^{An unidentified Greenpeace vandal destroys an experimental GM wheat crop belonging to CSIRO, an Australian government agency.}

As regular readers of the Grapevine would be aware, I work as a research scientist on the development of genetically-modified pasture grasses for the Australian dairy industry. I am proud of the work that I do and I believe that GM has much to offer Australian agriculture in terms of better nutritive value, increased productivity and reduced environmental impacts.

Having worked in Australian science for a number of years, I can assure you that no-one enters the scientific profession for the money. Rather it is a love of the scientific method, combined with a belief that one is contributing to a larger project and body of work that will ultimately bring benefits for all humankind. In my case, the decision to become a research scientist was also influenced by a passion for molecular biology and a love of and fascination with plants that goes back to my childhood.

Science is a vocation. In the public sector (which employs the greatest number of plant research scientists in Australia) many work long hours for relatively low pay. We do this because we believe in what we’re doing and because we love what we do. We invest more than our time in our work: we invest our soul.

Scientific research is very expensive. One project can cost millions of dollars, easily. Inserting genes into wheat (be it via Agrobaterium-mediation or microprojectile bombardment) is a tricky process at the best of times, as is typical for many monocotyledonous species. To get an experiment to an advanced stage where thousands of seedlings are subjected to field evaluation would have cost CSIRO staff many years of hard work and the taxpayer a lot of money.

Many people don’t realise what happens before GM plants are put into the field for evaluation. In extremely brief terms, suitable plant material needs to be produced before it is subjected to some form of transformation. Only a small number of plants will actually incorporate the transgene, so each seedling must have its DNA checked to see whether the new gene is present as well as being tested for other properties. Finally the plants are transferred to a glasshouse for bulking-up before the field trial commences. It doesn’t stop there, as the plants have to be measured for phenotypic traits (appearance) as well as the trait-of-interest during the trial. After all, there’s no value inserting a gene if it doesn’t work!

When all of that is completed, a classical breeding programme ensues followed by a massive regulatory process. From start to finish, this typically takes more than a decade and involves the contributions of dozens of senior scientists, research scientists, technical officers and PhD or Honours students.

And then in one fell swoop, cowardly Greenpeace vandals enter in the early morning and cut it all down. Just like that.

I don’t work for CSIRO, but I know exactly how the scientists and students whose work this is would feel. Devastated.

And for what?

How does destroying the work of a PhD student, or the achievements of a research scientist convince the Commonwealth Government that GM is “wrong” as Greenpeace ignorantly proclaims? How does wanton vandalism convince the broader Australian community that Greenpeace is a respectable organisation that has legitimate concerns about a scientific project or a new technology?

It doesn’t.

What it shows is that Greenpeace – contrary to their name – aren’t too peaceful at all.

Just because I don’t like something doesn’t give me the right to destroy it.

When I wrote my blog article about GM canola in 2007, I was subjected to all sorts of abuse, pseudoscience, myth and even a death threat. The noisiest opponents of GM are the very people who provide the greatest threat to free speech and democracy by using violence to try to get at those of us who have an opposing view.

Personally speaking, I recognise that GM is not a cure-all. I understand that world hunger is more of an economic and political problem than an agricultural problem and GM alone won’t fix it. I understand that some applications of GM can be risky or even unethical. But that is why we have government-funded scientific trials which evaluate the risks and if necessary, cancel the work. We evaluate, risk-assess, then assist government regulators make a calm, reasoned and intelligent decision about whether a product should be released or not.

Contrary to the propaganda of Greenpeace activists, scientific thought isn’t bought and sold. There isn’t a secret global conspiracy. We’re not all working for, or brainwashed by, Monsanto or any other demonised multinational company. In Australia’s case, most plant scientists work directly for government and earn public sector wages which are directly paid for with grants and recurrent funding.

I don’t believe that genetic modification technology poses any risk to the community whatsoever. But like all technologies, it has to be used appropriately. As Alfred Nobel eventually discovered with dynamite, his invention could be used for good or it could be used for evil. But dynamite itself wasn’t the problem. The same applies with the genetic modification of plants.

My final thought relates to the “dangerous” nature of the technology that Greenpeace condemns.

As we are required to do under the Gene Technology Act 2000 and associated regulations, we scientists take great care in containing and transporting our transgenic plants. They must be transported within double-sealed containers, documented records of movement must be kept and any rubbish destroyed by autoclaving. When the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator permits a trial, it comes with strict conditions to ensure no unintended contamination or spread.

Therefore, it probably goes without saying that violently shredding transgenic wheat plants in an open field with little regard for containment is a very odd approach to take. It would be akin to anti-nuclear protesters breaking into a reactor and spreading uranium everywhere. The logic is flawed.

I hope this episode goes to demonstrate to the broader community the true nature of Greenpeace as an organisation that rejects science and reason. This is a truth that Dr. Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace realised when he eventually left the organisation in 1986.

Science is not infallible and has its faults, but it’s the best mechanism we have to improve our lives and evaluate the risks and benefits of technologies. Without science, we’d be thrown back into the dark ages.

_____________

These views are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer.

^{Amanita muscaria forms a beneficial relationship with pine trees, and hence the two will often be seen together.}

In a horticultural context, most fungi are either beneficial or harmless in the garden, so I never understand the preoccupation of some gardeners with removing them. Picking toadstools and expecting the fungus to die is no more effective than removing the apples from an apple tree and expecting that to die! This is because toastools are merely the fruiting bodies of the fungus. The rest of the organism is usually hidden underground in the form of strands called hyphae.

Some fungi are saprophytic, meaning that they live on dead or decaying plant matter and return nutrients to the soil. Others are symbiotic, meaning that they form a beneficial and mutual relationship with plants whereby both the plant and the fungus benefit. Within this category, fungi may either be michorrizal (growing in or around the root cells) or endophytic (growing within the leaves and branches).

Unfortunately my mycology (study of fungi) is quite poor, and hence I cannot identify most of the fungi that I see.

^{I have no idea what this species is, but the cluster is pretty.}

This year, the toadstools have been especially prolific in Melbourne, on account of the cold and wet summer which hjad been followed by an early and wet winter. (Autumn seemed to last for a week this year!).

Here are some photographs of some of the specimens I have seen during Autumn 2011. Enjoy!

Amanita muscaria is one of the most-recognised fungi. This species forms a symbiotic relationship with pine or birch trees… which is why you will only find this species growing beneath these species. The fungus helps the tree collect nutrients from the soil, and in return the pine provides the fungus with carbohydrates.

This is Astraeus hygrometricus, a species I’d never noticed before. I have written ‘noticed’ because these look like pebbles until one gets down on one’s hands and knees and takes a close look. Each is about 1.5 centimetres in diameter. This is sometimes called an “earth star” because there’s actually a larger body below the earth’s surface.

Can you see the bird nest fungi (Cyathus striatus) in this photograph? I thought these look more like gumnuts than birds nests but a close inspection reveals the origin of this species’ common name. The spores (“eggs”) are distributed when droplets of rain fall into the “nest” and push the “eggs” out, which split open and release the spores. This species will live off decaying wood matter (mulch, as seen here), faecies or other decaying plant matter.

I believe this is Chlorophyllum hortense, growing in a lawn. A common species, often destroyed in its prime by lawnmowers! I found this i a park, where I initially mistook it in the distance for a piece of litter. A second toadstool is emerging beside the first.

The next three species I can tell you nothing about, because I have not been successful in identifying them. Nevertheless, I thought they looked attractive so I took their photos anyway…

Whilst you’re out and about this Autumn, keep an  eye close to the ground. You never know what you might discover!

Without question, this is a significant breakthrough. Yet, it raises many moral, ethical and philosophical questions, in particular about the true nature of life itself.

^{Scanning electron micrographs of M. mycoides JCVI-syn1. Samples were post-fixed in osmium tetroxide, dehydrated and critical point dried with CO2 , then visualised using a Hitachi SU6600 scanning electron microscope at 2.0 keV. Electron micrographs were provided by Tom Deerinck and Mark Ellisman of the National Center for Microscopy and Imaging Research at the University of California at San Diego. (Image: JCVI)}

Craig Venter’s revolutionary project cost US$30 million (A$36 million) to fund and has taken 15 years to achieve. The research programme was lead by Dr. Daniel Gibson (under the guidance of Dr. Craig Venter, one of this century’s most distinguished geneticists) and has involved more than 20 scientists. The team has successfully created an entire bacterial genome synthetically and then transferred that genome into a different species of bacterium, which has then replicated itself in the lab under the control of the synthetic genome.

^{Dr. Daniel Gibson. (Image: JCVI)}

The science behind this development is complicated, and almost impossible for a lay person to comprehend without a good understanding of biology and molecular genetics. Therefore, I have tried to summarise the concepts to a level that a person with high school or first year biology should mostly understand.

Developing the Synthetic Genome (In brief)

To achieve the synthetic genome, Craig Venter and his team sequenced the genome of Mycoplasma mycoides subsp. capri (strain GM12), a bacterium that causes lung disease in cows and goats. Using computer software, the genome sequence was ‘corrected’ so that a consensus sequence was generated. In addition, to allow for future identification of this synthetic genome, four ‘watermark’ sequences were inserted. The ‘watermark’ sequences encode unique identifiers whilst limiting their translation into peptides.

From there, small gene fragments (cassettes) of approximately 1080bp length were prepared from chemically-synthesised oligonucleotides manufactured by Blue Heron. A total of 1078 of these small gene cassettes were incorporated into yeast cells and cultured.

From these, 10kb synthetic intermediate cassettes were generated by extracting the 1kb cassettes from yeast, joining them within a vector and inserting them into E. coli which was then cultured. The E. coli strains that contained the synthetic inserts were then identified.

Form those 10kb fragments, eleven 100kb synthetic intermediates were assembled and transformed back into yeast. An electrophoresis gel was used to confirm which yeast plasmids contained the full insert. The plasmids were then purified to remove all traces of yeast chromosomal DNA.

From those eleven 100kb intermediates, the synthetic genome was assembled, then re-inserted into yeast. From there, the M. mycoides synthetic genome was transformed into M. capricolum cells.

Under the total control of the M. mycoides synthetic genome, the M. capricolum cells were proliferated in the lab.

Because the M. capricolum cells weren’t created de nov0 (ie: the synthetic genome was inserted into existing cells), the proteins for the original genome remained in the cells for a while. But with the passing of several generations, the new synthetic genome took over and the cells took on an appearance (phenotype) consistent with the new synthetic genome.

^{The assembly of a synthetic M. mycoides genome in yeast. (Image: JCVI)}

Implications

Whilst from a biological perspective, this is a brilliant scientific endeavour, it raises a lot of very deep philosophical questions. Most importantly: What is the essence of life?

Some argue that genetic engineering is “tampering with nature”. I reject such an argument, as hybridisation and ‘traditional’ breeding are essentially a less-efficient form of the same process of selecting genes in and out of populations with the exception that it has been practised for several thousand years.

But the process of adding an entirely synthetic genome (even if it is a copy of an existing genome) provides a deeper moral conundrum on two levels: (1) Will this lead to the de novo synthesis of life (ie. “playing God”) and (2) How will such technology be used?

On an ethical level, I cannot immediately say whether there is a legitimate moral objection to this technology based on an interpretation of Christian theology and/or general ethics. That said, some Bishops in Rome have expressed some concerns.

To understand the nature of de novo life, we first have to ask ourselves about the nature of death, and in the case of higher organisms, murder or killing. Under ordinary circumstances, causing cells to stop respiring almost always causes them to die, and therefore that is an act of killing those cells (and potentially the organism if certain cells are targeted). Such non-respiring cells are unquestionably dead. But what if we instead substitute those cells’ (or organism’s) entire genome with another?

The cells are still alive because they are still respiring, and therefore they haven’t died. But their fundamental character or nature has been destroyed.  Under such a scenario where we replace the genome of an entire organism with another, we have to ask ourselves, have we then killed that organism’s character (and therefore them) by destroying their genome?

To illustrate this point, imagine that a brain transplant were possible. Would the substitution of a person’s brain with another be an act of murder, when the body remains alive? If we accept that the person’s nature/character/soul exists within their brain, then perhaps yes, it is murder. If we argue on biological terms that respiration continues and the body remains alive, then it surely isn’t murder at all.

This is the conundrum that we as a society will have to grapple with, as synthetic genome technology is further developed and applied to mammalian (and possibly human) cells in future, such as embryos (for example). If the technology is imported into existing cells/organisms, and we feel that this could be interpreted as an act of murder, then moral objections will probably make the technology ethically bankrupt. If we don’t accept this viewpoint, then there is possibly no direct ethical problem with proceeding. The ethical issue might then lie with how the technology would be used rather than the technology itself.

At present, we can only import a genome into an existing yeast cell (created by God/existing in nature). If we were also eventually able to synthesise functional cell membranes, organelles, and cytoplasm artificially to compliment our synthetic genome, then perhaps we are not guilty of murder or killing when the genome is added, as no organism has been destroyed.

That said, if  such ‘synthetic cells’ can be created so that they can respire on their own, are we then really creating de novo life at odds with God’s Law/The Law of Nature? Or are we merely creating a sophisticated robot that is capable of ‘synthetic respiration’ and therefore we’re crossing no moral-ethical boundary? To decide whether such an approach is morally/ethically legitimate, we need to decide the boundaries between robot and organism and living or non-living. In essence: We need to define life.

At this moment in time, I really have no firm view other than to say that the creation of de novo life forms leaves me feeling quite uneasy. I will require further time to consider my full position on this matter. I will be listening carefully to the public debate that will no doubt follow.

So what is the point of this technology, really?

With all these potential ethical-moral problems, we really need to step back and ask ourselves, “What do we have to gain from this technology?”.

As it turns out, quite a lot.

Aside from its application in better understanding cell biology and genetics, such technology could be used to do considerable good.

Maryland biophysicist Dr David Thirumalai told the ABC’s AM programme that such technology could be used to create synthetic cells to heal particular parts of the body or to create synthetic organisms to clean up an oil spill. Many would argue that this is a decent, humane and ethical application of the technology.

Perhaps we could create blood cell lines that destroy viruses such as HIV? Or use those cells to create industrial biofuels? Perhaps we could create tiny organisms that convert carbon dioxide back into oxygen more efficiently than plants or synthetic trees, thus reversing the effects of Climate Change.

That said, such technology could also be used to enable despotic regimes to create nastier and more virulent forms of biological weapons.

The possibilities of this technology are endless, as are the ethical, moral and philosophical questions. Already today, the US president has announced an investigation into the use of synthetic genome technology. No doubt Australian authorities will announce a similar investigation soon.

Venter’s team have announced that their next target will be to apply their technique in adding a synthetic genome to an algae.

In their scientific manuscript, Dr. Daniel Gibson and Dr. Craig Venter write that their approach to creating synthetic cells might eventually “be applicable to the synthesis and transplantation of more novel genomes as genome design progresses” but counsel that they “… anticipate that (their) work will continue to raise philosophical issues that have broad societal and ethical implications”.

Lets hope that synthetic genomic technology, if adopted, will be used for good instead of evil. Lets hope that as a global community, we can have an inclusive debate about the proper use of such technologies.

Further Information

This article is based on the manuscript published in Science today:

D.G. Gibson, J.I. Glass et al. (2010) Creation of a bacterial cell controlled by a chemically synthesised genome. Science. DOI: 10.1126/science.1190719