GMO-debate EFI 2005
The Annual Conference of EFI (European Forest Research
Institute) decided on
A discussion forum for EFI members was been activated to serve this
purpose at http://www.efi.fi/members/gmtrees/ at end of September 2005.
Dag Lindgren participated and tried to get other to
participate. If was a frustrating experience to log in and get it working, that
certainly contributed to low participation. There were 15 registered
participants but no-one contributed to the discussion besides Dag Lindgren (at
least not before late December 05). In beginning 2006 it stopped to work for
Dag Lindgren also, and I found it of little use to participate when there were
neither interested listeners nor people making comments. I have not got any
feed back of any type from the arrangers of the discussion.
“Contributions made by Dag Lindgren”:
Genes suitable for
studying genetics of transgenic constructs in the field
Commercialization of GMTrees is not in the foreseeable future. There is thus no reason the first long term field trials with GMTrees should focus on commercially important characters. Rather they should have genetic systems which are easy to study (marker genes) and offer information on how genes affect trees beyond what can be learnt from controlled environments. The reason for field trials with GMTrees should be to understand and learn how to handle transgenics, not pre-commercial testing.
Exotics
The spreading of transgenic genes to native species can
be eliminated by restricting the use of GM to exotics, which does not mix with
native species. Scots pine, Norway spruce and Silver birch should when not be primary targets for transgenic breeding in
Rotation time
If rotation time is shortened: 1) the needed test period
will be shortened, 2) tree improvement will proceed more rapid, 3) the risk
that long term disadvantages occur will be reduced, 4) the time distance from
investment to economical return will be shorter, 5) if disadvantages become
evident, the crop can be taken out faster and the economic damage will be
lower, 6) shortened rotation time can probably be combined with that the crop
never reach sexual maturity and thus the spreading problem will be reduced.
Appeal
For many trees injuries by animals is a major problem. Animals making damage to trees (e.g. moose, vole, rabbit) have feelings and psychology. Things can be more or less attractive and appealing. The injuries are associated with things like taste, feel and smell. It ought to be possible to apply GE for modifying a biochemical pathway so something with unattractive taste or smell develops in a way which interferes minimally with other aspects of the trees life or interactions with its environment. In that way GE may be the most environmental friendly solution to a tree propagation problem.
A gene command language
I suggest developing a “program language” for controlling
genes. A standard package is inserted in all trees. The package has a sensor,
which can feel a signal from outside and respond by an executive order to the
DNA-package in the tree. Consider an insecticide. All trees carry a gene which
produces an insecticide within the package, but it is normally silent. But by
e.g. a laser signal from a satellite or mast in the plantation the gene is
switched on if an insect attack is diagnosed and the gene makes the
insecticide. But only exact when and exact where it is needed. When the
insecticide is not needed anymore, a new instruction is sent to the sensor and
the gene is switched off again. It would be wonderful environmental management
with an internal insecticide, which is only produced exactly when and where it
is needed. That standard package could also contain the FTgene,
which can switch on syntheses of FTmRNA (“florigen”) for inducing flowering. When sexual reproduction
is needed on trees for tree improvement or seed orchard production, the gene is
switched on. But normally it is silent meaning that tree growth is not
disturbed by unneeded flowering.
Chinese GMO
A link about the state of the only GMtree operation in the
world which has reached a semi-commercial scale:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6402
Finnish GMO
Seven years ago
The field trial belonging to the Finnish Forest Research
Institute with Silver birch was destroyed
Some of the birches in this five year old trial were
transgenic. The genetic constitution of the plants had been modified regarding
an enzyme responsible for the fixation of carbon dioxide. The primary purposes
of the trial were the environmental and ecological effects of genetically
modified forest trees and the permanence of the transferred genes. There is
little information on such issues and the need for multidisciplinary
environmental research is widely recognized. These questions could have been
examined with the aid of this field trial. The GM research is carried out under
permission and it was monitored by the Finnish Board of Gene Technology.
When the Finnish Forest Research Institute reported the
vandalism to the police, local greenies reciprocated by reporting the Finnish
Forest Research Institute to the police, not only for unsafe management of the
site, but also for unreported material in this field experiment. The police did
not react to these claims. The board of gene technology told that the
experiment was fully legal and well managed.
It seems experiments with GM-trees at known localities
constitute a probable target for ecoterrorist attacks. The activists destroyed
a trial with GM-potatoes 2005 (Jokioinen?), probably in lack of forest trials.
Perhaps the potato had starch meant for pulp industry (it is very doubtful they
would buy it for green certificate reasons), so it may have been close to the
target if that was forestry. But more likely it was GMO in general…
Biotechnicians at Joensuu plan new experiments with gene
modified birches. Brave
This story focusing on GMTrees close to EFI in Joenssu
struck me as relevant for the GM Tree Forum. May be someone knows more or can
correct details of this Finnish story.
EU statistics
Below is statistics for the release of GMtrees outdoors
in the European Union.
Year Release permits
1993 2
1994 1
1995 3
1996 3
1997 2
1998 1
1999 2
2000 3
There is no raising trend in GMO outdoors experiments
over the period 1995 to 2000. For all plants together in EU the number of GMO
outdoors trials has sunk by a factor 3 over the last decade.
It would be interesting to have more information on the
experiments, e.g. how many were abandoned prematurely because of shortcomings
in experimental techniques or sabotage, how many fulfilled expectations, how
many resulted in scientific papers, and how old the field experiments really
become in years and share of a normal rotation time, and also how many still
remains in the field. Collection of such a statistics could be one target for
EFI, if EFI wants to be involved in GMO research at all.
As much knowledge of GMO has accumulated over the past
decade, it seems justified to increase the field experimentation, to take the
step from the lab out to the reality. We need to know more about how transgenic
genes and gene constructs function and are controlled in the open in long lived
trees. Trees mature and may develop differently than in the lab. Trees have
annual growth cycles. It is actually very surprising that a shift to more field
experiments has not happened to a larger extent before.
More release statistics from EU
Material from Fenning T 2003 Nature 21:360, there was GMO statistics for EU.
Statistics is based on statistics from //engl.jrc.it
The number of experiments with trees are slightly larger than the list by BigTree, this probably reflects a wider definition of trees in the table below (eg. apple trees or experiments with just release of just GMO pollen for controlled pollination). It happens that applications cover several sites and species. Many trials remain in field for several years.
GM field trials within the EU |
||
Year |
All plants |
Trees |
1990 |
0 |
0 |
1991 |
4 |
0 |
1992 |
86 |
0 |
1993 |
89 |
2 |
1994 |
166 |
1 |
1995 |
213 |
5 |
1996 |
239 |
6 |
1997 |
264 |
3 |
1998 |
244 |
7 |
1999 |
238 |
4 |
2000 |
129 |
4 |
2001 |
88 |
2 |
2002 |
35 |
1 |
2003 |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
The impact of many genes on plant phenotype can only be
evaluated under field conditions that are difficult to mimic in the laboratory.
The negative effects of this trend on woody plants biology in
Releases of trees are seldom made by commercial organizations.
It is mainly an effect of the green movement, e.g. forest companies cannot get
green certification if they deal with GMO. Thus it is important that research
organizations do the field work.
Rules for GM Trees
For most countries there exists a set of legal rules for GM
Trees controlling their use. The rules and conditions have been discussed in
many bodies and wide participation and for several decades. Usually the thought
behind the rules is to permit their use, both in laboratory, outside the
laboratory and for commercialization. Thus EFI is suggested not to challenge
that GM tree research is allowed under the current and local legal rules and
conditions. There may be details which could be modified, but this seems too
technical and detailed an issue for a large international body to interfere
with. The largest problem with GM-Trees is in public perception, not in the
rules themselves.
For indoors GM trees, the activity is considerable and
experience is accumulating fast and there are a number of studies concerned
with the risks, which can contribute to discussion about rules. Thus I suggest
modifying and possible relaxing some of the rules could be an issue to rise within
five years but not by EFI.
Outdoors testing and experimenting are currently allowed
in many countries (with the proper permits). This was the result of an
extended, detailed and painful debate. Compared with the actual use, the GM
trees get a disproportionate amount of attention and legal documents. To get a
basis for modifying the current rules and discuss practical applications, the
most critical is experience from actual field testing. There exist a sufficient
number of tests run for a sufficient time before it can be justified to change
the rules. In
Support outdoor GM Tree testing
In the long run intelligent design (GMO) must be superior to Darwinian trial and error (conventional
breeding). Therefore GM Trees will take
over if there will be any improved trees in the far future at all. But this is
a long process, which requires long term experiences from the field, at least
if we think about species most important for northern
First we must know more about the genetic
control mechanisms in natural conditions. The regulatory mechanisms under
outdoors conditions need to be better understood. An individual tree life
includes variable conditions. There are many repeated cycles with vegetation
periods and rest period. The tree starts as a juvenile and matures to an adult.
Different trees have more different and less predictable life-stories than
agricultural crops. What happens can not be reliable predicted from indoor
experiments. Trees grow and acclimatize outdoors for many years and it is desirable
the genetic control of that is better understood to be more able to engineer
the genome to get superior trees. The first GM trees grown in long term field
tests under natural conditions should not aim for testing the function of
economically important characters, but just how genes and in particular
transgenic gene packages behave under natural conditions.
As trees grow outdoors and are long lived new
designs must be tested for a long time. The test requirement is longer the
newer the design is (most of rotation time) under realistic conditions
outdoors. Genes may not work in the open as foreseen from theory and labs. The
regulatory mechanisms under outdoors conditions need to be understood. The
safety designs for field testing need to be developed based on field tests and
verified (like the degree of sterility). To ever take the step to commercial
use in some future, it must be supported by tests with
some similarity to forests.
First after getting better basic knowledge how
genes work outdoors and more experience on how to manage GM Tree field
experiments, it is time to think on what genes or genetic systems are suitable
for commercializing. These first pre-commercial field tests also require a lot
of long-term field testing under variable conditions.
I know about three GMO trials in northern
Discourage indoor GM Tree work!!
Needless to say GMO is a powerful research tool which
should be utilized for many purposes.
Example of problems are: 1) GM trees strangle other
fields; 2) GM trees get a monopoly of interest; 3) GM Trees focus tree scientists
at lab work instead of outdoors forests; 4) GM Trees are often closely linked
to commercialism in a way raising suspicions; 5) GM Trees do not benefit slow
growing boreal European forests in particular but the benefits will come in
warmer areas; 6) The suspicion against GM Trees is larger in Europe than
elsewhere in the world, and the needed field tests take longer time, thus
possible commercialization will occur late in Europe; 7) GM Trees are not
without its dangers.
So EFI should brake and at least reduce the speed of the
transgenic explosion in
The main benefits of GM trees do not lay in
The boreal forests in
Let agriculture or model species keep the edge
Practical applications will come decades earlier in
agriculture than in forestry. The public acceptance is larger for agriculture
than forestry, at least European
forestry should wait till GMO is more established and accepted in agriculture.
Do not spend too much research funding on trying to do the same things with
forest trees as agriculturists can do more easily with agricultural crops. Let
the agriculturists make the expensive mistakes and find the most promising
paths before following into forestry. If the main focus is basic, model species
like Arabidopsis are easier to work with than any crops, but when it is not a
matter for EFI.
The molecular bang out competes others
This must be evident for all well informed observers. The
phenomenon is illustrated by a citation from "diversity" (=mangfold,
a Nordic newsletter including forestry issues, February 2005 issue) "When
the Swedish forest gene bank was established in 1980, it received about seven
times more funding per year than today. The gene bank probably shares this fate
with most other activities, that in a distant past enjoyed political support.
This support, however, gradually decreased as new issues came into focus, even
if nobody directly dares to say that the ’old’ issues are no longer important.
The issue of GMO is an example of a futuristic activity that has received lots
of attention. GMO, demanding more resources and considered by the Swedish
Forestry Board to represent a greater development potential than gene banks,
can be said to have contributed to out competing gene banks."
Another example is that GMO is the only subject where
international bodies like EFI and FAO have cared to make scientific IT debates
about.
The most serious aspect may be that too many molecular
GMO specialists are trained and too few which can manage other aspects of
breeding and genetics. Professors love to train doctorands or scholars from
developing countries. These people grow up to demand machines requiring still
larger resources and focusing the activities they are working in to fit to
their training, and are less well adapted to the real jobs needed.
GMO causes a loss in production and decreases the
efficiency of breeding
Agriculture GMO is used very sparsely in
Terrorism
We are all aware of what unpleasant things malicious code
can do in our computers. The awareness seems less of the potential to do
similar things with biological life. Computers are 100% Man controlled and can
easily be disconnected. Man's ability to control life is more limited, and the
problems to disconnect Life are larger than computers. The molecular biology
develops very fast. It will be possible for more and more individual lab chiefs
with less and less resources to construct and implement intentionally disastrous
code. The scientific environments are global and knowledge spreads
uncontrolled. In the same time GMO is guarded with commercial secrets,
facilitating to act in the hidden. This risk is unavoidable and I am not much
for policing. But at least GMO need not be oversold and overused just because
it is fancy and futuristic. Its use could be somewhat reduced at no loss for
anyone (except the concerned scientists) and that would lead to a slight
reduction in risk.
GMO in EU
Material from Fenning T 2003 Nature 21:360, there was GMO statistics for EU.
Statistics is based on statistics from //engl.jrc.it
The number of experiments with Trees are slightly larger than the list by BigTree, this probably reflects a wider definition of trees in the table below (eg. apple trees or experiments with just release of just GMO pollen for controlled pollination). It happens that applications cover several sites and species. Many trials remain in field for several years.
GM field trials within the EU |
||
Year |
All plants |
Trees |
1990 |
0 |
0 |
1991 |
4 |
0 |
1992 |
86 |
0 |
1993 |
89 |
2 |
1994 |
166 |
1 |
1995 |
213 |
5 |
1996 |
239 |
6 |
1997 |
264 |
3 |
1998 |
244 |
7 |
1999 |
238 |
4 |
2000 |
129 |
4 |
2001 |
88 |
2 |
2002 |
35 |
1 |
2003 |
|
|
2004 |
|
|
The impact of many genes on plant phenotype can only be
evaluated under field conditions that are difficult to mimic in the laboratory.
The negative effects of this trend on woody plants biology in
Releases of trees are seldom made by commercial organizations.
It is mainly an effect of the green movement, e.g. forest companies cannot get
green certification if they deal with GMO. Thus it is important that research
organizations do the field work.
One participant in the GMO debate
“I got some more invitations to check my personal messages at the GMO discussion site but I am still not able to log in no matter what. I've given up.”