Genetics &

Business

Contemporary Issues in
Management
Bhisham Padha 45 MBA 07
18 April 2009
The term "genetic
engineering” was coined
in Jack Williamson's
science fiction novel
Dragon's Island,
published in 1951, two
years before James
Watson and Francis
Crick showed that DNA
could be the medium of
transmission of genetic
information.
Perspectives

Biotechnology is a tremendous power. It represents

the power to quickly, precisely and intentionally alter
life. It could be used to achieve many benefits that
would receive broad public support, it could also,
potentially, be used to achieve goals that would
inspire public fear. It is the intentional alteration of
life that makes biotechnology a social issue.
Every living thing on the planet is built from the
same types of molecules, and at the molecular
level of life, every living thing functions in
fundamentally the same way, whether a human, a
goldfish, a maple tree, or an earthworm.
Biotechnology operates at that molecular level of
life.

- Eric Grace, 'Biotechnology Unzipped'

The very contemporary
issue
Most scientists involved in genetic research would
argue that the ability to shortcut the evolutionary
process is indeed sensational, but answering the
second part of the question is not a matter for
science alone to debate. People must be able to
trust the food they eat, and that trust is based on
human perceptions that are influenced by ethical
values, economics and politics, as well as by
scientific evidence.
The first genetically engineered medicine was
synthetic human insulin, approved by the
United States Food and Drug Administration in
1982. Another early application of genetic
engineering was to create human growth
hormone as replacement for a compound that
was previously extracted from human
cadavers. In 1987 the FDA approved the first
genetically engineered vaccine for humans, for
hepatitis B. Since these early uses of the
technology in medicine, the use of GM has
gradually expanded to supply a number of
other drugs and vaccines.
One of the best-known applications of genetic
engineering is the creation of genetically
The big issue

Rice is the world's most important staple food - with

more than half of the global population eating it every
day. It has been grown around the world for over
10,000 years and is cultivated in 113 countries. Rice is
also a key ingredient in a wide variety of processed
foods ranging from baby food to the more obvious rice
noodles. But all this is under threat as genetic
engineering (GE) continues to creep up on our most
valuable food.
Today, GE rice only exists in field trials. But all that could
change tomorrow as agri-chemical companies and
some governments around the globe are trying to
commercialise it. Ecological farming is the safest
solution to the food crisis and looming climate change
The German chemical giant Bayer is trying to sell a herbicide
resistant variety of GE rice to countries - for commercial
planting.Conventional and organic rice is at great risk from being
contaminated by GE strains and controlled by multinational
corporations and governments. 
The rice made by Bayer (called LL62) has been genetically
engineered to withstand high doses of glufosinate, a herbicide
sprayed on rice fields to control a wide range of weeds. It's no
surprise that Bayer also makes the glufosinate. Any use of the GE
rice will boost their chemical sales as a consequence. While this is
a nice set up for Bayer shareholders it places farmers, consumers
and the environment at risk.
Glufosinate is considered to be so dangerous to humans and the
environment that it will soon be banned in Europe in accordance
with recently-adopted EU legislation.
The Bayer GE rice has been shown to have a different nutritional
composition than its natural counterpart. It also has a high risk of
producing superweeds by transferring its new gene to weedy
relatives. Rice traders and producers worldwide reject the GE rice,
 Its Real
GMOs are in our:

Food
Clothes
Medicines &
The Next Kentucky Fried Chicken
‘We haven’t had a single catastrophe
to engender such sweeping public
apprehension over genetically
modified organisms, and yet so
many people remain opposed to
them.’

Lomak Amrahs, Princeton University

 history
The general principle of producing a GMO is to add new
genetic material into an organism's genome. This is called
genetic engineering and was made possible through the
discovery of DNA and the creation of the first recombinant
bacteria in 1973, i.e., E .coli expressing a salmonella gene.

This led to concerns in the scientific community about

potential risks from genetic engineering, which were
thoroughly discussed at the Asilomar Conference. One of
the main recommendations from this meeting was that
government oversight of recombinant DNA research should
be established until the technology was deemed safe.

Herbert Boyer then founded the first company to use

recombinant DNA technology, Genentech, and in 1978 the
company announced creation of an E. coli strain producing
the human protein insulin.
A Brief History of Transgenics

1944 - Molecular nature of genetic material

discovered
1953 – Double helix discovered
1960s – Geneticists begin researching how to use
pure DNA to modify the genetic characteristics of
organisms
1970s – Scientists find that eukaryotic cells can
incorporate pure DNA fed to them and express
the genes present in it
1983 – Transgenic plants become a reality
1994-Calgene's Favr Savr tomato is approved for
commercial production by the US Department of
Agriculture.
2005-Europe is resisting modified foods, and in the
 GMO
A genetically modified organism (GMO)
or genetically engineered organism
(GEO) is an organism whose genetic
material has been altered using
genetic engineering techniques.
These techniques, generally known
as recombinant DNA technology, use
DNA molecules from different
sources, which are combined into
one molecule to create a new set of
genes. This DNA is then transferred
 +
there is need to seriously consider the role biotechnology can play in unlock-ing the country's agricultural
potential to ensure food security.

Food insecurity will continue in Africa because of world population explosion. The rate of global population
increase currently stands 3.5 percent against an increase in food production of 2.5 percent and it is expected
that Africa will bear the brunt of the shortfall.

Experts are of the opinion that biotechnology can make up for the difference since it assures higher yields,
nutritionally rich varieties, reduced costs of production, less damage from pests and diseases and, more
importantly for Africa, drought resistant varieties.

Africa was bypassed by the green revolution, now benefitting countries like india and Pakistan, that were
begging for food in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Consequently, Africa is not self reliant in terms of food
and relies on food aid and food imports from these countries that were food insecure two decades ago. It
beats logic that Kenya, whose 80 percent of the economy depends on agriculture, has been reduced to an
importer of basic food like maize, wheat, rice, sugar, among others.

The biotechnology wave, regarded as God's territory is now sweeping across the globe and it is upon African
countries to decide on what aspects of the technology to adopt for their own good.

Encompassing a broad spectrum ranging from tissue culture to genetic engineering, its potential is limitless
and implications are both positive and negative, but what is clear is that it holds the potential of ensuring
food security for the continent's millions facing starvation.

Commending on the new technology, renowned scientist, Norman Borlaug, says "You need it to further
improve yields so that you can produce the food that's needed on the soil that's well adapted to agricultural
production. Or you will be pushed into cutting down more of our forests."

Monsanto is an agricultural
company. We apply innovation
and technology to help farmers
around the world produce more
while conserving more. We
help farmers grow yield
sustainably so they can be
successful, produce healthier
foods, better animal feeds and
more fiber, while also reducing
agriculture's impact on our
environment.
Grasp tomorrow’s challenge. By 2050, say
United Nations’ experts, our planet must double
food production to feed an anticipated
population of 9.3 billion people. (That figure is
40 percent higher than today’s 6.6 billion.)
Then factor in a pressured water supply, an
energy-supply crunch and climate change. How
do we surmount these obstacles? Agricultural
innovation holds a key solution – and Monsanto
pledges to do our part.
By 2030, Monsanto commits to help farmers
produce more and conserve more by:
Developing improved seeds that help farmers
double yields from 2000 levels for corn,
soybeans and cotton, with a $10 million grant
pledged to improve wheat and rice yields.
Conserving resources through developing seeds
that use one-third fewer key resources per unit
of output to grow crops while working to lessen
habitat loss and improve water quality.
Helping improve the lives of all farmers who use
our products, including an additional five million
people in resource-poor farm families by 2020.
 ++++
• Producing Human Insulin - help those
with diabetes
• Creating New Organs - save lives
• Gene Therapy - fight diseases
• Agricultural Biotechnology - increase
productivity, make plants better
 -
more independent studies are needed
some tests have shown animals fed GM
crops showed profound changes in their
livers, kidneys and hearts, and most
alarming is the damage to the
reproductive organs and DNA function.
Even Monsanto’s own studies on
trangenic corn MON863 showed toxicity
in animals liver and kidneys. The only
human feeding study on GM food,
published in Nature in 2004, found that
genes inserted into GM soybeans
transfered into the DNA of human gut
Health concerns aside, Ellis argues
that tampering with the genetic
makeup of plants can have
unforeseen consequences for plant
life, such as the development of
“super weeds” that are resistant to
pesticides.
it’s also possible that plants “emitting
toxins as a result of modification
could cause natural pests to mutate
into bigger, stronger, more resistant
“genetic pollution” or cross-contamination.
Opponents of genetic modification worry that
pollen from genetically modified fields could
eventually find its way to fields of unmodified
crops, and even to wild plants, potentially
creating untested and unpredictable strains of
plant life.
In 1970, Henry Kissinger said, “Control oil and you control nations;
control food and you control the people.” How do you control
food? By consolidating agricultural interests into what was to be
termed agribusiness, creating genetically modified organisms out
of heritage seeds with funding from the Rockefeller Foundation,
patenting the new seeds, and making sure that these new seeds
are force-fed to U.S. farmers as well as the rest of the world. By
holding the patents on these seeds and requiring farmers to
purchase new seeds every year, the control is complete. Also, by
controlling how these GMO seeds are created, other more sinister
uses come to mind. But first, you must convince the world of your
good intentions. This is accomplished through lies, deception, and
a bit of media manipulation. By promising farmers that this
technology was safe, and would result in increased yields at less
cost, they were more than happy to give it a try. The fact that in
most cases this claim was false had yet to be proven by the
innocent farmers that believed the lie. By the time independent
studies started revealing that GMO is harmful, it was too late, and
the freight train called agri-business was on its way to fulfilling its
purpose – to make as much money as possible by spreading GMO
seeds as far as possible, and thus gaining control of the population
 ---
Environmental and health impacts of GMOs: the evidence

Effects on biodiversity

The environmental effects of genetically engineered

crops designed to resist insect pests and herbicides
are well documented. They are as follows

Insect-resistant crops kill specific pests known to

threaten the crop. In addition to their intended
deadly effects, they are also:
• Toxic to ‘non-target’ organisms, such as
butterflies. Long-term exposure to pollen from
GM maize that expresses the Bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) toxin has been found to cause
adverse effects on the behaviour1 and survival2
of the monarch butterfly, the best-known of all
North American butterflies. Effects on European
butterflies are virtually unknown, as few studies
have been conducted. Those few do, however,
suggest cause for concern that European
butterflies would suffer as a result of insectresistant
GM crop being planted.3, 4, 5, 6
• Toxic to other, beneficial
insects. Genetically engineered
Bt crops adversely affect7
insects that are important in the
Agricultural wastes from Bt maize have been identified entering water courses, where the Bt toxin might be toxic to certain insects.21 This
demonstrates the complexity of interactions in
the natural environment and underlines the
shortcomings of the risk assessment.
• Bt maize is more susceptible to a plant lice
(aphid) than conventional maize, caused by
changes in sap chemistry. These changes have
not been described in a single application to
market Bt maize but have important ecological
implications. This demonstrates that plantinsect
interactions are too complex to be
assessed by the risk assessment.
Herbicide tolerant (HT) crops are associated with:
• Toxic effects of herbicides on ecosystems.
Roundup, the herbicide sold by Monsanto in
conjunction with its Roundup Ready GM crops,
has been shown to be a potential endocrine
disrupter, i.e., could interfere
with hormones.22 It is also toxic
to frog larvae(tadpoles).23
• Increased weed tolerance to
herbicide. Evolution of weed
resistance to Roundup is now a
serious problem in the US and
India
 conclusion
Through my questionnaire and other
sources I found that the public was
aware that GMOs are a possibility for
the future, however they did not
know much about them, how they
are developed and why.
They also have no idea it is possible
that they could be eating them in the
next year without knowing it. Most of
them were against genetic
modification, but everbody felt if
GMOs were going to be put on the
market, they should be tested for
long term effects on humans and the
environment.
 References
1. Hans Jonas: The Imperative of Responsibility: In Search of Ethics for
the Technological Age (1979)
Hans Jonas: On Technology, Medicine and Ethics (1985)
2. Department of Biotechnology Ministry of Science & Technology,
Government of India
3. THE INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR GENETIC ENGINEERING
AND BIOTECHNOLOGY