Gene Doping & the Olympics

Cutting-edge medicine is perhaps most likely to be sought out by those with desperate need. Desperately ill people might be the first group of such people to come to mind. But what about people who are desperately driven to win in sports?

From Andrew Moseman on Discover's "80 Beats" blog: Geneticists Are On the Lookout for the First Gene-Doping Athletes

We’re only a week away from the 2010 Winter Olympics opening in Vancouver, and the return of the games brings with it the return of crazy stories about how far world-class athletes will go to get even the tiniest edge, legal or illegal. In the journal Science this week, researchers led by geneticist Theodore Friedmann take the opportunity to warn about gene doping, the next looming crisis in cheating at high-stakes athletics....

This story brings up a range of ethical issues (not all of them unique to genetic technologies), including:

• use of experimental technologies on desperate patients;
  
• good sportsmanship;
  
• the perverse dynamics of an arms race, and what we can reasonably expect, ethically, from people involved in one;
  
• the lure of all things "genetic" — apparently it's nearly cat-nip for people seeking powerful effects;
  
• the distinction between treatment and enhancement. That distinction that is surprisingly hard to define clearly, but it's important to think about, since it divides 2 goals about which people tend to have very different ethical intuitions.
  

Mistrusting GM Foods: Is It the Product, or the Pusher?

From Australian Food News: Australians “uncomfortable” with GM food

The headline might be a bit misleading. Because a big part of what the story actually says is not that Australians are uncomfortable with GM food per se, but that they're uncomfortable with the institutions promoting GM foods:

Australians remain uneasy about eating genetically modified (GM) foods, according to research from Swinburne University.
The University’s fifth National Science and Technology Monitor found most people well informed about GM but still very mistrustful of the institutions that commercialise GM foods.
“A major target of public mistrust is Monsanto, the world’s biggest seed company that owns patents on over 90% of all commercial GM soy, corn, canola and cotton crops that are grown,” Gene Ethics director Bob Phelps asserted.

Frankly, I'm sympathetic to that worry. And though I have practically no worries about GM foods, and few (but not no) worries about GM crops, I've got much more significant worries about the current patterns of commercialization, and about Monsanto's increasing control over the seed industry.

The Environmental Promise(s) of Industrial Biotech

Here's a useful and substantial article on the environmental promise of industrial, or "white," biotechnology, from EurActiv.com: Greens embrace enzymes in climate change fight:

Industrial biotechnology is gaining supporters among environmentalists as a way to make significant cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions and eventually move to a society free from fossil fuels.

The lofty idea behind industrial, or white, biotechnology is to use nature's own ingredients to solve industrial problems.

White biotech industries use enzymes - proteins that speed up chemical reactions - for various applications to increase efficiency of energy and raw-material use and eventually replace fossil fuels.

The WWF [World Wildlife Fund] estimated last September that industrial biotechnology has the potential to prevent emissions of between 1 and 2.5 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year by 2030. The NGO sought to draw attention to such existing climate solutions that are easily overlooked by politicians and investors alike....

That, of course, is an interesting development in its own right: environmental groups have, as a whole, generally expressed worries about biotechnology, so it's interesting to see one of the big ones, the WWF, expressing optimism in this regard. (In fact I blogged about that here.)

The article also discusses the branch of industrial biotech devoted to the development of alternative fuels. Though I'm no expert, I've always found it hard to believe that any processing plant could ever produce the sheer volume of fuel that, for example, an oil gusher produces. But beyond that, this article urges caution (though not necessarily pessimism) about the environmental benefits of biofuels. Not all biofuels, for example, offer much in the way of environmental benefits when compared to admittedly-dirty petroleum products:

Corn ethanol is currently estimated to produce only a 12-18% net reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to gasoline, while cellulosic ethnanol could cut carbon emissions by 86-94%. If land-use changes are included in calculations, corn ethanol could actually double emissions, according to some estimates.

The point, here, is that it's not enough that a fuel be "clean." What we care about is net benefit.

One final, interesting point:

"The science in itself is not mature in our view," [one biotech executive] stated. "Our worry is that you put in place legislation that will stop the future by being overly conservative. If we are too careful, there is a risk that we won't do anything."

And of course, biotech companies are always going to have such worries. But there's a deeper point, here, one that goes beyond the likely (and understandable) biases of an industry insider. And that is that we shouldn't necessarily judge an entire realm of technology by the success or failure of early products, or the way in which it is initially implemented. The point being made above is that, yes it's true that early biofuels have not made a huge contribution — but that's not to say that, as the technology improves, more significant contributions won't be made. I think the same is true, as another example, for GM crops. Critics have rolled their eyes at what they see as very minimally useful genetic modifications, ones from which consumers for example see no clear benefit. But that's a complaint about a particular set of applications: it's not a good argument against the technology itself.

Monsanto's Business Model: Ethically Less than the Sum of its Parts

Monsanto is widely considered to be Public Enemy #1 by critics of the biotech industry. But most who've heard complaints about Monsanto don't know much more than what's contained in the single-sentence slogans.

But if you're going to form an opinion, it's good to know a little more. As a start, here's a good story by Christopher Leonard, writing for the Associated Press (and coming to you via The Atlanta Journal-Constitution), Monsanto seed biz role revealed. I strongly recommend the whole article. But here's a taste:

Confidential contracts detailing Monsanto Co.'s business practices reveal how the world's biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and protecting its dominance over the multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops, an Associated Press investigation has found.

With Monsanto's patented genes being inserted into roughly 95 percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S., the company also is using its wide reach to control the ability of new biotech firms to get wide distribution for their products, according to a review of several Monsanto licensing agreements and dozens of interviews with seed industry participants, agriculture and legal experts....

Here's a particularly interesting bit:

Monsanto's business strategies and licensing agreements are being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice and at least two state attorneys general, who are trying to determine if the practices violate U.S. antitrust laws....

At issue is how much power one company can have over seeds, the foundation of the world's food supply. Without stiff competition, Monsanto could raise its seed prices at will, which in turn could raise the cost of everything from animal feed to wheat bread and cookies....

This got me thinking: is Monsanto the Microsoft of the biotech world? How so?

Well, consider:

• Like Microsoft, Monsanto makes a product that is increasingly part of the basic infrastructure.
  
• Like Microsoft, it has a big enough market share to border on monopoly.
  
• Like Microsoft, Monsanto's behaviour has been unseemly enough to make it a magnet for criticism, particularly criticism claiming that the company has too mcuh power.
  
• And, like Microsoft, Monsanto just might be a candidate for a government-forced breakup.
  

But the problem with Monsanto, it seems to me (and maybe with Microsoft too), isn't in each individual action or even each practice, taken in isolation. The problem is actually an emergent feature of Monsanto's business activities, taken as a whole. Consider each of the individual business practices for which Monsanto is known:

• Making seeds for plants with novel, useful traits available to farmers? Nothing wrong with that.
  
• Licensing your technology to other companies that find it useful? Seems fine.
  
• Attaching "strings" (contractual limits) to the use to which other companies put the technology they license from you? Sure!
  
• Protecting your intellectual property rights — ones entrenched in law — against encroachment? What business wouldn't do that?
  

But a thousand perfectly ethical actions don't necessarily add up to a practice that is ethically OK. And the same principle applies from a legal point of view. So, maybe the point here is that Monsanto should be broken up. Not because they've necessarily done anything spectacularly unethical, but just because the net result of their business practices is bad, namely an unhealthy domination of the seed industry.

PR 101 for Biotech: Don't Call Your Opponents "Looney"

Does this headline strike you as a good idea?

From the UK-based publication, Meat Trade News Daily: Australia - Looney Activists out in force

Anti-GM activists have protested outside the opening of a genetically modified technology conference in Melbourne.

They bought along about 10 bags of what they say was GM canola found along roadsides.

They also had a bouquet of GM canola, which was to be presented to Victorian Agriculture Minister Joe Helper.

"GM co-existence is a con and is impossible. Segregation doesn't work. We collected this canola from the road side and it proves out point," says one of the protesters, Catherine Moore.

Of course, it might simply be true that these particular protestors were looney. But probably not. More likely they just have a view the writer of this article disagrees with. It might even be a poorly-thought-out or undersupported point of view. But still. "Looney?" That's hardly first-rate stakeholder relations. And at this particular point in time, the food industry does not need to be seen looking (more) like jerks.

Biotech in Bangladesh: A View from Inside

There's plenty of debate over whether or how biotechnology will help developing nations. Some people see hope in biotech's promise to increase crop yields, to make vaccines that don't need refrigeration, and to offer new methods of bioremediation. Others suspect that the world's poorest people will essentially see the biotech revolution and its expensive technologies pass them by.

Here's a view of biotech from inside one of the world's poorest nations, Bangladesh:

From the Financial Express of Bangladesh: Biotechnology in Bangladesh

...Use of modern biotechnology (recombinant DNA) is at its infancy in Bangladesh. It is mainly confined to development, standardisation, and vitro culture and micro-propagation of cereals, vegetables and horticultural crops. But embryo rescue and somaclonal variation culture are at the lower spectrum of the biotechnological gradients. The fisheries and livestock sectors have achieved insignificant progress.
Biotechnological development in Bangladesh is at its primary stage.
Lack of infrastructure and shortage of funds and skilled manpower are hindering the progress in biotechnological research. Again, it cannot be used due to lack of interest among entrepreneurs....

(That quotation is from the middle; it's worth reading the whole short article.)

University of Akron Wants Employee DNA

Bizarre!

From one of CBS News' "Taking Liberties" blog: Want A Job In Akron? Hand Over Your DNA

It's not unusual for employers to conduct criminal background checks during the hiring process. But the University of Akron has taken this to a surprising new level.

The Ohio school now reserves the right to require any prospective faculty, staff, or contractor to submit a DNA sample, which genetic-testing experts say makes it the first employer in the nation to take such an extreme and potentially intrusive step.

Why on earth is a university taking a step that seems to violate the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act? The explanation offered by the University (outlined in the CBS blog entry) isn't very convincing. Generally, policies of any kind are implemented in response to a recurring problem. And U of Akron doesn't seem to be able to be clear about just what that problem is, let alone make the case that it's a problem sufficiently grave to warrant massive invasion of employees' genetic privacy.

Biotech & World Hunger: Good Debate, Wrong Question

If you want a quick overview of the main points for-and-against GM foods, you could do worse than to check out this recent debate hosted by the NY Times: Can Biotech Food Cure World Hunger?

With food prices remaining high in developing countries, the United Nations estimates that the number of hungry people around the world could increase by 100 million in 2009 and pass the one billion mark. A summit of world leaders in Rome scheduled for November will set an agenda for ways to reduce hunger and increase investment in agriculture development in poor countries.

What will drive the next Green Revolution? Is genetically modified food an answer to world hunger? Are there other factors that will make a difference in food production?

And the piece includes short commentaries from:

Paul Collier, economist, Oxford Univ.
Vandana Shiva, activist and author
Per Pinstrup-Andersen, prof. of nutrition and public policy, Cornell
Raj Patel, Institute for Food and Development Policy
Jonathan Foley, U of Minnesota
Michael J. Roberts, economist, North Carolina State U.

The biggest problem with the NYT debate here is the starting point: curing world hunger? Please. No technology is going to do that, and to put that forward as a possibility is to set oneself up for a disappointment of tragic proportions. The right question is more like, "Can biotech — as it could be used, rather than as it has been used thus far — provide sufficient gains in productivity, in the right parts of the world, to have a meaningful effect on overall levels of hunger?"

Reminder: Survey on Personal Genomics & Ethics

This is a reminder that our research survey on Personal Genomics, Privacy & Consent is still open, and we still need input from people with a wide range of points of view. This is an innovative, interactive survey that lets you see the answers other people have given while you take the survey, as well as letting you respond.

You can visit the page hosting the survey here: yourviews.ubc.ca

For a fuller explanation, see my previous blog entry on this.

Geneticists Challenge Personal Genomics Companies' Results

As I've blogged before, the usefulness of the whole-genome scans offered by personal genomics companies is very much subject to debate. It's not clear just what one is supposed to be able to do with the test results, beyond being fascinated and entertained. But at very least, consumers are bound to expect the tests to be scientifically credible.

Well, the biggest name in genomics has just hurled a bit of a challenge in the direction of 2 personal genomics companies, in that regard.

Here's the story, from the Genetic Future blog: Scientists call for changes to personal genomics based on comparison of test results

Four scientists - including the omnipresent J. Craig Venter (left) - have penned an opinion piece in the latest issue of Nature based results from five individuals genotyped by two separate personal genomics companies. The article highlights some deficiencies in the way that genetic data are currently used by direct-to-consumer companies to generate risk predictions and to present them to customers.

Here's the story as reported by the LA Times:Warning: DNA test results may not be as reliable as they appear.

Interestingly, no comment has appeared on 23andMe's blog or Navigenics' blog.

On Navigenics Fan Page on Facebook, however, the company has posted links to a couple of news items on this topic...but hasn't added any comments of its own.