Name:
Date:
Science 8
ARTICLE #1: Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): Transgenic Crops and
Recombinant DNA Technology
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetically-modified-organisms-gmos-transgenic-crops-and-732#
By: Theresa Phillips, Ph.D. (Write Science Right) © 2008 Nature Education
Citation: Phillips, T. (2008) genetically modified organisms (GMOs):
Transgenic crops and recombinant DNA technology. Nature
Education 1(1):213
People have been altering the genomes of plants and animals for many years using traditional breeding techniques. Artificial selection for
specific, desired traits has resulted in a variety of different organisms, ranging from sweet corn to hairless cats. But this artificial selection, in
which organisms that exhibit specific traits are chosen to breed subsequent generations, has been limited to naturally occurr ing variations. In
recent decades, however, advances in the field of genetic engineering have allowed for precise control over the genetic changes introduced
into an organism. Today, we can incorporate new genes from one species into a completely unrelated species through genetic engineering,
optimizing agricultural performance or facilitating the production of valuable pharmaceutical substances. Crop plants, farm animals, and
soil bacteria are some of the more prominent examples of organisms that have been subject to genetic engineering.
Current Use of Genetically Modified Organisms
Agricultural plants are one of the most frequently cited examples of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Some benefits of genetic engineering
in agriculture are increased crop yields, reduced costs for food or drug production, reduced need for pesticides, enhanced
nutrient composition and food quality, resistance to pests and disease, greater food security, and medical benefits to the world's
growing population. Advances have also been made in developing crops that mature faster and tolerate aluminum, boron, salt, drought, frost,
and other environmental stressors, allowing plants to grow in conditions where they might not otherwise flourish (Table 1; Takeda & Matsuoka,
2008). Other applications include the production of non-protein (bioplastic) or nonindustrial (ornamental plant) products. A number of animals
have also been genetically engineered to increase yield and decrease susceptibility to disease. For example, salmon have been engineered to
grow larger (Figure 1) and mature faster (Table 1), and cattle have been enhanced to exhibit resistance to mad cow disease (United States
Department of Energy, 2007).
Table 1: Examples of GMOs Resulting from Agricultural Biotechnology
Example
Organism
Genetic Change
Herbicide tolerance
Soybean
Glyphosate herbicide (Roundup) tolerance conferred by expression of a
glyphosate-tolerant form of the plant enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3phosphate synthase (EPSPS) isolated from the soil
bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens, strainCP4
Insect resistance
Corn
Resistance to insect pests, specifically the European corn borer, through
expression of the insecticidal protein Cry1Ab from Bacillus thuringiensis
Altered fatty acid composition
Canola
High laurate levels achieved by inserting thegene for ACP thioesterase
from the California bay tree Umbellularia californica
Genetically Conferred Trait
APPROVED COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS
Name:
Date:
Science 8
Virus resistance
Plum
Resistance to plum pox virus conferred byinsertion of a coat protein (CP)
gene from the virus
Vitamin enrichment
Rice
Three genes for the manufacture of beta-carotene, a precursor to
vitamin A, in the endosperm of the rice prevent its removal (from husks)
during milling
Vaccines
Tobacco
Hepatitis B virus surface antigen (HBsAg) produced in transgenic
tobacco induces immune response when injected into mice
Oral vaccines
Maize
Fusion protein (F) from Newcastle disease virus (NDV) expressed in corn
seeds induces an immune response when fed to chickens
Faster maturation
Coho salmon
A type 1 growth hormone gene injected into fertilized fish eggs results in
6.2% retention of the vector at one year of age, as well as significantly
increased growth rates
PRODUCTS STILL IN DEVELOPMENT
The pharmaceutical industry is another frontier for the use of GMOs. In 1986, human growth hormone was the first protein pharmaceutical
made in plants (Barta et al., 1986), and in 1989, the first antibody was produced (Hiatt et al., 1989). Both research groups used tobacco, which
has since dominated the industry as the most intensively studied and utilized plant species for the expression of foreign genes (Ma et al., 2003).
As of 2003, several types of antibodies produced in plants had made it to clinical trials. The use of genetically modified animals has also been
indispensable in medical research. Transgenic animals are routinely bred to carry human genes, or mutations in specific genes, thus allowing
the study of the progression and genetic determinants of various diseases.
Potential GMO Applications
Many industries stand to benefit from additional GMO research. For instance, a number of microorganisms are being considered as future
clean fuel producers and biodegraders. In addition, genetically modified plants may someday be used to produce recombinant vaccines. In fact,
the concept of an oral vaccine expressed in plants (fruits and vegetables) for direct consumption by individuals is being examined as a possible
solution to the spread of disease in underdeveloped countries, one that would greatly reduce the costs associated with conducting large-scale
vaccination campaigns. Work is currently underway to develop plant-derived vaccine candidates in potatoes and lettuce for hepatitis B virus
(HBV), enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC), and Norwalk virus. Scientists are also looking into the production of other commercially
valuable proteins in plants, such as spider silk protein and polymers that are used in surgery or tissue replacement (Ma et al., 2003).
Genetically modified animals have even been used to grow transplant tissues and human transplant organs, a concept called
xenotransplantation. The rich variety of uses for GMOs provides a number of valuable benefits to humans, but many people also worry about
potential risks.
Risks and Controversies Surrounding the Use of GMOs
Despite the fact that the genes being transferred occur naturally in other species, there are unknown consequences to altering the natural state
of an organism through foreign gene expression. After all, such alterations can change the organism's metabolism, growth rate, and/or response
to external environmental factors. These consequences influence not only the GMO itself, but also the natural environment in which that
organism is allowed to proliferate. Potential health risks to humans include the possibility of exposure to new allergens in genetically modified
foods, as well as the transfer of antibiotic-resistant genes to gut flora.
Horizontal gene transfer of pesticide, herbicide, or antibiotic resistance to other organisms would not only put humans at risk, but it would also
cause ecological imbalances, allowing previously innocuous plants to grow uncontrolled, thus promoting the spread of disease among both
plants and animals. Although the possibility of horizontal gene transfer between GMOs and other organisms cannot be denied, in reality, this risk
is considered to be quite low. Horizontal gene transfer occurs naturally at a very low rate and, in most cases, cannot be simulated in an
optimized laboratory environment without active modification of the target genome to increase susceptibility (Ma et al., 2003).
Name:
Date:
Science 8
In contrast, the alarming consequences of vertical gene transfer between GMOs and their wild-type counterparts have been highlighted by
studying transgenic fish released into wild populations of the same species (Muir & Howard, 1999). The enhanced mating advant ages of the
genetically modified fish led to a reduction in the viability of their offspring. Thus, when a new transgene is introduced into a wild fish population,
it propagates and may eventually threaten the viability of both the wild-type and the genetically modified organisms.
Unintended Impacts on Other Species: The Bt Corn Controversy
One example of public debate over the use of a genetically modified plant involves the case of Bt corn. Bt corn expresses a protein from the
bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis. Prior to construction of the recombinant corn, the protein had long been known to be toxic to a number of
pestiferous insects, including the monarch caterpillar, and it had been successfully used as an environmentally friendly insecticide for several
years. The benefit of the expression of this protein by corn plants is a reduction in the amount of insecticide that farmers must apply to their
crops. Unfortunately, seeds containing genes for recombinant proteins can cause unintentional spread of recombinant genes or exposure of
non-target organisms to new toxic compounds in the environment.
The now-famous Bt corn controversy started with a laboratory study by Losey et al. (1999) in which the mortality of monarch larvae was
reportedly higher when fed with milkweed (their natural food supply) covered in pollen from transgenic corn than when fed milkweed covered
with pollen from regular corn. The report by Losey et al. was followed by another publication (Jesse & Obrycki, 2000) suggesting that natural
levels of Bt corn pollen in the field were harmful to monarchs.
Debate ensued when scientists from other laboratories disputed the study, citing the extremely high concentration of pollen used in the
laboratory study as unrealistic, and concluding that migratory patterns of monarchs do not place them in the vicinity of corn during the time it
sheds pollen. For the next two years, six teams of researchers from government, academia, and industry investigated the issue and concluded
that the risk of Bt corn to monarchs was "very low" (Sears et al., 2001), providing the basis for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to
approve Bt corn for an additional seven years
.
Unintended Economic Consequences
Another concern associated with GMOs is that private companies will claim ownership of the organisms they create and not shar e them at a
reasonable cost with the public. If these claims are correct, it is argued that use of genetically modified crops will hurt the economy and
environment, because monoculture practices by large-scale farm production centers (who can afford the costly seeds) will dominate over the
diversity contributed by small farmers who can't afford the technology. However, a recent meta-analysis of 15 studies reveals that, on average,
two-thirds of the benefits of first-generation genetically modified crops are shared downstream, whereas only one-third
accrues upstream (Demont et al., 2007). These benefit shares are exhibited in both industrial and developing countries. Therefore, the argument
that private companies will not share ownership of GMOs is not supported by evidence from first-generation genetically modified crops.
GMOs and the General Public: Philosophical and Religious Concerns
In a 2007 survey of 1,000 American adults conducted by the International Food Information Council (IFIC), 33% of respondents believed that
biotech food products would benefit them or their families, but 23% of respondents did not know biotech foods had already reached the market.
In addition, only 5% of those polled said they would take action by altering their purchasing habits as a result of concerns associated with using
biotech products.
According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, public acceptance trends in Europe and Asia are mixed depending
on the country and current mood at the time of the survey (Hoban, 2004). Attitudes toward cloning, biotechnology, and genetically modified
products differ depending upon people's level of education and interpretations of what each of these terms mean. Support varies for different
types of biotechnology; however, it is consistently lower when animals are mentioned.
Furthermore, even if the technologies are shared fairly, there are people who would still resist consumable GMOs, even with thorough testing
for safety, because of personal or religious beliefs. The ethical issues surrounding GMOs include debate over our right to "play God," as well as
the introduction of foreign material into foods that are abstained from for religious reasons. Some people believe that tampering with nature is
intrinsically wrong, and others maintain that inserting plant genes in animals, or vice versa, is immoral. When it comes to genetically modified
foods, those who feel strongly that the development of GMOs is against nature or religion have called for clear labeling rules so they can make
informed selections when choosing which items to purchase. Respect for consumer choice and assumed risk is as important as having
safeguards to prevent mixing of genetically modified products with non-genetically modified foods. In order to determine the requirements for
such safeguards, there must be a definitive assessment of what constitutes a GMO and universal agreement on how products should be
labeled.
Name:
Date:
Science 8
These issues are increasingly important to consider as the number of GMOs continues to increase due to improved laboratory techniques and
tools for sequencing whole genomes, better processes for cloning and transferring genes, and improved understanding of gene e xpression
systems. Thus, legislative practices that regulate this research have to keep pace. Prior to permitting commercial use of GMOs, governments
perform risk assessments to determine the possible consequences of their use, but difficulties in estimating the impact of commercial GMO use
makes regulation of these organisms a challenge.
History of International Regulations for GMO Research and Development
In 1971, the first debate over the risks to humans of exposure to GMOs began when a common intestinal microorganism, E. coli, was infected
with DNA from a tumor-inducing virus (Devos et al., 2007). Initially, safety issues were a concern to individuals working in laboratories with
GMOs, as well as nearby residents. However, later debate arose over concerns that recombinant organisms might be used as weapons. The
growing debate, initially restricted to scientists, eventually spread to the public, and in 1974, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) established
the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee to begin to address some of these issues.
In the 1980s, when deliberate releases of GMOs to the environment were beginning to occur, the U.S. had very few regulations in place.
Adherence to the guidelines provided by the NIH was voluntary for industry. Also during the 1980s, the use of transgenic plants was becoming
a valuable endeavor for production of new pharmaceuticals, and individual companies, institutions, and whole countries were beginning to view
biotechnology as a lucrative means of making money (Devos et al., 2007). Worldwide commercialization of biotech products sparked new
debate over the patentability of living organisms, the adverse effects of exposure to recombinant proteins, confidentiality issues, the morality
and credibility of scientists, the role of government in regulating science, and other issues. In the U.S., the Congressional Office of Technology
Assessment initiatives were developed, and they were eventually adopted worldwide as a top-down approach to advising policymakers by
forecasting the societal impacts of GMOs.
Then, in 1986, a publication by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), called "Recombinant DNA Safety
Considerations," became the first intergovernmental document to address issues surrounding the use of GMOs. This document recommended
that risk assessments be performed on a case-by-case basis. Since then, the case-by-case approach to risk assessment for genetically
modified products has been widely accepted; however, the U.S. has generally taken a product-based approach to assessment, whereas the
European approach is more process based (Devos et al., 2007). Although in the past, thorough regulation was lacking in many countries,
governments worldwide are now meeting the demands of the public and implementing stricter testing and labeling requirements for genetically
modified crops.
Increased Research and Improved Safety Go Hand in Hand
Proponents of the use of GMOs believe that, with adequate research, these organisms can be safely commercialized. There are many
experimental variations for expression and control of engineered genes that can be applied to minimize potential risks. Some of these practices
are already necessary as a result of new legislation, such as avoiding superfluous DNA transfer (vector sequences) and replacing
selectable marker genes commonly used in the lab (antibiotic resistance) with innocuous plant-derived markers (Ma et al., 2003). Issues such as
the risk of vaccine-expressing plants being mixed in with normal foodstuffs might be overcome by having built-in identification factors, such as
pigmentation, that facilitate monitoring and separation of genetically modified products from non-GMOs. Other built-in control techniques
include having inducible promoters (e.g., induced by stress, chemicals, etc.), geographic isolation, using male-sterile plants, and separate
growing seasons.
GMOs benefit mankind when used for purposes such as increasing the availability and quality of food and medical care, and contributing to a
cleaner environment. If used wisely, they could result in an improved economy without doing more harm than good, and they could also make
the most of their potential to alleviate hunger and disease worldwide. However, the full potential of GMOs cannot be realized without due
diligence and thorough attention to the risks associated with each new GMO on a case-by-case basis.
Name:
Date:
Science 8
ARTICLE #2: Genetically engineered animals: An overview.
http://animalscience.ucdavis.edu/animalbiotech/Outreach/Genetically_engineered_animals_overview.pdf
By: Alison Van Eenennaam, UC Davis. Departement of Animal Science – August 2008.
What is a genetically engineered animal?
A genetically engineered or “transgenic” animal is an animal that carries a known sequence of recombinant DNA in its cells, and which passes
that DNA onto its offspring. Recombinant DNA refers to DNA fragments that have been joined together in a laboratory. The resultant
recombinant DNA “construct” is usually designed to express the protein(s) that are encoded by the gene(s) included in the construct, when
present in the genome of a transgenic animal. Because the genetic code for all organisms is made up of the same four nucleotide building
blocks, this means that a gene makes the same protein whether it is made in an animal, a plant or a microbe. Some examples of proteins that
have been expressed in transgenic animals include therapeutic proteins for the treatment of human diseases, proteins that enable animals to
better resist disease, and proteins that result in the production of more healthful animal products (milk, eggs or meat) for consumers.
Are there any genetically engineered animals on the market?
As of August 2008, no genetically engineered food animals had been approved for sale in the United States. Growth-enhanced fish are the
transgenic animal application closest to commercialization for food purposes, and several different species are currently going through
regulatory review in three different countries. Since 1999, Aqua Bounty (Aqua Bounty Technologies Inc., Waltham, MA) has been seeking U.S.
regulatory approval for the commercialization of its growth-enhanced AquAdvantageTM Atlantic salmon. This transgenic salmon is capable of
growing faster, but not larger, than standard salmon grown under the same conditions. Transgenic lines of growth-enhanced tilapia and carp
are also under regulatory review in Cuba and China, respectively. The only genetically engineered animal to reach the market in the United
States is an ornamental fluorescent zebrafish (Danio rerio) called GloFish (Yorktown Technologies, Austin, TX). The U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) determined not to formally regulate GloFish on the basis that tropical zebrafish pose no threat to the food supply, and the
fact that there is no evidence that these genetically engineered zebrafish pose any greater threat to the environment than th eir widely sold
unmodified counterparts.
One product of genetic engineering that is currently being used in animal agriculture is recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) derived from
genetically engineered bacteria. This protein, which results in an increase in milk production when administered to lactating cows, is widely
used throughout the U.S. dairy industry. rBST was approved by the FDA in 1993 because extensive testing had revealed no concerns
regarding the safety of milk derived from cows treated with rBST. It should be noted that administering this protein does not modify the DNA of
the cow, and they do not become genetically engineered. People with diabetes similarly administer themselves with insulin derived from
genetically engineered bacteria, and the genetic makeup of these patients is likewise unaltered by the administration of a recombinant protein.
Why are animals being genetically engineered?
Genetic engineering is a useful technology because it enables animals to produce useful novel
proteins. Conventional animal breeding is constrained to selection based on naturally-occurring
variations in the proteins that are present in a species, and this limits the range and extent of genetic improvement that can be achieved.
Genetically-engineered animals are being produced for two distinct applications: human medicine and agriculture.
Most commercial transgenic animal research is in the field of human medicine. Many therapeutic proteins for the treatment of human disease
require animal-cell specific modifications to be effective, and at the present time they are almost all produced in mammalian cell-based
bioreactors. A new cell culture-based manufacturing facility for one therapeutic protein can cost upwards of $US500 million.
The manufacturing capacity for therapeutic proteins cannot keep pace with the rapid progress in drug discovery and development, and this has
resulted in unmet needs and dramatically rising costs.
Genetically engineered animals may provide an important source of these protein drugs in the future because the production of recombinant
proteins in the milk, blood or eggs of transgenic animals presents a less-expensive approach to producing therapeutic proteins in animal cells.
Name:
Date:
Science 8
In 2006, the first human therapeutic protein, Antithrombin III (ATryn®, GTC Biotherapeutics, Framingham, MA), derived from the milk of
genetically engineered goats was approved by the European Commission for the treatment of patients with hereditary antithrombin deficiency.
Transgenic animals are also being used to produce serum biopharmaceutical products such as antibodies that can be used for the treatment of
infections, cancer, organ transplant rejections, and autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis. The current production system for such
blood products is donated human blood, and this is limiting because of disease concerns (e.g. HIV/AIDS), lack of qualified donors, and
regulatory issues. Genetically engineered animals, such as cattle carrying human antibody genes which are able to produce human polyclonal
antibodies, have the potential to provide a steady supply of polyclonal antibodies for the treatment of a variety of infectious and other diseases.
Transgenic mice have also become increasingly important for biological and biomedical research and have generated a vast amount of vital
information about human diseases. Other transgenic animals, including livestock species, are being produced specifically as biomedical
research models for various human afflictions including Alzheimer’s disease, eye disease, and the possible xenotransplantation of cells, tissues
and organs from genetically engineered animals into human organ-transplantation patients. Transgenic animals are also being used to study
animal diseases such as “mad cow” disease (BSE, Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) and infection of the udder (mastitis).
Although researchers have developed transgenic livestock for agricultural applications, including some with enhanced producti on traits,
environmental benefits, and disease resistance attributes, no company with the exception of Aqua Bounty has announced its intent to pursue
the commercialization of these agricultural applications. There is a much higher economic incentive associated with the production of
genetically engineered animals for human medicine applications, than for agricultural applications. Commercialization of agricultural
applications is being slowed by concerns about the cost and timelines associated with the regulatory process, and consumer acceptance
issues. Potential investors are wary because public acceptance of agricultural applications of genetic engineering has generally been lower
than that associated with medical applications of this technology (e.g. recombinant insulin), and public acceptance may be ev en more of an
issue when considering animal agricultural applications of this technology.
How is the genetic engineering of animals regulated?
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the lead agency responsible for the regulation of genetically engineered food animals, and it
plans to regulate transgenic animals under the “new animal drug” provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The f undamental
focus of the new animal drug rubric is: 1) Is the new animal drug safe for the animal?, 2) Is the new animal drug effective, and 3) If the drug is
for a food-producing animal, is the resulting food safe to eat? Although premarket regulatory review of genetically engineered animals is
mandatory, the FDA has not yet issued a formal guidance detailing what information will be required for this regulatory review, and at the
current time
the regulatory path to commercialization of genetically engineered animals remains ill-defined.
However, transgenic animal research is subject to existing regulations governing animal research. All entities receiving or applying for federal
funding to carry out research using animals are required by The Animal Welfare Act, a federal law which was passed in 1966, to have a
program overseen by a committee identified as the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) to review research protocols
involving dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, nonhuman primates, marine mammals, captive wildlife, and domes tic livestock
species used in nonagricultural research and teaching. The Animal Welfare Act also requires that research institutions: 1) have a veterinary
care program be in place, 2) all personnel using or caring for live animals are qualified to do so, and 3) a mechanism be in place for reporting of
concerns regarding animal care and use at the institution. The Animal Welfare Act is administered through the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and is enforced through unannounced inspections by a USDA Veterinary Medical Officer. On an international level, the
Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC), oversees the voluntary accreditation and assessment of
research institutions committed to responsible animal care and use.
Does genetic engineering hurt animals?
A variety of techniques have been used produce transgenic livestock with varying degrees of success. Microinjection of foreign DNA into newly
fertilized eggs has been the predominant method used for the generation of transgenic livestock over the past 20 years. This technology is
inefficient (3-5% of animals born carry the transgene) and this results in an animal welfare concern because it requires the use of many more
animals than would be needed if success rates were higher. Additionally, this technique results in random integration and variable expression
levels of the target gene in the transgenic offspring. This poorly controlled expression of the introduced gene can result in animal welfare
Name:
Date:
Science 8
concerns. For example, various growth abnormalities have been observed in genetically engineered animals expressing growth hormone
transgenes at varying levels. Newer methods of making transgenic animals have been developed that employ somatic cell nuclear transfer
cloning, the cloning process first made famous by Dolly the sheep.
Cloning offers the opportunity to produce 100% transgenic offspring from cell lines that are known to contain the transgene, and further also
allows gene targeting whereby researchers are able to integrate the foreign DNA at a specific location in the genome, and thereby have more
control over the expression level of the transgene.
Animal welfare concerns may also be associated with the breeding objectives underlying the reasons behind making a given genetically
engineered animal in the first place. For example, if genetic engineering makes farm animals more productive, this may have the effect of
boosting productivity to a level that results in a welfare concern. This concern depends upon the effect of the specific transgene that is being
investigated, and is not a concern that is unique to genetic engineering. Any genetic improvement program directed exclusively towards high
production efficiency has the potential to cause animal welfare concerns, irrespective of the techniques used to obtain that goal. Conversely, it
might also be that genetic engineering could be used to improve traits such as disease resistance, which could have the effec t of decreasing
animal suffering or mortality. As a result of varying personal belief systems, some people oppose the human use of animals for any purpose,
and these people are unlikely to accept transgenic livestock production systems, irrespective of any potential benefits they may provide to the
animals.
What about the ethical aspects of genetically engineering animals?
Public opinion surveys have reported that some people are ethically uncomfortable with the idea of genetically engineering animals. There are
two central ethical concerns associated with the genetic engineering of animals. The first has to do with breaching species barriers or playing
God. Proponents of this view suggest that life should not be regarded solely as if it were a chemical product subject to genetic alteration and
patentable for economic benefit. The second major ethical concern is that the genetic engineering of animals interferes with the integrity or telos
of the animal. Telos is defined as “the set of needs and interests which are genetically based, and environmentally expressed, and which
collectively constitute or define the form of life or way of living exhibited by that animal, and whose fulfillment or thwarting matter to that animal”.
It has been argued that such concerns are not unique to genetic engineering, and that traditional breeding and selection practices can change
animals in similar ways. For example, cows from the Belgian Blue cattle breed require the systematic use of Caesarean sections to deliver their
calves, as a result of selection for increased birth weight resulting from the naturally-occurring “double-muscle” trait, and reduced width of the
cow’s pelvic passageway.
There is no obvious setting for addressing ethical concerns relating to genetically engineered animals in the United States. A 2005 survey
found that the majority (63%) of Americans believe governmental agencies should consider moral and ethical factors, in addition to scientific
evaluation of risks and benefits, when making regulatory decisions about cloning or genetically modifying animals. However, the FDA’s
risk-based regulatory approach focuses on science-based questions related to health and safety. As such social, ethical, religious and trade
issues are outside the scope of the FDA’s mandate, and regulatory decisions cannot be based on ethical grounds if no health or safety
considerations exist. At the current time it is unclear how, or in what venue, these ethical concerns should be addressed. Even in the
absence of incorporating ethical concerns into regulations governing genetically engineered animals, or some may argue because of this
absence, no products of genetically engineered food animals are currently on the U.S. market. It is yet to be seen whether the development
and associated regulatory costs, and the market acceptance issues associated with this technology ultimately result in a commerciallyviable industry for products derived from genetically engineered animals.
Name:
Date:
Science 8
CRITERIA D - ASSESMENT
YOUR TASK: A 500 word essay on GMOs – (5 paragraphs)
For example, if you could save lives by producing vaccines in transgenic bananas or fight
dengue fever with genetically modified mosquitos, would you do it? Would it be the
solution?
Read the following 2 articles, choose your specific example of GMO and write a 500 word
essay where you will identify and state the specific problem you’ve selected. Then describe
and discuss on the use of genetic engineering and its application in solving your specific
issue.
A few writing tips for your essay:
A- Follow this essay organizer
Paragraph 1 – Introduction
 State your specific issue/problem and the GMO related to it.
Paragraph 2,3 & 4 – Body


Describe how your GMO was genetically engineered
Describe and discuss the implications of your specific GMO? (relating to the factor)
 What would be the benefits?
 What would be the consequences/limitations?
Paragraph 5 – Conclusion

By using the evidence you collected during your research on your specific GMO,
analyze/discuss/give personal opinion (e.g. risky, expensive, and unstable) the implications of
the use of science and its application on the issue of GMOs. You must explain how it interacts
with one of the following factors: moral, ethical, social, economic, political, cultural or
environmental.
B- Fill in the graphic organizer (Haiku page)
Name:
Date:
Science 8

Moral: The distinction between right and wrong

Ethical: the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group,
culture, etc. (I.e. Morals decided by a cultural or political group)

Social: the people affected or involved, from a few people up to the global community. (e.g. An oil refinery is a
local problem but global warming is truly global)

Economic: the costs and benefits of using science. Who pays or receives the benefit? Is it worth it? (E.g. Obesity
will cost governments millions but so does changing people’s eating habits and diet- is it worth attempting to
deal with it?)`

Political: is the government involved directly or are powerful groups trying to influence people or the
government or the UN etc.? Notice how much diet advice is given in books by non-experts.

Cultural: a problem in one place is seen differently in another for reasons such as faith or what people see as
important. (Asians tolerate bugs, Nepalese tolerate dogs because of their faith, Europeans see even one
cockroach as a health threat, Catholics are against abortion, others ban TV and medical treatment, Muslims are
against plastic surgery, Chinese medicine uses rare, threatened animal parts)

Environmental: is the issue an environmental one in some way, directly or indirectly? (E.g. Pollution is direct.
Becoming a tablet school might indirectly affect the environment.
Name:
Date:
Science 8
Criterion D: Reflecting on the impacts of science
Students should be able to:
Achievement
level
0
Level descriptor
The student does not reach a standard described by any of the
descriptors below.
o
o
o
No GMO technology was listed
No factor of the use of that technology was discussed
No scientific terms were used to explain how technology is used
in GMOs
o
I have listed how my chosen example works and identified and
stated
I have listed ideas of how my chosen technology has impacted
one factor. They are not explained
I have tried to use scientific terms to explain how my GMO
technology works
I have copied and pasted my URL’s / I have not attributed any
photos
The student:
1-2
i.
is able to state the ways in which science is applied and used to address a
specific problem or issue
ii.
is able to state the implications of the use of science and its application in
solving a specific problem or issue interacting with a factor
iii.
attempts to apply scientific language to communicate his or her
understanding but does so with limited effectiveness
iv.
makes little attempt to document sources.
The student:
i.
is able to outline the ways in which science is applied and used to
address a specific problem or issue
ii.
is able to outline the implications of the use of science and its
application in solving a specific problem or issue interacting with
a factor
iii.
is able to apply scientific language to communicate his or her
understanding but does not do so clearly or precisely
iv.
attempts to document sources correctly.
3-4
The student is able to:
i.
outline and summarize the ways in which science is applied and
used to address a specific problem or issue
ii.
describe the implications of the use of science and its application
in solving a specific problem or issue interacting with a factor
iii.
apply scientific language to communicate his or her
understanding clearly and precisely but does not do so
consistently
iv.
document sources but does not always do so correctly.
5-6
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
The student is able to:
i.
describe the ways in which science is applied and used to address
a specific problem or issue
ii.
describe and analyze the implications of the use of science and
its application in solving a specific problem or issue interacting
with a factor
iii.
consistently apply scientific language to communicate his or her
understanding clearly and precisely
iv.
document sources completely.
7-8
o
o
o
I have briefly explained my chosen GMO technology
I have briefly explained how my chosen technology impacts one
factor. I missed the positive or negative aspects of the
technology
I have used some scientific terms to explain my ideas but there
are some unclear areas
I have documented some sources of information and attributed
photos, but there are many errors
I have briefly explained and given the major points of how my
chosen GMO technology works
I have briefly explained and given the overall summary of how
my chosen technology impacts one factor. I have briefly
explained both the positives and negatives associated with my
technology
For the most part, I have used scientific terms clearly and
precisely to explain my ideas.
I have used Easy Bib to document my sources and attributed
photos but there are a few minor errors
I have given a detailed account of how my chosen GMO
technology works
I have given a detailed account of how my chosen technology
impacts one factor. I have broken down the ideas and addressed
each part. I have clearly discussed the positive and negative
aspects of my technology
Throughout the essay, I have used scientific terms clearly and
precisely to explain my ideas.
I have recorded all relevant sources of information and
attributed all photos in a correctly formatted works cited.
(Indentation)
describe the ways in which science is applied and used to address a specific problem or issue
ii. describe and analyze the various implications of the use of science and its application in solving a specific problem or issue
i.
Name:
Date:
Science 8
iii.
iv.
apply communication modes effectively
document the work of others and sources of information used.
Command terms
Analyse
Break down in order to bring out the essential elements or structure. To identify parts and relationships, and to interpret
information to reach conclusions
Apply
Use knowledge and understanding in response to a given situation or real circumstances
Describe
Give a detailed account or picture of a situation, event, pattern or process
Document
Credit sources of information used by referencing (or citing) following one recognized referencing system. References should be
included in the text and also at the end of the piece of work in a reference list or bibliography
Outline
Give a brief account
State
Give a specific name, value or other brief answer without explanation or calculation
Summarize
Abstract a general theme or major point(s)