Decrease In Acreage of Genetically Modified Crops in 2015

Figure 1. GMO infographic

The amount of crops planted containing some type of GMO has decreased by 1% since 2014. Ever since 1996 when these types of plants were first introduced, there has only been increases among the amount of plants grown. This also correlated with a decrease of $0.4 billion from $15.7 billion in 2014. GMOs provide for more optimal crops for consumers that last longer and can protect themselves from their environment better. This is done to increase the amount of product for however much money is put in towards growing these crops. 

Though there has been a decrease in the acreage of Genetically Modified Crops, I believe that there will still be an increase. There is so much more profit to be made when food lasts longer and more can be made with less money. It is extremely cost efficient, and many farmers are turning towards this method. There should be more research done to see if modifying these organisms are actually damaging our bodies or not with a clear distinct link so the people can know what they are putting into their body. Labeling their products for containing GMOs is the right thing to do because I would not want to question what I am eating.

On the way to Controlling Genomes

Genome editing is the control of adding, deleting, activating, or suppressing specific genes on DNA sequences.  Researchers have recently developed a new technique for genome editing.  The technique involves a system known as CRISPR-Cas (or clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats-Cas).  CRISPR is a system used by bacteria to defend against viruses and other invaders; it targets and cuts DNA in a sequence-dependent manner to turn off or on genes that could harm the bacteria.

            Researchers are now utilizing this system to better understand and develop new ways to manipulate genes.  In addition to understanding and manipulating genes, the CRISPR-Cas system allows for increased accuracy and precision when targeting DNA.  This research has the potential to change the world.  Crops could be specifically altered to reduce or even grant immunity to diseases.  This could eventually be developed to work on people: genetically tailored drugs for your specific genome or changing you genome to grant immunity/resistance to disease.  One scientist, George M. Church, even predicted the possibility of de-extinction, human enhancement (develop human bodies suited for space and other hostile environments). Of course as exciting as gaining control over the human genome is, it raises the questions is it safe, effective, and morally right?  We are going to have to answer these question soon.

                

            I have always found control over the human genome to be fascinating.  The potential it has to improve the world is astronomical, which is why I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article.  It showed we are constantly advancing our techniques and approaches to handling the control of genes on DNA sequences.  When we finally gain the control over genes, we will be able to help the world and expand in all fields.  

Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141021141752.htm

Related Article:  http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2014/10/21/medical-professor-genome-editing/

Preimplantation Diagnosis Raises Ethical Concerns

Gina Kolata published an article in The New York Times on February 3, 2014 concerning the ethics on embryonic genetic testing. Amanda Baxley was diagnosed with Gerstmann-Straussler-Scheinker disease(GSS). GSS is a rare inherited neurological disease. People with GSS usually pass away between 35 and 60 years of age. The first symptom is a loss of motor control. The person begins to stumble, dementia sets in, then they lose their eyesight and hearing. Within five years of the first symptoms, they pass away. Amanda Baxley turned to in vitro fertilization and preimplantation diagnosis in order to have children that would not carry the gene for GSS. In vitro fertilization costs about $20,000. By testing the embryo for disease, it eliminates the decision of having to terminate the pregnancy when the fetus tests positive later on. Advocates for the disabled are very much against genetic testing if a positive result will result in the destruction of an embryo or fetus. Ethic problems arise when embryos will not be implanted inside the mother. The Society of Assisted Reproductive Technology states that it is ethically justified to prevent disease. Some believe that it is even a person's moral obligation to prevent disease in their children if they have the means to do so. Others argue that if people like Amanda Baxley had been tested she would have never been born. These same people say that it is even more ethically incorrect to terminate embryos and fetuses that have diseases that will only occur later in life. There has been an increase in embryo preimplantation diagnosis recently. The Reproductive Genetics Institute reported a 40% increase in their caseload. In a recent national survey, Dr. Robert Klitzman found only 6% of internists had ever mentioned preimplantation diagnosis to their patients. Only 7% of internists say they feel qualified on the subject. There is an overall lack of knowledge about preimplantation diagnosis in the medical field.

During in vitro fertilization, an egg and sperm are combined in a laboratory dish then the embryo is implanted in the woman's uterus. 

Although I believe that everyone has the right to life and freedom, I do not believe this applies to embryos. The embryos in the picture above are not human beings. They do not have a brain or a pulse. If horrible diseases can be prevented, there is no reason that they should not be. Testing does not hurt the embryo and it would avoid the decision of having to terminate a fetus if the parents test later on. If I was in Amanda Bazley's position I would much rather destroy embryos than terminate a pregnancy. If parents with known diseases can afford in vitro fertilization and preimplantation diagnosis and save their unborn child from a devastating end to their life, testing is the only moral and ethical decision.