientists had conducted a study involving the neurons of nematodes. They started by using electrical synapses to bridge a gap junction involved in recognition of salt concentration. They did this by injecting DNA onto the gonads of Caenorhabditis elegans which codes for a protein involved in establishing extra neural connections. They used mouse genes to avoid interaction with other neurons and found that the response to salt in the next generation of worms was massively depleted. The second investigation they conducted was in the smell of these worms. They added electrical synapses to neurons previously connected by a chemical link. This retraced the signals and eliminated the worms ability to recognise smells. This circuit for smell in the worms is comparable to circuits for eyesight in other organisms, which poses questions as to how else this technique could be used. One suggestion from the article was that it could be used to treat stroke victims. They could be given a pill to reconnect the damaged areas of their brain by creating neural bypasses to avoid damaged areas. Another important idea raised was that, by editing synaptic pathways, one could genetically modify an organism to possess a specifically grown brain circuit with a certain skill set. This could include organisms such as worms able to protect crops by identifying dangerous bacteria, which is definitely appropriate given the food crisis we are heading into. However, this made me wonder whether the genetic modification of organisms is ethical. Admittedly, in nematodes, it is less of a concern, particularly given their small CNS, but in larger organisms, it raises an issue for me. If we are able to insert skills be rewiring a brain in a certain way, why do we need to learn? What need to we have for education? When we are simply able to have an operation to allow us to have a certain skill set, why would anyone want to spent 4 years and a crazy amount of money to train in that skill? When society is levelled out in this way, it reduces the need for skilled individuals. I think this is a dangerous concept.
And I believe lots of the rest of the population agree with me that GM can be a little scary, perhaps just for different reasons. Another article was discussing GM crops, and it was heavily focused on the public opinion of this idea, which is generally fairly negative. They seem to be concerned about the ideas of 'tomatoes with scorpion genes in them,' and this concern seems to make them reluctant to consider the less shaky, more high tech ways of modification. They also appear to be unaware of how regularly genes are naturally swapped between species in the wild. This got me thinking why people have this view. Is it the fault of the scientific community? Or is it simply that they haven't bothered to do enough research into it themselves to see that there are alternatives that don't involve putting a salmon genes into strawberries? Either way, the scientific community is forced to concern itself with this public opinion, and I can't decide if this is right. I'm not sure that it seems right that professionals are forced to halt all progressions in their research if someone unqualified doesn't really like it much, particularly if the research is looking into solving a world issue, such as the food crisis. Granted, if the public are unhappy about GM crops, the research may be slightly useless because they won't buy the product, but can this concept be transferred to other areas? For example, stem cell research. To be answered.