Category Archives: Genetic Engineering

Gene drives may be invaluable tools to control the spread of parasites, invasive species, and disease carriers. But the technology has faced strong opposition from activist groups and some mainstream scientists based on environmental and food safety. Are these concerns valid?

On June 30, some 80 environmental organizations, led by Greenpeace EU, Friends of the Earth Europe and Save Our Seeds, signed an open letter to the European Commission asking for support for a global moratorium on gene drive technology. The advocacy groups claimed that the release of gene drives poses serious and novel threats to biodiversity and the environment at an unprecedented scale and depth.

Citing a report by the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER), the coalition wrote:

in light of the unpredictabilities, the lack of knowledge and the potentially severe negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, any releases (including experimental) of Gene Drive Organisms into the environment be placed on hold to allow proper investigation until there is sufficient knowledge and understanding.

The environmental claims were unsupported by any documents other than the report by ENSSER, a controversial group of anti-biotechnology activist scientists co-founded by Gilles-ricSralini, best known for his retracted and discredited 2012 paper linking GMOs to cancer in rats.

The European parliament has already supported such a moratorium, an act that echoes EUs precautionary approach to genetic engineering, transgenic organisms and gene editing. The EU stated reasons include:

Recent advances in genetics and synthetic biology, particularly the development of CRISPR gene editing tools, have given scientists a powerful way to address problems created by pests, from mosquitoes to rodents, that vector disease to humans. In classical genetics, genes that offer adaptation benefits to individuals tend to increase their occurrence in the population while genes that reduce fitness tend to disappear.

Gene drives are genetic sequences designed to spread strongly and become present in every individual of a targeted species after a few generations. The genes may offer benefits, be neutral for adaptation purposes, or hinder their carriers survival and reproduction potential.Generation after generation, it would relentlessly copy and paste the gene it carried, until the gene and the desired trait was present in every descendant.Because the spread of a trait happens over generations, a gene drive works best in species that reproduce quickly, like insects and rodents

Gene drives are the first genetic constructs that can theoretically affect a population in its entirety, and quickly. It could even lead to the extinction of entire species, as gene drive critics allege. Species extinction has been part of life and evolution for all of Earths history. Although the data are fuzzy and contested, the UN Convention on Biological Diversity concluded that 150-200 plant, insect bird, and mammal species go extinct every day.

The likelihood that a gene drive will destroy a species in part or in whole, such as the infectedAedes aegyptimosquito species that carries the Zika, dengue and chingunya viruses and offers no known environmental benefits, is nonetheless daunting to some. On the one hand, gene drives could be used to eradicate disease such as malaria and yellow fever by controlling the mosquitoes that transmit them. On the other hand, critics fear that the technology will open a Pandoras Box; removing a species that theoretically could resultin what is popularly and controversially known as the butterfly effect.

As imagined by MIT meteorologist Edward Lorenz 60 years ago, a tiny environmental changesay an extinction of a pestcould dramatically and unpredictably result in unpredictable or even catastrophic consequences (Lorenz imagined abutterflyflapping its wings and causing a typhoon).

In the last few years, various groups have called for a global moratorium on gene drives. Such attempts were resisted at the 2016 and 2018 United Nations Conventions on Biological Diversity, mainly due to the strong opposition of many scientists and sub-Saharan African nations hardest hit by disease-vectored pests. Nevertheless, gene drive opponents have gained traction and gene drive research and applications face significant regulatory obstacles across the world (see Genetic Literacys Global Gene Editing Regulation tracker for a country-by-country analysis).

What does the scientific evidence say about gene drives and their environmental consequences?

There are over 3,000 mosquito species, likely a fraction of the number of species that have existed over some 100 million years. A handful of these (Aedes, Anopheles, and Culex species) are disease vectors and transmit infections such as malaria, yellow fever, the West Nile virus, Zika, and dengue fever. Mosquito-borne disease account for more than 17% of all infectious diseases and cause more than 700,000 deaths every year. These mosquitoes are mostly invasive in their ecological distributions.

Ultimately, there seem to be few things that mosquitoes do that other organisms cant do just as wellexcept perhaps for one, reported Nature magazine ina 2010 article A World Without Mosquitoes.

They are lethally efficient at sucking blood from one individual and mainlining it into another, providing an ideal route for the spread of pathogenic microbes. The Nature article concluded that wiping out mosquitoes wouldnt be a badthing. In fact, they could restore rather than harm the ecosystem. The same can be inferred for most parasitic insects, which are specialized to a particular host and normally dont have an extended ecological interactions network.

Invasive species also cause significant environmental hazards. Cane toads, having no natural predators, are slowly taking over the Australian continent from the northeast. Invasive fish from the red sea are wrecking havoc in the Mediterranean marine ecosystems. Rodents have spread in every conceivable corner of the earth, displacing vulnerable local fauna.

Gene drives might be one of the only ways to contain their spread, protecting biodiversity. They can be a powerful conservation tool that targets only the organism of interest, unlike contemporary pest management techniques such as the use of insecticides that attack all insects indiscriminately, or introduction of natural predators from other ecosystems (that by default disturb the food chains and interactions network).

It is possible for a DNA sequence to jump from one species to the other through a process called horizontal gene transfer. This theoretically could happen between insects, which appears to lend support to the argument that there is at least a small chance for a gene drive to move from species to species with unforeseen consequences.

The truth is that gene drives can be designed to target a very specific area of the genome, unique for a species. The modern gene drives use the precise CRISPR base editing technologies to spread to the population. In the off chance that the DNA encoding the gene drive will enter the reproductive cells of an individual from the other species, the editing system will have no template to act upon and the gene will be lost. One may argue that CRISPR has a chance for off-target activity, but a gene drive needs maximum efficiency to act as a gene drive. If the CRISPR doesnt work at 100%, the DNA sequence will be subject to the typical laws of inheritance and will disappear from the genetic pool

The ability to introduce genetic information to a wild population, which will spread to every individual, is unfortunately a dual use technology. The technology can theoretically be exploited to make biological weapons, though theres no indication that such a weapon is or has been developed. As gene drives can work well across many generations and require a large amount of offspring, they are unable to directly harm humans, crops, and farm animals. But a gene drive could be used to enhance the fitness of a crop-eating insect or a disease-carrying rodent.

The solution to this potential hazard is more research (and definitely not a research moratorium). Anyone with the means (which are considerable, so no lone bioterrorists or rogue scientists) and intent to cause harm can already research into such applications and will ignore aUN-imposed technology ban. The research community needs to develop the means to detect and monitor any malicious gene drive release and counter any offensive use.

The question on who and how should approve gene drive projects isnt easy to answer. A gene drive isnt contained by country borders, and the outdated GMO regulation framework existing in most countries is scientifically outdated and practically inadequate to handle such applications.

Moreover, the technology cannot be monopolized by a few countries or private companies. Each project is different. The approval should be a result of consensus among numerous stakeholders. There should also be a defined way to monitor how the gene drive spreads and how to handle liability claims if there are negative effects.

With populism growing and fewer people willing to trust the judgment of regulators and scientists, the rhetoric around complex innovations has become increasingly polarized, with both sides stuck fighting a high-stakes battle for public opinion. The issue is complex, and any decisions cannot be left to scientists, state organizations, and companies alone. But it also cannot be left solely in the hands of environmental organizations with little or no understanding of the science and with an ideological agenda that doesnt necessarily serve the public.

Environmental groups have often resorted to hyperbole as the debate over gene drives has unfolded. At the UN Convention on Biological Diversity in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt, in 2018, a coalition of activists compared gene drives to the atomic bomb and accused researchers of using malaria as a Trojan horse to cover up the development of agricultural gene drives for corporate profit.A handful of small NGOs in the US, collectively known as SynBioWatch, have taken to describing gene-drive researchers as a cabal. The Canadian anti-biotechnology organization ETC Group claims aggressively spreads misinformation on social media, including claims that gene-drive honeybees could supposedly be controlled with a beam of light.

Meanwhile, Florida Keys is experiencing the largest dengue fever outbreak in a decade, with close to 40 cases already documented. The outbreak has led the Florida Keys Mosquito Control District to enter a partnership with UK-based, US-owned Oxitec that could lead to the Keys becoming the first U.S. trial site for genetically modified Aedes aegypti mosquitoes.

With a technology that can prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths per year, it is unethical to peremptorily ban it because it doesnt fit a few peoples worldview of what is natural. One may argue that governments and regulators should have no say whether one species should go extinct or not. But one can also question why activist groups in North America or Europe should be able to insert themselves in life and death decisions, preventing initiatives across the globe that could save millions of lives and protect our populations health and crops, and promote biological diversity.

Kostas Vavitsas, PhD, is a Senior Research Associate at the University of Athens, Greece. He is also a steering committee member of EUSynBioS. Follow him on Twitter@konvavitsas

Read more:
Viewpoint: Is there a scientific basis to ban gene drive technology that can rid us of virus-carrying rodents and mosquitoes? - Genetic Literacy...

If you were to stack up all the electronic waste produced annually around the world it would weigh as much as all the commercial aircrafts ever produced, or 5,000 Eiffel towers. This is a growing tsunami according to the UN, and its fed by all the phones, tablets and other electronic devices that are thrown away each day.

Of the 44.7 million metric tonnes of electronic waste (often shortened to e-waste) produced around the world in 2017, 90% was sent to landfill, incinerated, or illegally traded. Europe and the US accounted for almost half of this the EU is predicted to produce 12 million tonnes in 2020 alone. If nothing is done to combat the problem, the world is expected to produce more than 120 million tonnes annually by 2050.

Rich countries in Europe and North America export much of their e-waste to developing countries in Africa and Asia. A lot of this ends up accumulating in landfills, where toxic metals leach out and enter groundwater and food chains, threatening human health and the environment.

As daunting as this problem seems, were working on a solution. Using a process called bioleaching, were extracting and recycling these metals from e-waste using non-toxic bacteria.

Read more: Global electronic waste up 21% in five years, and recycling isn't keeping up

It might surprise you to learn that those toxic metals are actually very valuable. Its a bitter irony that the e-waste mountains collecting in the worlds poorest places actually contain a fortune. Precious metals are found in your phone and computer, and each year US$21 billion worth of gold and silver are used to manufacture new electronic devices. E-waste is thought to contain 7% of the worlds gold, and could be used to manufacture new products if it could be recycled safely.

With an estimated worth of US$62.5 billion a year, the economic benefits of recycling e-waste are clear. And it would help meet the shortfall for new natural resources that are needed to manufacture new products. Some of the elements on a printed circuit board essentially the brain of a computer are raw materials whose supply is at risk.

Other elements found in electronics are considered some of the periodic tables most endangered. There is a serious threat that they will be depleted within the next century. With todays trends of natural resource use, natural sources of indium will be depleted in about 10 years, platinum in 15 years and silver in 20 years.

But recovering these materials is more difficult than you might imagine.

Pyrometallurgy and hydrometallurgy are the current technologies used for extracting and recycling e-waste metals. They involve high temperatures and toxic chemicals, and so are extremely harmful to the environment. They require lots of energy and produce large volumes of toxic gas too, creating more pollution and leaving a large carbon footprint.

But bioleaching has existed as a solution to these problems as far back as the era of the Roman Empire. The modern mining industry has relied on it for decades, using microbes mainly bacteria, but also some fungi to extract metals from ores.

Microorganisms chemically modify the metal, setting it free from the surrounding rock and allowing it to dissolve in a microbial soup, from which the metal can be isolated and purified. Bioleaching requires very little energy and so has a small carbon footprint. No toxic chemicals are used either, making it environmentally friendly and safe.

Despite how useful it is, applying bioleaching to e-waste has mostly been an academic pursuit. But our research group is leading the first industrial effort. In a recent study, we reported how we managed to extract copper from discarded computer circuit boards using this method and recycle it into high-quality foil.

Different metals have different properties, so new methods must be constantly developed. Extracting metals by bioleaching, though pollution-free, is also slower than the traditional methods. Thankfully though, genetic engineering has already shown that we can improve how efficiently these microbes can be used in green recycling.

After our success recycling metals from discarded computers, scientists are trying other types of e-waste, including electric batteries. But developing better recycling techniques is only one piece of the puzzle. For a completely circular economy, recycling should start with manufacturers and producers. Designing devices that are more easily recycled and tackling the throw-away culture that treats the growing problem with indifference are both equally vital in slowing the oncoming tsunami.

See the original post here:
We're using microbes to clean up toxic electronic waste here's how - The Conversation UK

Latest Plant Breeding and CRISPR Plant Market report evaluates the impact of Covid-19 outbreak on the industry, involving potential opportunity and challenges, drivers and risks and market growth forecast based on different scenario. GlobalPlant Breeding and CRISPR Plant industryMarket Report is a professional and in-depth research report on the worlds major regional market.

Plant Breeding and CRISPR Plant market report provides a detailed analysis of global market size, regional and country-level market size, segmentation market growth, market share, competitive Landscape, sales analysis, the impact of domestic and global market players, value chain optimization, trade regulations, recent developments, opportunities analysis, strategic market growth analysis, product launches, area marketplace expanding, and technological innovations.

Get Exclusive FREE Sample of Report on Plant Breeding and CRISPR Plant market at:https://www.worldwidemarketreports.com/sample/341699

Top Players Listed in the Plant Breeding and CRISPR Plant Market Report are Syngenta, KWS, DowDuPont, Eurofins, SGS

Market Segmentations:Global Plant Breeding and CRISPR Plant market competition by top manufacturers, with production, price, revenue (value) and market share for each manufacturer.

Based on type, report split into Molecular Breeding, Hybrid Breeding, Genome Editing, Genetic Engineering, Conventional Breeding

Based on the end users/applications, this report focuses on the status and outlook for major applications/end users, consumption (sales), market share and growth rate for each application, including Oilseeds & Pulses, Cereals & Grains, Fruits & Vegetables, Others

Impact of Covid-19 on Plant Breeding and CRISPR Plant Industry 2020

Plant Breeding and CRISPR Plant Market report analyses the impact of Coronavirus (COVID-19) on the Plant Breeding and CRISPR Plant industry. Since the COVID-19 virus outbreak in December 2019, the disease has spread to almost 180+ countries around the globe with the World Health Organization declaring it a public health emergency. The global impacts of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are already starting to be felt, and will significantly affect the Plant Breeding and CRISPR Plant market in 2020.

The outbreak of COVID-19 has brought effects on many aspects,like massive slowing of the supply chain; stock market unpredictability; falling business assurance, growing panic among the population, and uncertainty about future.

Get Impact Analysis of CORONA Virus/COVID19 and be smart in redefining business strategies-https://www.worldwidemarketreports.com/covidimpact/341699

The report introduces Plant Breeding and CRISPR Plant basic information including definition, classification, application, industry chain structure, industry overview, policy analysis, and news analysis. Insightful predictions for the Plant Breeding and CRISPR Plant Market for the coming few years have also been included in the report.

In the end, Plant Breeding and CRISPR Plant report provides details of competitive developments such as expansions, agreements, new product launches, and acquisitions in the market for forecasting, regional demand, and supply factor, investment, market dynamics including technical scenario, consumer behavior, and end-use industry trends and dynamics, capacity, spending were taken into consideration.

Important Key questions answered inPlant Breeding and CRISPR Plant market report:

Any Quiry or Customization, Please Fill the Form, will deliver you in 24 hrs-https://www.worldwidemarketreports.com/quiry/341699

Link:
Plant Breeding and CRISPR Plant Market COVID 19 Analysis With Key Players, Applications, Trends and Forecasts to 2026- Syngenta, KWS, DowDuPont,...

With well-established regional markets such as North America and Europe presenting grim to moderate growth opportunities, emerging regions with an increased appetite for processed and packaged foods, confectionaries, and biopharmaceutical products can prove to be the most promising targets for companies in theglobal microbial fermentation technology market, observes Transparency Market Research in a recent report. Companies can benefit from the rising set of opportunities in emerging economies such as China, Brazil, and India that have billions of potential consumers seeking a diverse range of microbial fermented products to choose from.

Read Report Overview - https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/microbial-fermentation-technology-market.html

Therefore, focus on expanding businesses to cater to the rising demand for various food, feed, biosimilar products, and alcoholic beverages in these regions can prove to be an excellent growth strategy for players wanting to make it big in the global microbial fermentation technology market in the near future. Some of the leading companies in the market are Biocon, Lonza, Danone Ltd., Amyris, United Breweries Ltd., Novozymes, TerraVia Holdings, Inc., F. Hoffmann La-Roche Ltd., and BioVectra, DSM.

According to the report, the global microbial fermentation technology market was valued at US$1,493.8 bn in 2016 and is projected to expand at a CAGR of 5.7% from 2017 to 2025 to rise to a valuation of US$2,447.5 bn in 2025.

Request Brochure of Report - https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sample/sample.php?flag=B&rep_id=25952

Asia Pacific Region to remain a key Consumer of Microbial Fermentation Technologies

Geographically, the market in Asia Pacific dominated with nearly 40% share in the global market in 2016. Growth of the regional market can be attributed to the vast rise in geriatric population, a well-established chemical industry in China, cutting-edge research in the field of biotechnology and health care, and changing lifestyles in developing nations. The thriving nutraceuticals market in India is also likely to fuel the microbial fermentation technology market in Asia Pacific.

Request for Analysis of COVID-19 Impact on Microbial Fermentation Technology Market- https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sample/sample.php?flag=covid19&rep_id=25952

In terms of product type, the segment of alcoholic beverages accounted for the dominant share in the overall market in 2016 and the trend is likely to remain strong over the forecast period as well, thanks to the expanding urban population and the rising popularity of alcohol among the young population of the globe.

Increased Usage of Microbial Fermentation in Biotechnology to Help Market Pick Pace

Fermentation technology has remained a highly favored biological process across a number of industrial applications for many decades due to low cost, high specificity, simplicity of reaction, and usage in versatile applications. While microbial fermentation has been used traditionally for preservation of foods only, it has seen a vast rise in application in the past few years owing to promising outcomes and the possibility of development of various bioprocess and products with its help.

Request for Custom Research - https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/sample/sample.php?flag=CR&rep_id=25952

Modern industry has complemented the basic principle of fermentation technology with advances in genetic engineering by extending applications to produce a vast range products in the biotechnology sector, including biofuels, biochemicals, biopharmaceuticals, biosimilars, and biomolecules. Moreover, rising petrol prices and depleting reserves of fossil fuels have diversified applications of microbial fermentation process in the chemical sector to provide products such as alcohols, enzymes, organic acids, amino acids, vitamins, alkaloids, and Xanthan. The rising global demand for these products is likely to play a key role in helping the global microbial fermentation market expand at a promising pace in the next few years.

Pre Book Microbial Fermentation Technology Market Report - https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/checkout.php?rep_id=25952&ltype=S

This analysis of the global microbial fermentation market is based on a recent market research report by Transparency Market Research, titled Microbial Fermentation Technology Market (Product Type - Medical (Antibiotics, Probiotics, Monoclonal Antibodies, Recombinant Proteins, and Biosimilars), Industrial (Acetone, Ethanol and Butanol, Enzymes, and Amino Acids), Alcohol Beverages (Beer, Spirits, and Wine) and Food and Feed Products); End User - Bio-Pharmaceutical Industries, Food and Feed Industry, Contract Research Organizations (CROs) and Contract Manufacturing Organizations (CMOs), and Academic Research Institutes) - Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends, and Forecast, 20172025.

Browse More Trending Reports by Transparency Market Research:

Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Drugs Market

https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/aneurysmal-subarachnoid-hemorrhage-drugs-market.html

Aicardi Syndrome Market

https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/aicardi-syndrome-market.html

Cowden Syndrome Market

https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/cowden-syndrome-market.html

About Us

Transparency Market Research is a next-generation market intelligence provider, offering fact-based solutions to business leaders, consultants, and strategy professionals.

Our reports are single-point solutions for businesses to grow, evolve, and mature. Our real-time data collection methods along with ability to track more than one million high growth niche products are aligned with your aims. The detailed and proprietary statistical models used by our analysts offer insights for making right decision in the shortest span of time. For organizations that require specific but comprehensive information we offer customized solutions through ad hoc reports. These requests are delivered with the perfect combination of right sense of fact-oriented problem solving methodologies and leveraging existing data repositories.

TMR believes that unison of solutions for clients-specific problems with right methodology of research is the key to help enterprises reach right decision.

Contact

Mr. Rohit BhiseyTransparency Market Research

State Tower,

90 State Street,

Suite 700,

Albany NY - 12207

United States

USA - Canada Toll Free: 866-552-3453

Email: sales@transparencymarketresearch.com

Website: https://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/

Read the original post:
Microbial Fermentation Technology Market: Alcoholic Beverages to Remain Most Lucrative Product Segment - BioSpace

Pune, Aug. 18, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The global recombinant vaccines market size is expected to reach USD 25.32 billion by 2027, exhibiting a CAGR of 11.3% between 2019 to 2027. The introduction of innovative recombinant vaccines owing to the incidence of several infectious viruses such as coronavirus and hepatitis B will uplift the market potential during the forecast period, states Fortune Business Insights, in a report, titled Recombinant Vaccines Market Size, Share & COVID-19 Impact Analysis, By Type (Subunit and Live Attenuated), By Route of Administration (Parenteral and Oral), By Disease Indication (Human Papillomavirus (HPV), Hepatitis B, Rotavirus, Herpes Zoster, Meningococcal B, and Others), By Distribution Channel (Hospital & Retail Pharmacies, Government Suppliers and Others) and Geography Forecast, 2020-2027. The market size stood at USD 10.82 billion in 2019.

Request a Sample Copy of the Research Report: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/enquiry/request-sample-pdf/recombinant-vaccines-market-101935

The report recombinant vaccines market comprises:

Market Driver:

Development of Novel Vaccines by Significant Players to Augment Growth

The growing prevalence of diseases and viruses has led to huge investments in R&D for the development of innovative drugs and vaccines. The production of vaccines in larger quantities to relieve the population and prevent the risk of vaccine unavailability. The rising focus of key players towards advanced DNA technology, genomics, and other biotechnology techniques can further enhance the production and thus, benefit the market effectively.

Furthermore, the stellar sales of novel products will subsequently boost the growth of the market. For instance, Mercks Gardasil sales sprouted to US$ 3.7 billion in 2019 from US$ 1.7 billion in 2014. The vast majority of the population affected by Hepatitis B is predicted to be an essential factor in promoting the expansion of the market. As per the Hepatitis B Foundation, every year 30 million people are infected by the hepatitis B virus. Besides, the rising government initiatives and immunization programs will certainly create opportunities for the market in the forthcoming years.

The coronavirus emergency has given immense loss to industries and sectors across the globe. The governments of several countries have instigated lockdown to thwart the spread of this deadly virus. Such plans have caused disturbances in the production and supply chain. But, with time and resolution, we will be able to combat this stern time and get back to normality. Our well-revised reports will help companies to receive in-depth information about the present scenario of every market so that you can adopt the necessary strategies accordingly.

To get to know more about the short-term and long-term impacts of COVID-19 on this market,

please visit: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/industry-reports/recombinant-vaccines-market-101935

Heavy Demand for Vaccines to Escalate Business During Coronavirus

The growing demand for immunization drugs and vaccines due to the extensive spread of the disease amid coronavirus will improve the prospects of the market. The enormous R&D spending by industry players to develop recombinant COVID-19 vaccine will enable speedy expansion of the market in the forthcoming years. For instance, Novavax, a pipeline candidate NVX-CoV2373 is in the phase-1 clinical study against COVID-19. The ongoing clinal trials by pharmaceutical giants for the introduction of an effective COVID vaccine will accelerate the market revenue in the foreseeable future.

Regional Analysis:

Rapid Adoption of Effective Vaccines to Propel Market in North America

The market in North America stood at USD 4.97 billion in 2019 and is expected to rise excellently during the forecast period. The growth in the region is attributed to growing R&D investments by eminent players. The rapid adoption of efficient recombinant vaccines in the US. The increasing accessibility of advanced molecular & genetic engineering instruments is likely to improve the prospects of the market. Asia Pacific is expected to expand rapidly during the forecast period due to the immunization programs by governments.

The increasing demand for effective vaccines is likely to support the development of the market. The rising cases of human papillomavirus disease and hepatitis B are expected to spur opportunities for the market in the foreseeable future. According to the HPV Information Center in 2019, 106,430 annual incidences of human papillomavirus was recorded in China alone. The growing need for vaccine supply can be a crucial factor bolstering the growth of the market in Asia Pacific.

Quick Buy - Recombinant Vaccines Market Research Report: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/checkout-page/101935

Important Development:

April 2020: AstraZeneca announced that it has collaborated with the University of Oxford for the development and distribution of recombinant adenovirus vaccine indicated against COVID-19 infection.

List of the Leading Companies Operating in the Recombinant Vaccines Market are:

Have Any Query? Ask Our Experts: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/enquiry/speak-to-analyst/recombinant-vaccines-market-101935

Detailed Table of Content:

TOC Continued.!!!

Request for Customization: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/enquiry/customization/recombinant-vaccines-market-101935

Have a Look at Related Reports:

Vaccines Market Share & Industry Analysis, By Type (Recombinant/Conjugate/Subunit, Inactivated, Live Attenuated and Toxoid), By Route of Administration (Parenteral and Oral), By Disease Indication (Viral Diseases and Bacterial Diseases), By Age Group (Pediatric and Adults), By Distribution Channel (Hospital & Retail Pharmacies, Government Suppliers and Others) and Region Forecast, 2019-2026

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccines Market Share & Industry Analysis, By Type (Bivalent and Polyvalent), By Disease Indication (HPV Associated Cancer and Genital Warts), By Distribution Channel (Hospital & Retail Pharmacies, Government Suppliers, and Others) and Geography Forecast, 2019-2026

Influenza Vaccine Market Share & Industry Analysis, By Type (Inactivated and Live Attenuated), By Valency (Quadrivalent and Trivalent), By Age Group (Pediatric and Adults), By Distribution Channel (Hospital & Retail Pharmacies, Government Suppliers and Others) and Geography Forecast, 2019-2026

Pediatric Drugs and Vaccines Market Share and Global Trend By Product (Vaccines, Drugs) By Disease Indication (Infectious Disease, Cancer, Allergy And Respiratory, Nervous System Disorders, Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, Others), By Distribution Channel (Hospital Pharmacies, Retail Pharmacies, Online Pharmacies) and Geography Forecast till 2026

Recombinant DNA Technology Market Share and Global Trend By Product (Vaccines, Therapeutic Agents, Recombinant Protein, Others), By Component (Vectors, Expression System, Others), By Application (Diagnostics, Therapeutic, Food and Agriculture, Others), By End User (Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Companies, Diagnostic Laboratories, Academic and Government Research Institutes, Other) and Geography Forecast till 2026

About Us:

Fortune Business Insights offers expert corporate analysis and accurate data, helping organizations of all sizes make timely decisions. We tailor innovative solutions for our clients, assisting them to address challenges distinct to their businesses. Our goal is to empower our clients with holistic market intelligence, giving a granular overview of the market they are operating in.

Our reports contain a unique mix of tangible insights and qualitative analysis to help companies achieve sustainable growth. Our team of experienced analysts and consultants use industry-leading research tools and techniques to compile comprehensive market studies, interspersed with relevant data.

At Fortune Business Insights we aim at highlighting the most lucrative growth opportunities for our clients. We, therefore, offer recommendations, making it easier for them to navigate through technological and market-related changes. Our consulting services are designed to help organizations identify hidden opportunities and understand prevailing competitive challenges.

Contact Us:

Fortune Business Insights Pvt. Ltd. 308, Supreme Headquarters, Survey No. 36, Baner, Pune-Bangalore Highway, Pune - 411045, Maharashtra, India.

Phone:US :+1 424 253 0390UK : +44 2071 939123APAC : +91 744 740 1245Email: sales@fortunebusinessinsights.comFortune Business InsightsLinkedIn | Twitter | Blogs

Press Release: https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/press-release/recombinant-vaccines-market-9498

See the rest here:
Recombinant Vaccines Market to Reach USD 25.32 Billion by 2027; Increasing Prevalence of Human Papillomavirus Disease to Brighten Business Prospects,...

Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market

Los Angeles, United State,- This research study is one of the most detailed and accurate ones that solely focus on the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market. It sheds light on critical factors that impact the growth of the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market on several fronts. Market participants can use the report to gain a sound understanding of the competitive landscape and strategies adopted by leading players of the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market. The authors of the report segment the globalZinc Finger Nuclease Technologymarket according to a type of product, application, and region. The segments studied in the report are analyzed on the basis of market share, consumption, production, market attractiveness, and other vital factors.

The geographical analysis of the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market provided in the research study is an intelligent tool that interested parties can use to identify lucrative regional markets. It helps readers to become aware of the characteristics of different regional markets and how they are progressing in terms of growth. The report also offers a deep analysis of Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market dynamics, including drivers, challenges, restraints, trends and opportunities, and market influence factors. It provides a statistical analysis of the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market, which includes CAGR, revenue, volume, market shares, and other important figures. On the whole, it comes out as a complete package of various market intelligence studies focusing on the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market.

Get PDF template of this report:https://www.qyresearch.com/sample-form/form/1689213/covid-19-impact-on-global-zinc-finger-nuclease-technology-market

Company Profiles: It is a very important section of the report that includes accurate and deep profiling of leading players of the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market. It provides information about the main business, markets served, gross margin, revenue, price, production, and other factors that define the market progress of players studied in the Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology report.

Major Players Cited in the Report

, Sigma-Aldrich, Sangamo Therapeutics, Labomics, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Gilead, Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology

Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size Estimation

In order to estimate and validate the size of the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market, our researchers used bottom-up as well as top-down approaches. These methods were also used to project the Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market size of segments and sub-segments included in the report.

We used secondary sources to determine all breakdowns, splits, and percentage shares and completed their verification with the help of primary sources. We used both primary and secondary research processes to estimate the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market size vis--vis value and analyze the supply chain of the industry. In addition, extensive secondary research was conducted to identify key players in the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market.

Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market by Product

, Cell Line Engineering, Animal Genetic Engineering, Plant Genetic Engineering, Other Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology

Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market by Application

, Biotechnology Companies, Pharmaceutical Companies, Hospital Laboratory and Diagnostic Laboratory, Academic and Research Institutes, Others

Report Objectives

Tracking and analyzing competitive developments in the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market, including research and development, merger and acquisition, collaboration, and product launch Analyzing core competencies and market shares of leading companies in a comprehensive manner Forecasting the growth of the overall global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market and its important segments on the basis of revenue and volume Pinpointing market opportunities for stakeholders, vendors, market players, and other interested parties Strategically analyzing microeconomic and macroeconomic factors and their influence on future prospects and growth trends of the global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology market

Enquire for customization in Report @https://www.qyresearch.com/customize-request/form/1689213/covid-19-impact-on-global-zinc-finger-nuclease-technology-market

TOC

1 Report Overview1.1 Study Scope1.2 Key Market Segments1.3 Players Covered: Ranking by Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Revenue1.4 Market Analysis by Type1.4.1 Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size Growth Rate by Type: 2020 VS 20261.4.2 Cell Line Engineering1.4.3 Animal Genetic Engineering1.4.4 Plant Genetic Engineering1.4.5 Other1.5 Market by Application1.5.1 Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Share by Application: 2020 VS 20261.5.2 Biotechnology Companies1.5.3 Pharmaceutical Companies1.5.4 Hospital Laboratory and Diagnostic Laboratory1.5.5 Academic and Research Institutes1.5.6 Others1.6 Coronavirus Disease 2019 (Covid-19): Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Industry Impact1.6.1 How the Covid-19 is Affecting the Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Industry1.6.1.1 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Business Impact Assessment Covid-191.6.1.2 Supply Chain Challenges1.6.1.3 COVID-19s Impact On Crude Oil and Refined Products1.6.2 Market Trends and Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Potential Opportunities in the COVID-19 Landscape1.6.3 Measures / Proposal against Covid-191.6.3.1 Government Measures to Combat Covid-19 Impact1.6.3.2 Proposal for Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Players to Combat Covid-19 Impact1.7 Study Objectives1.8 Years Considered2 Global Growth Trends by Regions2.1 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Perspective (2015-2026)2.2 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Growth Trends by Regions2.2.1 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Regions: 2015 VS 2020 VS 20262.2.2 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Historic Market Share by Regions (2015-2020)2.2.3 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Forecasted Market Size by Regions (2021-2026)2.3 Industry Trends and Growth Strategy2.3.1 Market Top Trends2.3.2 Market Drivers2.3.3 Market Challenges2.3.4 Porters Five Forces Analysis2.3.5 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Growth Strategy2.3.6 Primary Interviews with Key Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Players (Opinion Leaders)3 Competition Landscape by Key Players3.1 Global Top Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Players by Market Size3.1.1 Global Top Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Players by Revenue (2015-2020)3.1.2 Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Revenue Market Share by Players (2015-2020)3.1.3 Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Share by Company Type (Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3)3.2 Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Concentration Ratio3.2.1 Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Concentration Ratio (CR5 and HHI)3.2.2 Global Top 10 and Top 5 Companies by Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Revenue in 20193.3 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Key Players Head office and Area Served3.4 Key Players Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Product Solution and Service3.5 Date of Enter into Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market3.6 Mergers & Acquisitions, Expansion Plans4 Breakdown Data by Type (2015-2026)4.1 Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Historic Market Size by Type (2015-2020)4.2 Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Forecasted Market Size by Type (2021-2026)5 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Breakdown Data by Application (2015-2026)5.1 Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Application (2015-2020)5.2 Global Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Forecasted Market Size by Application (2021-2026)6 North America6.1 North America Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size (2015-2020)6.2 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Key Players in North America (2019-2020)6.3 North America Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Type (2015-2020)6.4 North America Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Application (2015-2020)7 Europe7.1 Europe Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size (2015-2020)7.2 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Key Players in Europe (2019-2020)7.3 Europe Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Type (2015-2020)7.4 Europe Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Application (2015-2020)8 China8.1 China Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size (2015-2020)8.2 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Key Players in China (2019-2020)8.3 China Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Type (2015-2020)8.4 China Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Application (2015-2020)9 Japan9.1 Japan Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size (2015-2020)9.2 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Key Players in Japan (2019-2020)9.3 Japan Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Type (2015-2020)9.4 Japan Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Application (2015-2020)10 Southeast Asia10.1 Southeast Asia Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size (2015-2020)10.2 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Key Players in Southeast Asia (2019-2020)10.3 Southeast Asia Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Type (2015-2020)10.4 Southeast Asia Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Application (2015-2020)11 India11.1 India Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size (2015-2020)11.2 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Key Players in India (2019-2020)11.3 India Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Type (2015-2020)11.4 India Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Application (2015-2020)12 Central & South America12.1 Central & South America Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size (2015-2020)12.2 Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Key Players in Central & South America (2019-2020)12.3 Central & South America Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Type (2015-2020)12.4 Central & South America Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Size by Application (2015-2020)13 Key Players Profiles13.1 Sigma-Aldrich13.1.1 Sigma-Aldrich Company Details13.1.2 Sigma-Aldrich Business Overview and Its Total Revenue13.1.3 Sigma-Aldrich Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Introduction13.1.4 Sigma-Aldrich Revenue in Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Business (2015-2020))13.1.5 Sigma-Aldrich Recent Development13.2 Sangamo Therapeutics13.2.1 Sangamo Therapeutics Company Details13.2.2 Sangamo Therapeutics Business Overview and Its Total Revenue13.2.3 Sangamo Therapeutics Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Introduction13.2.4 Sangamo Therapeutics Revenue in Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Business (2015-2020)13.2.5 Sangamo Therapeutics Recent Development13.3 Labomics13.3.1 Labomics Company Details13.3.2 Labomics Business Overview and Its Total Revenue13.3.3 Labomics Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Introduction13.3.4 Labomics Revenue in Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Business (2015-2020)13.3.5 Labomics Recent Development13.4 Thermo Fisher Scientific13.4.1 Thermo Fisher Scientific Company Details13.4.2 Thermo Fisher Scientific Business Overview and Its Total Revenue13.4.3 Thermo Fisher Scientific Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Introduction13.4.4 Thermo Fisher Scientific Revenue in Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Business (2015-2020)13.4.5 Thermo Fisher Scientific Recent Development13.5 Gilead13.5.1 Gilead Company Details13.5.2 Gilead Business Overview and Its Total Revenue13.5.3 Gilead Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Introduction13.5.4 Gilead Revenue in Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Business (2015-2020)13.5.5 Gilead Recent Development14 Analysts Viewpoints/Conclusions15 Appendix15.1 Research Methodology15.1.1 Methodology/Research Approach15.1.2 Data Source15.2 Disclaimer15.3 Author Details

About Us:

QYResearch always pursuits high product quality with the belief that quality is the soul of business. Through years of effort and supports from the huge number of customer supports, QYResearch consulting group has accumulated creative design methods on many high-quality markets investigation and research team with rich experience. Today, QYResearch has become a brand of quality assurance in the consulting industry.

The rest is here:
Zinc Finger Nuclease Technology Market Projected to Witness Vigorous Expansion by 2020-2026 | , Sigma-Aldrich, Sangamo Therapeutics - StartupNG

To date, no one has stated the urgent universal need to aggressively investigate the true origin of SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus responsible for COVID-19, better than Karl and Dan Sirotkin in their August 12, 2020 article Might SARSCoV2 Have Arisen via Serial Passage through an Animal Host or Cell Culture?

Despite claims from prominent scientists that SARSCoV2 indubitably emerged naturally, the etiology of this novel coronavirus remains a pressing and open question: Without knowing the true nature of a disease, it is impossible for clinicians to appropriately shape their care, for policymakers to correctly gauge the nature and extent of the threat, and for the public to appropriately modify their behaviour.

As the authors correctly note, serial passage, that is, the repeated re-infection within an animal or human population allows a virus to specifically adapt to the infected species.

That process occurs naturally in the wild, but it can be greatly accelerated in the laboratory by deliberate serial passaging of viruses in cell culture systems or animals, potentially leaving few or no traces as to whether the adapted viruses are naturally-occurring or laboratory-manipulated.

That type of "gain of function" experimentation can become particularly dangerous if viruses are adapted for human infection by serial passaging them through cell cultures and animal models that have been genetically-modified to express human receptors.

There are numerous scientific publications describing serial passaging of coronaviruses through humanised cell cultures and animal models, thus potentially creating a new coronavirus pre-adapted for human infection.

At present, the scientific consensus is that SARS-CoV-2 came from bats, but how it evolved to infect humans remains unknown.

China has claimed that a bat coronavirus named RaTG13 is the closest relative to SARS-CoV-2, but RaTG13 is not actually a virus because no biological samples exist. It is only a genomic sequence of a virus for which there are now serious questions about its accuracy.

In contrast, Dr Li-Meng Yan, a Chinese virologist and whistleblower, has implied that RaTG13 may have been used to divert the worlds attention away from the true source of the COVID-19 pandemic, a novel coronavirus that originated in military laboratories overseen by China's Peoples Liberation Army and created by the manipulation of Zhoushan coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21.

SARS-CoV-2 has signs of serial passaging and the direct genetic insertion of novel amino acids sequences for which no natural evolutionary pathway has been identified.

Although SARS-CoV-2 appears to have the backbone of bat coronaviruses, its spike protein, which is responsible for binding to the human cell and its membrane fusion-driven entry, has sections that do not appear in any closely-related bat coronaviruses.

SARS-CoV-2s receptor binding domain, the specific element that binds to the human cell, has a ten times greater binding affinity than the first SARS virus that caused the 2002-2003 pandemic.

Furthermore, SARS-CoV-2 appears to be pre-adapted for human infection and has not undergone a similar natural mutation process within the human population that was observed during the 2002-2003 SARS outbreak.

Those observations plus the inexplicable genetic distance between SARS-CoV-2 and any of its potential bat predecessors suggest an accelerated evolutionary process obtained by laboratory-based serial passaging through genetically-engineered mouse models containing humanised receptors previously developed by China.

The other unique feature of SARS-CoV-2 is a furin polybasic cleavage site that facilitates membrane fusion between the virus and the human cell and widely known for its ability to enhance pathogenicity and transmissibility, but also is not present in any closely related bat coronaviruses.

There are no readily-available animal models to produce a unique furin polybasic cleavage site by serial passaging, but techniques for the artificial insertion of such furin polybasic cleavage sites by genetic engineering have been used for over ten years.

To paraphrase Karl and Dan Sirotkin, unless the zoonotic hosts necessary for completing a natural jump from animals to humans are identified, the dualuse gainoffunction research practice of viral serial passage and the artificial insertion of unique viral features should be considered viable routes by which SARS-CoV-2 arose and the COVID-19 pandemic was initiated.

Lawrence Sellin, PhD is a retired US Army Reserve colonel. He has previously worked at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases and conducted basic and clinical research in the pharmaceutical industry. His email address is lawrence.sellin@gmail.com.

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL.)

More:
Unless true origin of coronavirus is identified, another Chinese pandemic is in the offing - WION

Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

University researchers genetically engineer a human pandemic virus. They inject the new virus into a laboratory mouse. The infected mouse then bites a researcher..It is a plot worthy of a Hollywood blockbuster about risky coronavirus research.

But according to newly obtained minutes of the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) of the University of North Carolina (UNC), Chapel Hill, these exact events need not be imagined. They occurred for real between April 1st and May 6th this year.

The identity of the bitten coronavirus researcher has not been revealed except that they were working in a high security BSL-3 virus lab when the accident happened.

According to Richard Ebright, an epidemiologist from Rutgers University, the UNC incident underscores an important development in virus research since the pandemic began:

There has been an explosion of research involving fully infectious SARS-CoV-2 over the last six months.Research with infectious SARS-CoV-2 now is occurring in every, or almost every, BSL-3 facility in the US and overseas.

This strong upsurge is affirmed by Edward Hammond of Prickly Research, Austin, TX, former Director of the Sunshine Project, an NGO that tracked the post 9/11 expansion of the US Biodefense program.

It is evident that swarms of academic researchers with little prior experience with coronaviruses have leapt into the field in recent months.

For Hammond, this explosion represents a hazard:

We need to be clear headed about the risk. The first SARS virus was a notorious source of laboratory-acquired infections and there is a very real risk that modified forms of SARS-CoV-2 could infect researchers, especially inexperienced researchers, with unpredictable and potentially quite dangerous results. The biggest risk is the creation and accidental release of a novel form of SARS-CoV-2 a variant whose altered characteristics might undermine global efforts to stop the pandemic by evading the approaches being taken to find COVID vaccines and treatments.

And, continues Hammond: Each additional lab that experiments with CoV-2 amplifies the risk.

Richard Ebright concurs, telling Independent Science News in an email that this research is:

in many cases being performedbyresearchers who have no prior experience in BSL-3 operations and pathogens research, and who therefore pose elevated risk of laboratory accidents withBSL-3 pathogens.

Ebright is also concerned that some influential experimenters are now calling for reduced oversight:

The UNC incident also underscores that calls by some, notably Columbia University virologist Vincent Racaniello (Podcast at 01:35mins onwards), to allow virus-culture and virus-production research with fully infectious SARS-CoV-2 at BSL-2 are egregiously irresponsible and absolutely unacceptable.

Other researchers are also calling for restraint. In a paper titled Prudently conduct the engineering and synthesis of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, researchers from China and the US critiqued the synthesis in February of a full length infectious clone (Gao et al., 2020; Thao et al., 2020). And, in concluding, these researchers asked a question that is even more pertinent now than then Once the risks [of a lab escape] become a reality, who or which organization should take responsibility for them?

The accident at the University of North Carolina (UNC) is now in the public domain but only thanks to a FOIA request submitted by Hammond (in line with NIH guidelines) and shared with Independent Science News.

Despite the FOIA request, apart from the fact that UNC classified it as an official Reportable Incident, i.e. that must be reported to National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Washington DC, scarcely any information about the accident is available.

In part this is because the minutes of the relevant IBC meeting (May 6th, 2020, p109) are extremely brief. They do not provide any details of the fate of the bitten researcher. Nor do they state, for example, whether the researcher developed an active infection, nor whether they developed symptoms, nor if they transmitted the recombinant virus to anyone else. Neither do they reveal what kind of recombinant virus was being used or the purpose of the experiment.

To try to learn more, Independent Science News emailed the lab of Ralph Baric at UNC, which, based on their research history is the most likely coronavirus research group involved (Roberts et al., 2007; Menachery et al., 2015), the University Biosafety Officer, and UNC Media relations.

Only the latter replied:

The April 2020 incident referred to in the University Institutional Biosafety Committee meeting minutes involved a mouse-adapted SARS-CoV-2 strain used in the development of a mouse model system.

Ralph Baric UNC Gillings School of Public Health-web.

The researcher did not develop any symptoms and noinfection occurredas a result of the incident.

Our questions in full and the full UNC reply are available here.

The second reason for this lack of information is that the UNC redacted the names of Principal Investigators (PIs) whose research required biosafety scrutiny, along with many of the experimental specifics.

Nevertheless, unredacted parts of minutes from IBC meetings held in 2020 contain descriptions of experiments that potentially encompass the accident. They include:

Application 75223:

(a full-length infectious clone refers to a viable DNA copy of the coronavirus, which is ordinarily an RNA virus)

and

Application 73790:

and

Application 74962:

In all, any one of eight sets of different experiments approved by the UNC Chapel Hill IBC in 2020 proposed infecting mice with live infectious and mutant SARS-CoV-2-like coronaviruses under BSL-3 conditions and therefore could have led to the accident.

According to Hammond the lack of transparency represented by the sparse minutes and especially the redactions represent a violation of sciences social contract:

At the dawn of recombinant DNA, at the request of the scientific community itself, following the fabled Asilomar conference, the United States government took the position of not regulating genetic engineering in the lab. The deal that big science struck with the government was that, in return for not being directly regulated, principal investigators would take personal responsibility for lab biosafety, involve the public in decision-making, and accept public accountability for their actions.

The NIH Guidelines and Institutional Biosafety Committee system of self-regulation by researchers is founded upon the principal of personal responsibility of PIs and the promise of transparency. The redaction of the researchers identities from IBC meeting minutes, in order to hide the activities of researchers and avoid accountability for accidents, fundamentally contradicts the core principles of the US oversight system and violates the commitments that science made.

Richard Ebright goes further:

There is no justification for UNCs redactionof the names of the laboratory heads andthe identities of pathogens. UNCs redactions violate conditions UNC agreed to in exchange for NIH funding of UNCs research and, if not corrected, should result in the termination of current NIH funding, and the loss of eligibility for future NIH funding, of UNCs research.

Are universities doing too many risky experiments on coronaviruses?

The second concern of researchers contacted by Independent Science News is that unnecessary and dangerous experiments will be conducted as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Richard Ebright:

The UNC incident shows that serious laboratory accidents with SARS-CoV-2can occur even in a lab having extremely extensive experience in BSL-3 operations and unmatched expertise in coronavirus research, and underscores the risks associated with uncontrolled proliferation of research on SARS-CoV-2, especially for labs lacking prior experience in BSL-3 operations and coronavirus research.

For this reason Ebright argues that:

It is essential that a national needs-assessment and biosafety assessment be performed for research involving fully infectious SARS-CoV-2. It also is essential that a risk-benefit review be performed before approving research projects involving fully infectious SARS-CoV-2something that currently does not occurto ensure that potential benefits to the public outweigh the real risks to laboratory workers and the public.

This concern over risks and benefits is shared by Edward Hammond. Using FOIA again he has further discovered that researchers at the University of Pittsburgh (whose identity is redacted) plan to make what Hammond calls Corona-thrax.

In short, according to its Institutional Biosafety Committee, Pittsburgh researchers intend put the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 (which allows the virus to gain entry into human cells) into Bacillus anthracis which is the causative agent of anthrax.

The anthrax strain proposed to be used for this experiment is disarmed but, Hammond agrees with Gao et al., (2020) that the balance of risks and benefits appears not to be receiving adequate consideration.

This experiment was nevertheless approved by the Institutional Biosafety Committee of the University of Pittsburgh. But by redacting the name of the laboratory from the minutes and also every name of the members of the committee which approved it, the University has supplied a de facto response to the final question posed by Gao et al.: who will take responsibility for risky coronavirus research?

References

Gao, P., Ma, S., Lu, D., Mitcham, C., Jing, Y., & Wang, G. (2020). Prudently conduct the engineering and synthesis of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.Synthetic and systems biotechnology,5(2), 59-61.Menachery, V. D., Yount, B. L., Debbink, K., Agnihothram, S., Gralinski, L. E., Plante, J. A., & Randell, S. H. (2015). A SARS-like cluster of circulating bat coronaviruses shows potential for human emergence.Nature medicine,21(12), 1508-1513.Roberts, A., Deming, D., Paddock, C. D., Cheng, A., Yount, B., Vogel, L., & Zaki, S. R. (2007). A mouse-adapted SARS-coronavirus causes disease and mortality in BALB/c mice.PLoS Pathog,3(1), e5.Thao, T. T. N., Labroussaa, F., Ebert, N., Vkovski, P., Stalder, H., Portmann, J., & Gultom, M. (2020). Rapid reconstruction of SARS-CoV-2 using a synthetic genomics platform.BioRxiv.

This article first appeared in Independent Science News.

Link:
Engineered COVID-19-Infected Mouse Bites Researcher Amid 'Explosion' of Risky Coronavirus Research - CounterPunch

2.08.1 Introduction to Genetic Engineering

With the discovery of DNA as the universal genetic material in 1944 [1] and the elucidation of its molecular structure approximately a decade later [2], the era of DNA science and technology had officially begun. However, it wasnt until the 1970s that researchers began manipulating DNA with the use of highly specific enzymes, such as restriction endonucleases and DNA ligases. The experiments in molecular biology conducted within Stanford University and the surrounding Bay Area in 1972 represent the earliest examples of recombinant DNA technology and genetic engineering [3, 4]. Specifically, a team of molecular biologists were able to artificially construct a bacterial plasmid DNA molecule by splicing and combining fragments from two naturally occurring plasmids of distinct origin. The resulting recombinant DNA was then introduced into a bacterial Escherichia coli host strain for replication and expression of the resident genes. This famous example represents the first use of recombinant DNA technology to generate a genetically modified organism.

In general, genetic engineering (Figure 1) refers to all the techniques used to artificially modify an organism in order to produce a desired substance (such as an enzyme or a metabolite) that is not naturally produced by the organism, or to enhance a preexisting cellular process. As a first step, the desired DNA segment or gene is isolated from a source organism by extracting and purifying the total cellular DNA. The DNA is then manipulated using numerous laboratory techniques and inserted into a genetic carrier molecule in order to be delivered to the host strain. The means of gene delivery is dependent upon the type of organism involved and can be classified into viral and nonviral methods. Transformation (nonviral, for bacteria and lower eukaryotes), transfection (viral and nonviral, for eukaryotes), transduction (viral, for bacteria), and conjugation (cell-to-cell, for bacteria) are all commonly used methods for gene delivery and DNA transfer. Because no method of gene delivery is capable of transforming every cell within a population, the ability to distinguish recombinant cells from nonrecombinants constitutes a crucial aspect of genetic engineering. This step frequently involves the use of observable phenotypic differences between recombinant and nonrecombinant cells. In rare instances where no selection of recombinants is available, laborious screening techniques are required to locate an extremely small subpopulation of recombinant cells within a substantially larger population of wild-type cells.

Figure 1. Basic genetic engineering process scheme including replication and expression of recombinant DNA according to the central dogma of molecular biology.

Although cells are composed of various biomolecules including carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids, and proteins, DNA is the primary manipulation target for genetic engineering. According to the central dogma of molecular biology, DNA serves as a template for replication and gene expression, and therefore harnesses the genetic instructions required for the functioning of all living organisms. Through gene expression, coding segments of DNA are transcribed to form messenger RNAs, which are subsequently translated to form polypeptides or protein chains. Therefore, by manipulating DNA, we can potentially modify the structure, function, or activity of proteins and enzymes, which are the final products of gene expression. This concept forms the basis of many genetic engineering techniques such as recombinant protein production and protein engineering. Furthermore, virtually every cellular process is carried out and regulated by enzymes, including the reactions, pathways, and networks that constitute an organisms metabolism. Therefore, a cells metabolism can be deliberately altered modifying or even restructuring native metabolic pathways to lead to novel metabolic activities and capabilities, an application known as metabolic engineering. Such metabolic engineering approaches are often realized through DNA manipulation.

The first genetically engineered product approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for commercial manufacturing appeared in 1982 when a strain of E. coli was engineered to produce recombinant human insulin [5]. Prior to this milestone, insulin was obtained predominantly from slaughterhouse animals, typically porcine and bovine, or by extraction from human cadavers. Insulin has a relatively simple structure composed of two small polypeptide chains joined through two intermolecular disulfide bonds. Unfortunately, wild-type E. coli is incapable of performing many posttranslational protein modifications, including the disulfide linkages required to form active insulin. In order to overcome this limitation, early forms of synthetic insulin were manufactured by first producing the recombinant polypeptide chains in different strains of bacteria and linking them through a chemical oxidation reaction [5]. However, nearly all current forms of insulin are produced using yeast rather than bacteria due to the yeasts ability to secrete a nearly perfect replica of human insulin without requiring any chemical modifications. Following the success of recombinant human insulin, recombinant forms of other biopharmaceuticals began appearing on the market, such as human growth hormone in 1985 [6] and tissue plasminogen activator in 1987 [7], all of which are produced using the same genetic engineering concepts as applied to the production of recombinant insulin.

As a result of the sheer number of applications and immense potential associated with genetic engineering, exercising bioethics becomes necessary. Concerns pertaining to the unethical and unsafe use of genetic engineering quickly arose with the advent of gene cloning and recombinant DNA technology in the 1970s, predominantly owing to a general lack of understanding and experience regarding the new technology. The ability of scientists to interfere with nature and alter the genetic makeup of living organisms was the focal point of many concerns surrounding genetic engineering. Although it is widely assumed that the potential agricultural, medical, and industrial benefits afforded by genetic engineering greatly outweigh the inherent risks surrounding such a powerful technology, most of the moral and ethical concerns raised during the inception of genetic engineering are still actively expressed today. For this reason, all genetically modified products produced worldwide are subject to government inspection and approval prior to their commercialization. Regardless of the application in question, a great deal of responsibility and care must be exercised when working with genetically engineered organisms to ensure the safe handling, treatment, and disposal of all genetically modified products and organisms.

As the field of biotechnology relies heavily upon the application of genetic engineering, this article introduces both the fundamental and applied concepts with regard to current genetic engineering methods and techniques. Particular emphasis shall be placed upon the genetic modification of bacterial systems, especially those involving the most famous workhorse E. coli on account of its well-known genetics, rapid growth, and ease of manipulation.

See original here:
Genetic Engineering - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics

I think the ethics and morals of genetic engineering are very complicated. It intrigues me.

Roger Spottiswoode

Genetic engineering can be defined as manipulation of an organisms genes with the help of biotechnology.

The first official genetic manipulation happened in 1972 by Paul Berg when he combined the DNA from a monkey virus with the lambda virus.

Genetic engineering is a very controversial topic in our society. There are many pros and cons regarding this topic.

In the following, the advantages as wells as the downsides of genetic manipulation are examined.

In order to create a genetically modified organism, scientists first have to choose what gene they want to insert into the organism. With the help of genetic screens, potential genes can be tested with the goal of finding the best candidates.

When a suitable gene has been determined, the next step is to isolate it. The cell which contains the gene has to be opened and the DNA has to be purified.

After isolating the gene, it is ligated into a plasmid which is inserted into a bacterium. Thus, whenever the bacterium divides, the plasmid is also replicated. This leads to a vast number of copies of this gene.

Before inserting the gene into the target organism, it has to be combined with other genetic elements including a terminator and promoter region which end and initiate the transcription.

In the final step, the genetic material is inserted into a host genome. After that, the genetic engineering process is finished.

Genetic engineering is often used by scientists to improve their understanding on how genetics actually work and how they affect our talents and our decisions.

From these findings, scientists can provide insights for medical purposes and thus increase the probability for curing serious diseases in the future.

There are many important areas in the field of medicine in which genetic manipulation could contribute to a better treatment of diseases. This also includes the invention of more effective drugs with less side effects.

Moreover, model animals can be genetically modified in hope to get new insights on how these modifications would work on humans.

For this purpose, using mice in order to examine the effects of genetic manipulation on obesity, cancer, heart diseases and other serious conditions is common practice in nowadays scientific work.

Genetic engineering is also used in the field of agriculture in order to increase yields and also make plants more resistant to pests. Moreover, even genetic experiments on livestock have been performed in the past.

Apart from the use for consumption, plants have also been genetically modified for medical purposes. By changing the gene structure of plants, scientists want to examine if they could produce new drugs which can cure diseases more effectively.

Genetic manipulation is also a field of interest for industrial purposes. Since through genetic engineering processes, all kinds of properties of animals and plants can be modified, this also comes down to a potential increase in revenue for firms if they are able to optimize the gene structure for their purposes. An example for this is the use of genetically modified bacteria for making biofuels.

The rules for genetic engineering vary significantly across different countries. However, there is some consensus on the level of danger genetic modification poses to humanity.

For example, the majority of scientists claim that there is no greater risk to human health from genetically modified crops compared to conventional food.

However, before making this genetically modified food available for public consumption, it has to be tested extensively in order to exclude any possibility of danger.

Moreover, some groups like Greenpeace or the World Wildlife Fund claim that genetically modified food should be tested more rigorously before releasing it for public consumption.

There are some severe diseases which we will likely never be able to fight if we do not use genetic engineering. From only small manipulations of genes, it is expected that we can fight a significant number of deadly diseases. Moreover, even for unborn babies, there could be genetic diseases detected.

The most prominent example for this kind of genetic disease is the Down syndrome. If our scientists get quite advanced, it is likely that we would be able to cure all genetic diseases, even that of unborn children.

Abortions because of the diagnosis of genetic diseases would no longer be necessary since we could ensure the babies health through genetic manipulation.

Since we can fight many diseases with genetic engineering, the overall life expectancy of people is likely to increase since the dangers of death due to these diseases decreases. Moreover, if we are able to further improve our knowledge regarding genetic modification, diseases could be treated more effectively.

Especially in poor countries where some diseases can cause the death of many people, also the development of genetically modified plants for medical use could be a great measure in order to mitigate the issue. We could also fight diseases which usually cause death for old people and thus prolong their lifes.

Moreover, we can increase their life quality since old people do not have to suffer from these diseases anymore. Thus, genetic engineering may lead to an increase in average life expectancy.

With the help of genetic manipulation, we could increase the variety of foods and drinks for our daily consumption. Moreover, we could further improve the crop yields since we could create sorts of plants that are resistant to all kinds of pests. Thus, we could supply enough food to all people worldwide and fight famine in an effective way.

Additionally, with the help of genetic engineering, it may be possible to create more nutritious food. This would be especially beneficial in countries where people suffer from vitamin deficiencies. If we are able to increase the level of this vitamins in crops or other foods, we could help people to overcome their vitamin deficiency.

If we are able to modify the genetics in a way that they naturally become resistant against pests, we will no longer have to use harmful chemical pesticides. Thus, genetic engineering may also lead to a reduction in the use of pesticides.

With the help of genetic engineering, we may also be able to create certain medical foods which may also replace some of the common injections. Medical foods may also help to prevent certain diseases. Therefore, genetic engineering could also lead to an improvement of medical standards.

Through genetic engineering, it would be possible to create plant species which need less water than the plant species currently used in agriculture.

By replacing the natural species with genetically modified ones, farmers could save plenty of water. This would be especially useful in regions where water shortage is a serious problem.

Water shortage will be a quite big issue in the future due to global warming. If the average temperature increases, water scarcity is likely to also increase.

Thus, with the help of genetic modification, water can be saved and the problem of water shortages may be mitigated to a certain extent.

We may also be able to increase the speed of growth of plants and animals. By doing so, we could produce more food in a given period of time. This may quite important since our world population is growing and therefore the demand for food is increasing.

Through genetic modification, we may also be able to strengthen specific characteristics of plants. This may include that plants are better able to adapt to the global warming problem or that they may become more resistant to changes in their natural conditions.

Many followers of religions are strictly against genetic engineering since they think playing god should not be a task performed by humans. There are also ethic concerns if genetic manipulation should become a valid instrument for changing the course of our lifes.

There is also the argument that diseases are a natural phenomenon and that they have a role in nature since they persisted over a quite long time horizon of evolution. Moreover, there are many scientists who believe that the creation of designer babies could not be in the interest of humanity.

If perfected, parents could choose the eye color, hair color or even the sex of the baby. This could lead to an optimization contest in our society which could also have vast negative effects if pushed too far.

Genetic manipulation can also cause genetic problems if we do not handle it in a proper way. Since science is still on an early stage on the understanding of genetics, manipulations of genes may even do more harm than good at our current state of genetic understanding. Errors could even lead to the development of new diseases or to miscarriages.

Genetic engineering also poses a risk to human health. For example, genetically modified food may lead to long-term health issues. There is just not enough reliable data yet on how harmful genetic engineering really is in the long term. Thus, it may pose serious health effects, some of them currently even unknown by scientists.

Genetic engineering may also lead to the development of allergies against certain food items. Since the DNA-structure is altered in the genetic modification process, food that has former been uncritical for people could now cause allergic reactions.

Genetic engineering is also used to modify plants. Specifically, some plant species have been developed which include their own pesticide which can protect them from animals and insects.

In this way, scientists hope to be able to increase crop yields. However, this altering of genetic code in plants can lead to a resistance of certain insects to the pesticide.

This may pose big problems to the agricultural system since if insects or other pests become resistant against toxins, they are harder to fight.

Thus, in the short run, altering genetic material in plants may have its advantages. However, in the long run, there may be severe issues when it comes to resistance of pest strains.

Some researchers are afraid that genetic engineering may also lead to a resistance against antibiotics for humans. This may lead to serious problems since the treatment of diseases with antibiotics will not be effective anymore.

Genetic engineering would also lead to a reduction in genetic diversity. Since the process of gene manipulation would be quite expensive, only rich people would be able to afford it.

Thus, this would likely lead to human behavior which favors being rich over all other things in order to be able to afford genetic manipulation. As a consequence, the variety of human behavior would be reduced.

Since genetically modified plants often contain own pesticides, they can be quite harmful to animals which are consuming these kinds of plants. Animals can suffer severe diseases from these pesticides and even die.

This problem is especially severe for butterflies and other insects which usually rely on certain plants in their near surroundings. If the natural versions of plants are replaced by genetically modified plants containing pesticides, these insects are likely to suffer from severe health conditions.

Researchers found that residues of genetically modified plants persist on the soil of fields for many months. Thus, the activity of microbes is adversely affected which can lead to a loss in fertility of the soil.

If genetically modified plants are more resistant against pests, chances are that they will displace local natural plant species in the long run. This also contributes to a reduction in genetic variety and can cause the issues related to this phenomenon.

Genetic engineering is an area which can be quite profitable for some firms. However, it is also quite expensive field of study. There are some big companies which have huge control over the seed market and thus also have a big influence on political decisions regarding the admission of genetically engineered plants for agricultural purposes.

Thus, even if there may be dangers from these admissions, companies may still get permission to sell the genetically modified seeds since they may have high influence on political decision makers.

Golden rice, unlike any other sort of rice, also contains provitamin A. It is estimated that a lack of this vitamin causes up to 500.000 cases of blindness across children each year.

Moreover, around one million people even die from a lack of this vitamin. Thus, the introduction of this gene manipulated golden rice could mitigate this problem.

Genes from the mouse-ear cress are studied extensively since they help scientists to understand the nature of a variety of plant characteristics concerning photosynthetic activity, droughts, growth speed and many more.

After finding the genes related to different characteristics of the mouse-ear cress, they can be used to modify the genes of cultivated species in order to improve their yields and resistance.

Even just a small modification in the genes of onions have led to significant effects. On the one hand, the modified onion doesnt make people cry anymore when they cut it. On the other hand, the concentration of healthy compounds like sulphur-containing substances has been increased.

There has been attempts to lower the concentration of saturated fatty acids in soy oil. Moreover, there are also companies trying to increase the level of omega-3 fatty acids of their oils.

In order to fight the osteoporosis problem, genetically modified carrots with a higher concentration of organically bound calcium have been produced. Studies have shown that humans were able to absorb 42% more calcium from the modified carrots than from normal carrots.

There have been several experiments of genetic modification in order to fight abiotic stress with the purpose of increasing frost resistance, drought resistance or the resistance against flooded fields.

Bananas are an important source of calories for many people. However, they are vulnerable to new kinds of diseases. Thus, a pepper gene has been inserted in bananas in order to make them more resistant.

Transferring a gene from a decorative plant into a tomato not only changed the color of the tomato from red to purple, it also enabled the tomato to produce anthocyanin, which prevented mice from getting cancer.

When cutting an apple and leaving it untouched for a while, it usually turns brown. There have been attempts from industries to create a sort of apples called Artic apple, which will no longer turn brown after cutting.

Genetic engineering is a quite controversial topic in our society. It has many advantages and fields of application, but can also have detrimental effects on humans as well as on the whole ecological system.

There are also many religious and ethic concerns against the use of gene manipulation. Thus, as humans, we have to make difficult decisions in the future on whether we want to play god in order to be able to fight deadly diseases or if we do not want to take the risk.

Sources

http://www.fao.org/3/Y5160E/y5160e10.htm#P3_1651The

http://www.fao.org/3/y4955e/y4955e06.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_engineering

About the author

My name is Andreas and my mission is to educate people of all ages about our environmental problems and how everyone can make a contribution to mitigate these issues.

As I went to university and got my Masters degree in Economics, I did plenty of research in the field of Development Economics.

After finishing university, I traveled around the world. From this time on, I wanted to make a contribution to ensure a livable future for the next generations in every part of our beautiful planet.

Wanna make a contribution to save our environment? Share it!

Follow this link:
Genetic Engineering: Pros & Cons - E&C