|
The National Research Council panel of the National Academy
of Sciences suggests that more work needs to be done to ensure
that genetically engineered salmon, corn and other organisms
do not taint the food supply or wipe out other species.
Scientists have been trying to find newer technologies that
could slow down or completely stop the movement of genetically
engineered species, or the spread of their genes. According
to the panel, these methods of "bioconfinement"
are still in the early research stages, especially the new
products deemed hazardous, and show no complete guarantee
that they can be kept under control.
A prime example of this, found in a case study and presented
by the panel, is the fast growing, gene-altered salmon that
is under development by a technology group in Massachusetts.
The technology group wants to sell their gene-altered fish
for use in ocean pens along the East Coast where other farm-raised
salmon are grown. Even though the company acknowledges that
some fish will escape, they say the fish would be too dependent
on food supplied by humans and are likely to die in the open
ocean.
However, the panel disagrees and believes the salmon won’t
die, but instead would wipe out stocks of wild Atlantic salmon
by competing with them for food and, among males, competing
to mate with females. In response to the panel’s concern,
the technology company says they plan to sell only sterile,
female salmon. But as of now, the methods used for sterilizing
fish are not entirely reliable, and the panel urges the company
to have the fish tested individually for sterility or have
them grown only in tanks on land.
The National Research Council panel also recommends that
companies and laboratories adopt an integrated confinement
system that includes at least two distinct techniques for
the organisms that pose risk. These plans should be overseen
by regulators and should factor in the likelihood of human
error, the panel added. If accepted, the recommendations are
said to impose new costs and burdens on the U.S. biotechnology
industry.
Washington
Post January 20, 2004
|