Modifying meanings

Unravelling some tangled definitions and issues in gene technology (11 minute read)

Just over fifteen years ago, I attended some sessions of an international conference on managing the risks of genetically modified organisms. I wasn’t involved in assessing these types of organisms – my area was pests and diseases affecting plants – but there were some overlaps and the conference was being held in Wellington. It was a good opportunity to get a different perspective on biological risk assessment.

My written notes and any paper I picked up at the conference have long since been discarded, but I remember some interesting discussions. Conference attendees had diverse opinions on what was safe and what was not – there were scientists and regulators from a number of countries with different approaches to managing this type of technology. There was also considerable local interest, and the conference included people representing groups which were fundamentally opposed to genetic modification.

One moment stands out. There had been a panel discussion about regulations, and what followed was intended to be a question and answer session with the panel. One man took the microphone, stood up and gave a masterful demonstration of why so many people were, and still are, concerned about genetic modification. In fact, this demonstration applied to almost any new technology – it’s perfect for artificial intelligence, for example.

What he said was this: he thought that genetic modification was over-regulated, because of the influence of irrational people and governments who really didn’t know anything about it. There should, he said, be less regulation and safety should be left in the hands of rational scientists who actually understood it.

In that moment, I was struck by his extraordinary irrationality. He said he wanted less regulation. And yet he made an argument which was almost certain to shift the opinion of many people in the room in the opposite direction. Had he made even a cursory effort to understand how to talk about risk, he would have understood that.

In fact, his statement went further than simply being terrible risk communication. It awakened an underlying fear I believe many of us have about new technologies – that the scientists developing them are so wrapped up in their research that they are blind to, or don’t care about, any negative consequences. Are they so busy asking could we? that they fail to ask should we?

I don’t think that this is true of scientists, on the whole, based on my experience meeting many scientists and researchers in different fields. But, just as in any group of people, there are different motivations and values. I am particularly concerned when scientific advances are in the hands of hugely powerful and wealthy corporations.

When I first heard of genetic modification, it was in the days of protesting French nuclear testing at Moruroa, the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior and anti-nuclear legislation which saw New Zealand shunned by the USA. To me, genetic modification sounded like a similar sort of threat, something which could be used to inflict tremendous harm, and a complete ban seemed to be the best idea.

Over the next few years, I learned more about it, and developed more nuanced views. When I learned about the role of genetically modified bacteria in producing insulin, I decided that I didn’t oppose that kind of use. I could see the value in it, and the bacteria were contained rather than being introduced into the environment. However, I was still uncomfortable about the widespread use of genetically modified crops and was happy for New Zealand to largely stay away from them.

Over the last decade, I haven’t given the issue too much thought. I’ve had my mind on other things and was content to file the subject away to think about at another time. However, with changes being proposed to how this kind of technology is regulated in New Zealand, as well as the major advances since the development of CRISPR, I realise it is time to reassess my opinion.

One confusing aspect of the technology is the way it is referred to. When I first heard it discussed, it was called genetic engineering. Then it became genetic modification. In more scientific circles, I’ve often heard reference to recombinant DNA, referring to the DNA being combined in new ways. Sometimes, I’ve heard people talk about genetically modified organisms, or GMOS. However, I’ve also heard them called transgenic organisms. More recently, I’ve heard about gene editing. Are these all the same?

Yes and no. These terms aren’t like the precise scientific names used by biologists when they communicate about plants, animals and microbes. From the reading I have done, they can be loosely defined and can mean different things to different people in different places.

Mostly, these differences in meaning are typical of any field where broad terms are used by scientists, regulators, journalists and the general public. I worked for years in biosecurity, and even in New Zealand the word means subtly different things to different people. In general, we agree that keeping pests and diseases affecting plants and animals out of New Zealand is biosecurity. But what about managing diseases which affect humans? Or both animals and humans? What about managing pests and diseases which are established here? Am I doing biosecurity when I weed tradescantia out of the local bush? Outside New Zealand and Australia, the term usually has an entirely different meaning. It’s associated with the security of laboratories working with dangerous diseases such as anthrax and plague.

Differences in meaning like this are commonplace, but terms can also be defined in ways intended to advance a particular agenda. For example, I’ve heard people say that genetic modification includes traditional selective breeding, of the kind used to produce wheat, roses or the dizzying diversity of dogs. In fact, the US Department of Agriculture does this. Usually, when I’ve heard people use the term in this way, they are trying to persuade people that we shouldn’t worry about new genetic modification techniques, on the grounds that we have been genetically modifying plants and animals for thousands of years.

This argument isn’t as terrible as telling people they are irrational and that rational scientists should make all the decisions, but it’s not far off.

We’ve managed some spectacular variation with selective breeding of squashes and gourds (image credit: Melanie Newfield)

I can’t help wondering whether the recent distinction between gene editing and genetic modification is in the same neighbourhood. The term gene editing is particularly associated with the newer approaches developed since the discovery of Cas enzymes which I wrote about last week. However, I’ve seen explanations which say that genetic modification is introducing DNA from another species, while gene editing is simply altering the genetic code, often with a comment that these changes could be quite small. This explanation appears to distance gene editing from genetic modification. But other definitions suggest the terms overlap. I’ve seen genetic engineering and genetic modification defined as adding, removing or altering DNA, that is, the definition includes what is sometimes called gene editing.

I’ve had a close look at the definitions on the website for MBIE, the government agency leading New Zealand’s review of the regulations. Their use of the definitions is, in my view, excellent. They acknowledge that the terms like gene editing and genetic modification can be used in different ways and I see no sign they are trying to obfuscate. The term they are using to encompass the full range of new approaches and techniques is gene technology. So, from this point on, I’m going to use the same term, in the same way they do.

I should note here that the term gene technology could also apply to technology for simply looking at genes and working out what that can tell us, for example for predicting whether someone is at risk of developing a disease. This is also an area whether there are important questions of ethics and risk – for example, what if insurers demand genetic tests then use the results to deny you health or income protection insurance? However, I’m going to leave this question to one side for the moment. So, from here on, when I talk about gene technology, I’m talking about technologies for altering genes or DNA in some way.

Amid all the confusion over terminology, one thing is clear. Terms like gene editing, genetic modification or even gene technology aren’t any help in understanding the risk. There are now many different ways that scientists can characterise and alter genes. There are also many potential uses. They are not the same in terms of risk, nor the potential benefit. It isn’t helpful to think about, or manage, all the risks in the same way. The crux of the debate is not about being for or against gene technology. It isn’t even about what level of regulation should be applied, since the technology is so diverse. What we need to discuss is which approaches and uses should or shouldn’t be permitted, and what level of regulation or oversight should be applied to each.

I will go into depth on some examples in the next few weeks. However, before I do this, I want to share some general thoughts on how we might understand the risks of gene technology, and some of my own reflections. As I’ve been thinking about the risks, I’ve found it useful to distinguish between different kinds of consequences which may result from gene technology, in particular, whether they are intended or unintended. I’ve also found it useful to consider how I feel about gene technology, and what may have prompted those feelings.

To explain what I mean, I’m going to go back to an issue I looked at a couple of years ago, Roundup Ready soybeans, which have been grown since 1996. Roundup Ready soybeans have had a gene added to allow them to tolerate being sprayed with the herbicide Roundup¹. An intended consequence was that this herbicide would be widely used to control weeds in soybean fields. I’m sure that another intended consequence was increased sales of Roundup, since Monsanto, the company selling the herbicide is also the company selling the Roundup Ready soybeans. Another intended consequence was that farmers would plough their fields less, since they didn’t need ploughing to control the weeds when they could spray with Roundup. This is indeed what happened.

I’m not sure exactly what risks were considered before Roundup Ready soybeans were released. However, a couple of possibilities people might worry about are the soybeans themselves proving harmful to eat because of the presence of the gene for tolerating Roundup, or the gene escaping from soybeans and into other plants. However, I haven’t found any evidence that either of these things has happened, nor of other unintended or unpredicted consequences.

Roundup Ready soybeans, however, have not been without problems. These problems have resulted entirely from the intended consequences. What would happen was obvious to everyone familiar with the history of our attempts to control pests and diseases – everyone, that is, except scientists working for Monsanto. When we use the same chemicals, over and over, to control pests and diseases, it’s not long before they become resistant. It happened with antibiotics. It happened with mosquitoes sprayed with DDT. And, sure enough, it happened with Roundup. Now there are dozens of weeds resistant to Roundup – not from genes escaping from the soybeans, but just old-fashioned evolution.

Evolution can do some pretty weird things. This is the flower of a carnivorous pitcher plant (image credit: Melanie Newfield)

What’s interesting in this example is that it’s possible to view it in quite different ways. I’m pretty sure Monsanto consider it a great result. In fact, as the weeds became resistant, farmers began to apply higher rates of Roundup. Call me cynical, but this seems like a bonus for the company which sells both the seed and the herbicide. It’s also possible to make a case that Roundup Ready soybean is an example of the safe use of gene technology, since the problems are not, strictly speaking the result of the technology.

On the other hand, there are clearly major drawbacks with the intended consequences of Roundup Ready soybeans and other crops. As well as resistant weeds, there are also concerns about the risks of the herbicide on human health and the environment. This topic is a real rabbit hole – there are many articles and assessments, and every time I look at one, I discover at least one of the supporting documents is disputed in some way, leading me to checking the credibility of the places the articles were published and the affiliations of the authors and the affiliations of the people disputing the papers… you get the picture. My point is, though, that anyone concerned about Roundup isn’t going to have a positive view of Roundup Ready soybeans.

I know that my misgivings about gene technology have been reinforced by the case of Roundup Ready soybeans. On the other hand, I feel more positive when I think about the way gene technology revolutionised the production of insulin. When I think about the scientist who believed that he was rational and everyone with a different opinion was irrational, I worry. When I see clear and honest explanations from the government agency leading New Zealand’s review of the regulations, I feel more confident.

These factors, and the way I feel about them, are separate from questions about whether gene technology might have unintended consequences – such as genes or the new organisms behaving in unexpected ways. However, these factors are important. We should be having conversations about whether the proposed uses of gene technology are worthwhile. And we have every right to expect those developing and regulating the technology to be honest and respectful.

1. Strictly speaking, they tolerate glyphosate, which is the active ingredient in Roundup. This means that they also tolerate a range of other herbicides with the same active ingredient.