Category Archives: Human Genetic Engineering

(THE CONVERSATION) This summer, for the first time, genetically modified mosquitoes could be released in the U.S.

On May 1, 2020, the company Oxitec received anexperimental use permitfrom the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to releasemillions of GM mosquitoes(labeled by Oxitec as OX5034) every week over the next two years in Florida and Texas. Females of this mosquito species, Aedes aegypti, transmit dengue, chikungunya, yellow fever and Zika viruses. When these lab-bred GM males are released and mate with wild females, their female offspring die. Continual, large-scale releases of these OX5034 GM males should eventually cause the temporary collapse of a wild population.

However, as vector biologists, geneticists, policy experts and bioethicists, we are concerned that current government oversight and scientific evaluation of GM mosquitoes do not ensure their responsible deployment.

Genetic engineering for disease control

Coral reefs that can withstand rising sea temperatures,American chestnut treesthat can survive blight andmosquitoes that cant spread diseaseare examples of how genetic engineering may transform the natural world.

Genetic engineering offers an unprecedented opportunity for humans to reshape the fundamental structure of the biological world. Yet, as new advances ingenetic decodingandgene editingemerge with speed and enthusiasm, the ecological systems they could alter remain enormously complex and understudied.

Recently, no group of organisms has received more attention for genetic modification than mosquitoes toyield inviable offspringor make themunsuitable for disease transmission. These strategies hold considerable potential benefits for the hundreds of millions of people impacted bymosquito-borne diseaseseach year.

Although the EPA approved the permit for Oxitec, state approval is still required. A previously planned release in the Florida Keys of an earlier version of Oxitecs GM mosquito (OX513) waswithdrawn in 2018aftera referendum in 2016indicated significant opposition from local residents. Oxitec has field-trialed their GM mosquitoes inBrazil, the Cayman Islands, Malaysia and Panama.

Thepublic forumon Oxitecs recent permit application garnered 31,174 comments opposing release and 56 in support. The EPA considered these during their review process.

Time to reassess risk assessment?

However, it is difficult toassess how EPA regulatorsweighed and considered public comments and how much of theevidence used in final risk determinationswas provided solely by the technology developers.

The closed nature of this risk assessment process is concerning to us.

There is a potential bias and conflict of interest when experimental trials and assessments of ecological risk lackpolitical accountabilityand are performed by, or in close collaboration with, the technology developers.

This scenario becomes more troubling with afor-profit technology companywhen cost- and risk-benefit analyses comparing GM mosquitoes to other approachesarent being conducted.

Another concern is thatrisk assessmentstend to focus on only a narrow set of biological parameters such as the potential for the GM mosquito to transmit disease or the potential of the mosquitoes new proteins to trigger an allergic response in people and neglect other importantbiological,ethicalandsocialconsiderations.

To address these shortcomings, the Institute for Sustainability, Energy and Environment at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign convened a Critical Conversation on GM mosquitoes. The discussion involved 35 participants from academic, government and nonprofit organizations from around the world with expertise in mosquito biology, community engagement and risk assessment.

A primary takeaway from this conversation was an urgent need to make regulatory procedures more transparent, comprehensive and protected from biases and conflicts of interest. In short, we believe it is time to reassess risk assessment for GM mosquitoes. Here are some of the key elements we recommend.

Steps to make risk assessment more open and comprehensive

First, an official, government-funded registry for GM organisms specifically designed to reproduce in the wild and intended for release in the U.S. would make risk assessments more transparent and accountable. Similar to the U.S.database that lists all human clinical trials, this field trial registry would require all technology developers to disclose intentions to release, information on their GM strategy, scale and location of release and intentions for data collection.

This registry could be presented in a way that protects intellectual property rights, just as therapies entering clinical trials are patent-protected in their registry. The GM organism registry would be updated in real time and made fully available to the public.

Second, a broader set of risks needs to be assessed and an evidence base needs to be generated by third-party researchers. Because each GM mosquito is released into a unique environment, risk assessments and experiments prior to and during trial releases should address local effects on the ecosystem and food webs. They should also probe the disease transmission potential of the mosquitos wild counterparts andecological competitors, examine evolutionary pressures on disease agents in the mosquito community andtrack the gene flowbetween GM and wild mosquitoes.

To identify and assess risks, a commitment of funding is necessary. The U.S.EPAs recent announcementthat it would improve general risk assessment analysis for biotechnology products is a good start. But regulatory and funding support for an external advisory committee to review assessments for GM organisms released in the wild is also needed;diverse expertise and local community representationwould secure a more fair and comprehensive assessment.

Furthermore, independent researchers and advisers could help guide what data are collected during trials to reduce uncertainty and inform future large-scale releases and risk assessments.

The objective to reduce or even eliminate mosquito-borne disease is laudable. GM mosquitoes could prove to be an important tool in alleviating global health burdens. However, to ensure their success, we believe that regulatory frameworks for open, comprehensive and participatory decision-making are urgently needed.

This article was updated to correct the date that Oxitec withdrew its OX513 trial application to 2018.

[Deep knowledge, daily.Sign up for The Conversations newsletter.]

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article here:https://theconversation.com/genetically-modified-mosquitoes-could-be-released-in-florida-and-texas-beginning-this-summer-silver-bullet-or-jumping-the-gun-139710.

The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.)

Brian Allan,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign;Chris Stone,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign;Holly Tuten,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign;Jennifer Kuzma,North Carolina State University, andNatalie Kofler,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

See original here:
Genetically modified mosquitoes could be released in Florida this summer - WFLA

A former British spy chief says he wants a more open debate on the origin of the coronavirus pandemic and warns against dismissing as conspiracy the idea that it might have come from a laboratory.

Sir Richard Dearlove doubled down on his belief the virus that causes COVID-19 was engineered and escaped by accident from a lab in the Chinese city of Wuhan, where the first victims were identified.

His opinion contrasts with a prevailing view among scientific experts as well as the US and British intelligence communities that the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus was not man-made.

The intervention comes as a team of scientists from the World Health Organisation (WHO) prepares to fly to China this week to investigate the origin of a disease that has killed more than half a million people globally.

"I subscribe to the theory that it's an engineered escapee from the Wuhan Institute (of Virology)," said Sir Richard, who served as head of the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, between 1999 and 2004.

"I am not saying anything other than it was the result of an accident and that the virus is the consequence of gain-of-function experiments that were being conducted in Wuhan, which I don't think are particularly sinister."

Sir Richard was referring to a type of scientific research that can be carried out to modify viruses.

"There is an accumulation of evidence that this is something that has to be openly discussed in the scientific community," the former spy chief said.

"If we are going to have an inquiry in the UK - which I'm sure will happen - about the pandemic and government policy, it will have to start with the science. Where did this virus actually come from?"

But the widely held view among scientists is that the novel coronavirus most likely occurred naturally.

They believe it probably passed from an animal - the prime suspect is a bat - to a human, possibly via an intermediary species, but without any genetic engineering or man-made modifications.

"There is no doubt that this was a natural event," said Dr Rachael Tarlinton, an associate professor of veterinary virology at the University of Nottingham.

"The artificial release theories seem to be a form of 'magical thinking' - a simplistic solution to a complex problem where if someone can be blamed then that someone can be removed and the problem go away," she said in an email exchange.

"Unfortunately real life just doesn't work this way - manipulating viruses in the lab to change their pathogenicity is actually quite difficult and unpredictable and any group that had the ability to work on something like this would be well aware of how hard this is," she said.

"We knew spillover from animals was a risk The virus may have passed through an intermediate species on its way into the human population from bats but we may never know which animal this was - candidates include pangolins and small carnivores like palm civets or mongooses. Unfortunately we can't go back in time and start monitoring from before the outbreak so we only have very patchy samples to try and work this out from."

This lack of a clear evidence trail is viewed with suspicion by some.

So too is the fact that the virus was so well adapted to transmitting among people and throughout different parts of the body from the moment it was first identified late last year.

The existence in Wuhan of two laboratories that have conducted research into coronaviruses in bats is also seen by those supportive of the lab theory to be more than just a coincidence.

A top official at the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), which has drawn the most suspicion, has said there is "no way the virus came from us".

Yuan Zhiming, a vice director at the institute, was quoted by a Chinese state broadcaster in April as saying: "We have a strict regulatory regimen. We have a code of conduct for research so we are confident of that.

"Why are there rumours?" he asked. "Because the Institute of Virology [is] in Wuhan people can't help but make associations, which I think is understandable. But it is bad when some are deliberately trying to mislead people. This is entirely based on speculation."

He also denied that the virus was man-made.

With COVID-19 responsible for so much death and economic damage, the mystery about its origin has become a highly-political topic as well as a scientific one.

Story continues

It has added fuel to already heated hostilities between the United States and China.

US President Donald Trump, who blames Beijing for the pandemic, claimed in April that he had seen evidence it had come from a laboratory.

The US intelligence community took the unusual step of releasing a statement to say it concurred with the consensus view that the disease was not man-made, but spies are investigating whether the virus might have been held in a laboratory and leaked accidentally.

It's understood that Britain's intelligence and security services don't believe the theory that the virus was manufactured.

Sir Richard said: "I am just staggered. They clearly haven't read the science. And they haven't attempted to understand it. The onus is now on the leadership of China to explain why the theory and the hypothesis that it could be engineered is wrong."

Sir Richard first spoke about his coronavirus theory in The Daily Telegraph last month.

He told Sky News his thinking has been shaped in part by the work of a British clinical scientist called Professor Angus Dalgleish and Birger Sorensen, chairman of Norwegian company Immunor, which is seeking to develop a COVID-19 vaccine.

:: Listen to the Daily podcast on Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , Spotify , Spreaker

The two men have published a paper offering an alternative theory on a vaccine for coronavirus.

They have written other related coronavirus papers, including one that explores their belief it is more likely the virus was manipulated in a laboratory than occurring naturally.

This research has yet to be accepted by a journal for publication.

The pair said they wanted to challenge work on the origin of COVID-19 published in the scientific journal Nature Medicine in March, which ruled out lab-meddling.

"I thought the whole point of a scientific journal was that you put forward some speculation and you opened it up to debate," said Professor Dalgleish, who is a professor of oncology at the Institute for Infection and Immunity at St George's University London. He is also principal of the Institute for Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapy.

"Disagree all you want - that's how you get to the right answers."

He and Mr Sorensen say they have gone against the scientific consensus before with their research on treatment for HIV.

"We maintained a very good friendship and working relationship," the British clinician said, explaining how they came to collaborate on COVID-19. He also holds stock options in Mr Sorensen's vaccine company.

Sir Richard challenged Nature to publish the two men's paper on the origin of the virus.

Sky News understands that it was submitted but not accepted.

Magdalena Skipper, editor in chief of Nature, said she was not permitted to discuss individual papers and whether or not they had been received or turned down.

However, as an editor and previously a researcher, she said it was crucial to keep an open mind when it comes to science and to engage in discussion.

"But in the end if one doesn't see many publications in favour of a certain theory, one has to conclude that that's because there isn't robust evidence in favour of that theory. Rather than seeking alternative explanations for that. Because after all it is that focus on the evidence in support of a theory which is the focus of research and how conclusions are made," she said.

Professor Kristian Andersen at the department of immunology and microbiology at Scripps Research, a medical research facility in California, was lead author on the March paper that argued the new coronavirus evolved naturally and not from a laboratory.

He defended his work and attacked the vaccine paper by Mr Sorensen and Professor Dalgleish, describing it as "complete nonsense, unintelligible, and not even remotely scientific - leading the authors to make unfounded and unsupported conclusions about the origin of SARS-CoV-2".

In an emailed statement, sent by a colleague, Professor Andersen added: "As we describe in our paper, all the data strongly suggest that this is a natural virus - no scientific data has been put forward suggesting otherwise, including in the present 'study'."

Mr Sorensen defended his approach.

"What nonsense? He is nonsense. He has no support. He says [originating from a laboratory] cannot happen. Of course this can happen," he said.

Sky News has spoken to four other scientists who believe that the lab theory should not be ruled out, though they did not say it was more likely than a natural explanation.

:: Listen to the The World Tomorrow on Apple podcasts , Spotify , and Spreaker

Professor Richard Ebright of the Waksman Institute of Microbiology at Rutgers University in New Jersey was dismissive of the Dalgleish-Sorensen paper but he took issue with Professor Andersen's piece in Nature too, describing it as opinion.

"The op-ed's conclusion that SARS-CoV-2 genome shows no signatures of purposeful human manipulation is correct," he said in an email exchange.

"The absence of signatures rules out the possibility the virus was engineered using methods that leave signatures. However, the absence of signatures of manipulation does not rule out the possibility the virus was engineered using widely employed - including at WIV - methods that do not leave signatures. The op-ed does not even address the possibility that an unpublished WIV bat coronavirus could be the progenitor of SARS-CoV-2."

He pushed back on condemning those who consider a lab leak as conspiracy theorists.

"By definition, an accident cannot be a 'conspiracy'," he said.

"Persons who use term 'conspiracy theory' to describe possibility of accidental release reveal themselves to be unable to read, unable to reason, or uninterested in truth."

He signalled that the only way to reach the truth would be through an independent, forensic investigation, which would require access to places like the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

In Australia, Professor Nikolai Petrovsky at Flinders University is also keeping an open mind.

He said normally a virus that jumps from an animal takes time to become good at infecting a human.

"Whereas what appears to have happened with COVID-19 is from day one it was perfectly adapted to infect humans and to transmit between humans which is why it's been such a big problem," he said.

"So then you have to ask: well, how did that happen?

"One possibility of course is that it was just a massive fluke... The other possibility that you have to consider in terms of where its origins may come from is: Has this virus seen human cells before in a situation we simply weren't aware of? And so one of those situations would be if the virus had been growing in human cells in the laboratory."

He too was concerned about scientific research that supports the lab theory not being published.

"It's always fraught with difficulty when you have a scientific question that runs up against a political issue," Professor Petrovsky said. "I think that COVID-19 and its origins is one of those areas where unfortunately we have enormous amount of politics overlaid over the science. And so it gets harder to get to the truth in that context."

Continued here:
Coronavirus: Former MI6 boss says theory COVID-19 came from Wuhan lab must not be dismissed as conspiracy - Yahoo News UK

Madison researchers have developed a safer and more efficient way to deliver a promising new method for treating cancer and liver disorders and for vaccination including a COVID-19 vaccine from Moderna Therapeutics that has advanced to clinical trials with humans.

The technology relies on inserting into cells pieces of carefully designed messenger RNA (mRNA), a strip of genetic material that human cells typically transcribe from a persons DNA in order to make useful proteins and go about their business. Problems delivering mRNA safely and intact without running afoul of the immune system have held back mRNA-based therapy, but UWMadison researchers are making tiny balls of minerals that appear to do the trick in mice.

These microparticles have pores on their surface that are on the nanometer scale that allow them to pick up and carry molecules like proteins or messenger RNA, saysWilliam Murphy, a UWMadison professor of biomedical engineering and orthopedics. They mimic something commonly seen in archaeology, when we find intact protein or DNA on a bone sample or an eggshell from thousands of years ago. The mineral components helped to stabilize those molecules for all that time.

Murphy and UWMadison collaborators used the mineral-coated microparticles (MCMs) which are 5 to 10 micrometers in diameter, about the size of a human cell in a series of experiments to deliver mRNA to cells surrounding wounds in diabetic mice. Wounds healed faster in MCM-treated mice, and cells in related experiments showed much more efficient pickup of the mRNA molecules than other delivery methods.

The researchers described their findings today in the journal Science Advances.In a healthy cell, DNA is transcribed into mRNA, and mRNA serves as the instructions the cells machinery uses to make proteins. A strip of mRNA created in a lab can be substituted into the process to tell a cell to make something new. If that something is a certain kind of antigen, a molecule that alerts the immune system to the presence of a potentially harmful virus, the mRNA has done the job of a vaccine.

The UWMadison researchers coded mRNA with instructions directing cell ribosomes to pump out a growth factor, a protein that prompts healing processes that are otherwise slow to unfold or nonexistent in the diabetic mice (and many severely diabetic people).

mRNA is short-lived in the body, though, so to deliver enough to cells typically means administering large and frequent doses in which the mRNA strands are carried by containers made of molecules called cationic polymers.

Oftentimes the cationic component is toxic. The more mRNA you deliver, the more therapeutic effect you get, but the more likely it is that youre going to see toxic effect, too. So, its a trade-off, Murphy says. What we found is when we deliver from the MCMs, we dont see that toxicity. And because MCM delivery protects the mRNA from degrading, you can get more mRNA where you want it while mitigating the toxic effects.

The new study also paired mRNA with an immune-system-inhibiting protein, to make sure the target cells didnt pick the mRNA out as a foreign object and destroy or eject it.

Successful mRNA delivery usually keeps a cell working on new instructions for about 24 hours, and the molecules they produce disperse throughout the body. Thats enough for vaccines and the antigens they produce. To keep lengthy processes like growing replacement tissue to heal skin or organs, the proteins or growth factors produced by the cells need to hang around for much longer.

What weve seen with the MCMs is, once the cells take up the mRNA and start making protein, that protein will bind right back within the MCM particle, Murphy says. Then it gets released over the course of weeks. Were basically taking something that would normally last maybe hours or even a day, and were making it last for a long time.

And because the MCMs are large enough that they dont enter the bloodstream and float away, they stay right where they are needed to keep releasing helpful therapy. In the mice, that therapeutic activity kept going for more than 20 days.

They are made of minerals similar to tooth enamel and bone, but designed to be reabsorbed by the body when theyre not useful anymore, says Murphy, whose work is supported by the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation and a donation from UWMadison alums Michael and Mary Sue Shannon.

We can control their lifespan by adjusting the way theyre made, so they dissolve harmlessly when we want.

The technology behind the microparticles was patented with the help of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation and is licensed to Dianomi Therapeutics, a company Murphy co-founded.

The researchers are now working on growing bone and cartilage and repairing spinal cord injuries with mRNA delivered by MCMs.

Reference: Khalil et al. (2020).Single-dose mRNA therapy via biomaterial-mediated sequestration of overexpressed proteins. Science Advances.DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aba2422.

This article has been republished from the following materials. Note: material may have been edited for length and content. For further information, please contact the cited source.

Read more here:
Safer and More Efficient Method To Deliver Gene Therapy - Technology Networks

[98 pages report] This market research report includes a detailed segmentation of the global genome editing market by technology (CRISPR, TALEN, ZFN, and Others), by application (Cell Line Engineering, Genetic Engineering, and Others), By end-user (Research Institutes, Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Companies, and Contract Research Organizations), by regions (North America, Europe, Asia Pacific, and Rest of the World).

Request For Report[emailprotected]https://www.trendsmarketresearch.com/report/sample/9845

Overview of the Global Genome Editing Market

Infoholics market research report predicts that the Global Genome Editing Market will grow at a CAGR of 14.4% during the forecast period. The market has witnessed steady growth in the past few years with the development in technology and the introduction of highly sensitive, robust, and reliable systems in the market. The market is fueled due to increase in genetic disorders, increasing investment and funds, and technological advancements in genome editing.

The market continues to grow and is one of the increasingly accepted market in many countries worldwide. Vendors are focusing towards obtaining funds and collaborating with universities to enlarge their research and development capabilities. The majority of the revenue is generated from the leading players in the market with dominating sales of ThermoFisher Scientific, GenScript Corp., Sangamo Therapeutics, Lonza Group, and Horizon Discovery Group plc.

According to Infoholic Research analysis, North America accounted for the largest share of the global genome editing market in 2018. US dominates the market with majority of genome editing companies being located in this region. However, China has not been too far behind and has great government support for the research in genome editing field.

Genome Editing Market by Technology:

In 2018, the CRISPR segment occupied the largest share due to specific, effective, and cost-effective nature of the technology. Many companies are focusing on providing genome editing services. For instance, in January 2019, Horizon Discovery extended CRISPR screening service to primary human T cells.

Get Complete TOC with Tables and[emailprotected]https://www.trendsmarketresearch.com/report/discount/9845

Genome Editing Market by Applications:

In 2018, the cell line engineering accounted the maximum share followed by genetic engineering. Increase in the number of people suffering with genetic disorders has driven the growth of the genome editing market.

Genome Editing Market by End Users:

In 2018, the biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies gained the highest market share for genome editing market due to increased pervasiveness of cancer and infectious diseases are driving research goings-on in biotechnology & pharmaceutical companies segment.

Genome Editing Market by Regions:

The market is dominated by North America, followed by Asia Pacific and Europe. The major share of the North America market is from the US due to quick adoption of new and advanced technologies.

Genome Editing Market Research Competitive Analysis The market is extremely fragmented with several smaller companies struggling for market share. Big pharmaceutical establishments have also united with venture capitalists to provide funding to the start-ups. In 2015, Bayer financed $335 million and in the very same year, Celgene combined with Abingworth invested $64 million in CRISPR Therapeutics. The NIH recently granted 21 somatic cell genome editing grants of almost $86 million over the next half a decade. These endowments are the foremost to be granted through the Somatic Cell Genome Editing (SCGE) program that was initiated in January 2018 with NIH Common Fund.

The companies are collaborating and licensing to increase their capabilities in the market. CRISPR, TALEN, ZFN, Meganuclease, ARCUS, and RTDS are some of the key technology areas concentrated by key players in the market. Since 2015, the deals on the CRISPR technology has drastically increased.

Key vendors:

Key competitive facts

Benefits The report provides complete details about the usage and adoption rate of genome editing market. Thus, the key stakeholders can know about the major trends, drivers, investments, vertical players initiatives, and government initiatives towards the healthcare segment in the upcoming years along with details of the pureplay companies entering the market. Moreover, the report provides details about the major challenges that are going to impact the market growth. Additionally, the report gives complete details about the key business opportunities to key stakeholders in order to expand their business and capture the revenue in specific verticals, and to analyze before investing or expanding the business in this market.

<<< Get COVID-19 Report Analysis >>>https://www.trendsmarketresearch.com/report/covid-19-analysis/9845

Key Takeaways:

See more here:
Genome Editing Market to Exhibit Rapid Surge in Consumption in the COVID-19 Crisis 2025 - 3rd Watch News

Scientists working at the Central Institute in Kawasaki and Japans Keio University have created monkeys with advanced brains. The study also involved genetics of the max Planck Society and German experts from the Institute of molecular cell biology.

The main feature of the human brain is the neocortex increased. We are talking about areas of the main organ of the CNS that are longer than those of other mammals, including monkeys. Scientists through genetic engineering techniques created the monkeys, which the brain became closer to the human. Because of ethnic barriers the scientists did not allow the monkeys to be born, because 50 days prior to the proposed birth interrupted the experiment.

The experts felt that a mandatory from an ethical point of view, you need to first determine the degree of influence of the new gene on the overall process of fetal development. The increase in brain size was achieved due to the fact that in the genome was added ARHGAP11B. This element is responsible for the enhanced process, the generation of stem cells. The gene is unique, because it has only human.

As scientists assume, ARHGAP11B appeared about five million years ago in the results of mutations. Then came the Neanderthals.

Read this article:
Scientists have created monkeys with improved brain - The Times Hub

Peers are preparing plans to legalise the gene-editing of crops in England, a move that scientists say would offer the nation a chance to develop and grow hardier, more nutritious varieties. The legislation would also open the door to gene-editing of animals.

The change will be proposed when the current Agriculture Bill reaches its committee stages in the House of Lords next month, and is supported by a wide number of peers who believe such a move is long overdue. At present, the practice is highly restricted by EU regulations.

The plan would involve introducing an amendment to the bill to give the secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs the power to make changes to the Environmental Protection Act, alterations that would no longer restrict gene-editing in England. The rest of the UK would need separate legislation.

Gene-editing of plants and animals is controlled by the same strict European laws that govern genetically modified (GM) organisms. However, scientists say gene-editing is cheaper, faster, simpler, safer and more precise than GM technology.

As they point out, GM technology involves the transfer of entire genes or groups of genes from one species to another while the more recently developed techniques of gene-editing merely involve making slight changes to existing genes in a plant or animal and are considered to be just as safe as traditional plant breeding techniques.

Early benefits for UK agriculture could include gluten-free wheat, disease-resistant sugar beet and potatoes that are even healthier than those that we have now, said plant scientist Professor David Baulcombe of Cambridge University.

This enthusiasm is also shared by peers who have argued that the wide use of gene editing of crops could give the nation a key advantage in agriculture and in the food industry after Brexit.

Peers have argued gene editing could give the nation a key advantage after Brexit

I would like [to send] a clear message in this bill that we will move forward to allow gene editing in our research programmes, said Lord Cameron during last weeks reading of the bill. This is a way of speeding up the natural methods of farm breeding to ensure that we can improve the environmental and nutritional outcomes of feeding our ever-expanding human population.

And there was clear evidence that the government would also be sympathetic to such a move. On gene editing, the government agrees that the EU approach is unscientific, said Lord Gardiner, who was responding for the government.

By freeing gene-editing from the expensive restrictions imposed by the EU on the growing of GM plants it will also be possible for small and medium-sized enterprises to set up new projects, say supporters.

At present only major corporations can pay the costs of the rigorous trials required when growing GM plants. We are looking for a brighter, greener, more innovative future, and this bill helps farmers produce that, said Conservative peer Lord Dobbs last week.

Link:
Lords seek to allow gene-editing in UK 'to produce healthy, hardier crops' - The Guardian