Engineered Animals

Genetic engineering holds big promises for the human
medical field and agriculture. Would you put it to use on your ranch?

By Kristen Tribe

Like any new technology, genetic engineering promises to feed society’s hunger for something stronger and faster. Although it’s hard to argue against the benefits – revolutionary achievements for human medicine, the chance for a more secure food supply and maybe even a more consistent beef product – can these promises withstand the scrutiny of opposition?

The initial public uneasiness about genetic engineering has been compared in several publications to the reaction following the first human heart transplant. Although organ transplants are now an accepted method to extend life, the technology was probably frightening at first and perceived as quite bizarre.

In the 1950s, investigators discovered how to freeze mammalian sperm and how to transfer embryos from one animal to another in cattle. Cloning, a tool of genetic engineering, has been going on since the 1980s, and today, nuclear transfer, a cloning process, allows for genetic modification.

Dr. Bernie Rollin, department of philosophy, Colorado State University, says, "Genetic engineering is perhaps the most powerful technology ever devised by humans."

Anything from AI to cloning and transgenics, falls under the umbrella of genetic engineering, says Dr. Tom Field, department of animal sciences, Colorado State University. Transgenics is the act of incorporating genes from one species with those of another, either artificially or naturally.

Basically, genetic engineering is just speeding up the natural selection or breeding process. Field says it’s just putting a little more directed mutation in the system, but he says, "We’re not yet at that new frontier of practicality."

Ron Gillespie, vice president of marketing, CyAgra, says they are cloning commercially and working on genetic modification. While they have done some cloning for both beef and dairy producers, he agrees that the technology isn’t practical for the average producer at this point.

The problem is cost. CyAgra charges $25,000 and guarantees one clone. For each additional one, it’s $5,000. Gillespie says his goal is to get the initial cost down to $2,000 or $3,000.

He goes on to say that one of the most interesting things they can do is clone a steer that has performed well in the feedlot to bring him back as a bull for breeding purposes. Of all the scenarios, he thinks this could have the most profound effect on the end product.

Like its technological predecessors, cloning will not eliminate the sale of bulls and it shouldn’t put "non-cloning" operations out of business.

"Artificial insemination, embryo transfer, in vitro fertilization, all those things are still going to happen," explains Dr. Michael Bishop, president of Infigen, a privately held biotechnology company. "Cloning is just a tool in the basket of all the tools available to breeders to generate future generations of animals [and] it’s a great way to introduce genetically modified animals to the population for breeding purposes."

Animals that have been genetically modified have had genes altered or foreign genes added to make the animal resistant to disease, a better performer or a host for human medicinal therapies, just to name a few.

Infigen says nuclear transfer allows the "programming" of cells, which in essence designates how that gene will be expressed. For example, the inserted genes could be put under the DNA promoter (agent that drives tissue-specific expression) for mammary tissue in cattle to not only produce the nutrients always found in milk, but add an extra component, like a human therapeutic protein.

Bishop says they have done this for blood sealants and an agent that aids in wound healing. He says it’s also possible to add other types of nutritional and medical supplements.

Genetic modification is also used in xenotransplantation – any procedure that involves the transplantation of live cells, tissues or organs into a human, from a non-human source.

Infigen and Immerge BioTherapeutics are collaborating to develop genetically modified miniature swine for the study of xenotransplantation. Bishop says they’re currently working in pigs to disable genes that might be foreign to the human body, so a greater variety of porcine cells, tissues and organs for transfer to humans might be used. He says they’re also adding genes to the pig genome that might enhance acceptance of those tissues or organs.

Xenotransplantation probably raises the most questions, not to mention eyebrows. Bishop says that it’s important to be responsible as a corporation and as scientists and to keep the lines of communication open between themselves, producers and consumers.

Rollin says in the past, scientists haven’t always addressed ethical and social issues related to a new technology, and without the facts, society has been left at the mercy of "doomsayers" and "lurid sound bytes."

The three most common reasons people cite for being against genetic engineering, says Rollin, are:

1. It’s intrinsically wrong.
2. It’s dangerous to society and nature.
3. It’s likely to produce a good deal of animal suffering.

Rollin says the No. 1 reason isn’t a legitimate concern because it isn’t a clear statement of what is problematic. Whatever your worries, he challenges people to apply their misgivings about man’s involvement in genetics to other aspects of their day-to-day life.

According to an article of Rollin’s in The Journal of Animal Science, it is estimated that 70 percent of grasses and 40 percent of flowering plants were "created" through human invention. There are also vast numbers of animals that have been modified through breeding. The dog is a perfect example; once wild canine, now man’s best friend.

The No. 2 and No. 3 reasons are more serious concerns, says Rollin, and must be considered and studied in detail to ensure the safety of the animals and the general public.

Consider these issues:

• When you insert a new gene, you don’t know how it will affect other traits. With traditional breeding, Rollin says there is an "enforced waiting period" because it may take many generations of animals to achieve the desired characteristic. Throughout that time, you can study its effects, but by simply inserting the desired gene in one attempt, the outcome can be unknown. The only answer to this is to conduct a lot of small-scale testing prior to releasing the animal.

• There could be unsuspected harmful consequences to humans who consume the resultant animal. Scientists will need to conduct many tests to ensure the safety of the milk or beef. Bishop says Infigen has a cloned dairy herd, developed for the purpose of field testing.

"We’re testing animals to see how they respond to a normal production environment, and on the consumer side we’re testing the milk," says Bishop. "Is cloned milk the same as non-cloned milk? Does it have any different proteins in it? Does it have any different fats? Does it have the same mineral content, the same lactose levels?

"Those are very relevant consumer questions, and we need to do that same analysis with the meat – any of the products that are going to be used for human health or consumption," Bishop explains.

• The gene pool could narrow. Rollin says this problem is also found in traditional breeding. Once a desirable trait is found and multiplied repeatedly, genetic uniformity emerges and makes the animal population less capable of adjusting or adapting in the face of disease, reproductive problems or even a change in agricultural practices, Rollin suggests.

• When you alter an animal, it may change the pathogens to which they’re host. In other words, by creating or adding specific disease resistance in an animal, it may make them more susceptible to other diseases, which could infect other animals or people.

• What are the ecological effects of altering an animal and having it escape into the wild? Rollins points out that the release of "regular" creatures – like killer bees – has posed problems in the past, and even less is known about the effects of engineered animals. An animal that has been altered could introduce new diseases to the general population or disrupt the food chain.

• How will these animals affect Third World countries? No one knows for sure how genetic engineering could affect these countries. Rollin says, on one hand, it seems that plants and animals could be developed that are better adapted to their harsh conditions. But could the environment be further harmed by thrusting these animals in all types of previously undisturbed areas with unknown consequences?

Bishop says he thinks Third World countries recognize the value of this technology in terms of securing their food supply. Besides guaranteeing food, it could also be engineered to have nutraceuticals – much like golden rice that contains vitamin A.

• Patenting of genetically engineered animals could hurt smaller producers. Rollin says it’s not unrealistic that animals could one day be patented, which could be a hardship for small producers.

Keep in mind that there are no patented animals at this time, but companies like Infigen have patented certain technologies. Infigen holds about XX patents, and although Bishop says they don’t have a reason to patent an animal now. He did admit that if something made that animal totally unique, it would have to be considered.

• The potential military applications of such technology could be dangerous. Rollin says it’s not difficult to "imagine the sorts of weapons that could be created using animals as carriers to infect populations with human pathogens."

This last threat is of particular interest since the terrorist attacks on September 11, but Bishop says he thinks the technology could actually be used to our benefit to ensure the food supply.

"In fact, I can make a strong case that we should accelerate the development of this technology because it is an opportunity that we haven’t had so dramatically in the past to ensure the food supply," says Bishop. "There are things we can do much more quickly with genetic modification than we can with natural breeding and it should be given priority."

Bishop suggests cattle could be produced with tolerance for diseases like anthrax, foot-and-mouth disease and even BSE, more commonly known as mad cow disease.

"If you look at those things in the context of ensuring the food supply it’s extremely important, in light of recent events," Bishop says.

Rollin and Gillespie take a little different view. Gillespie says that since our economy is suppressed, the amount of money available for research and development will likely be restricted.

Rollin thinks it would have to be packaged in a manner to convince consumers it’s not self-serving. Plus, with the bioterrorism scare, will the consumer want to try a new food product, especially if they know it’s been genetically engineered? It could be difficult to dispel all of their fears under the current atmosphere of the nation.

No one knows if genetic engineering will live up to its promises, but it could one day affect the breeding stock on your ranch. Therefore, it’s important for you to consider the issues and decide how you might put this technology to use, if at all.

"I think we’ve all taken a different look at things over the last few weeks after all that has occurred," says Bishop. "I can’t find any reason not to press forward with the development of these technologies in animal agriculture, and hopefully, we’re educated enough and wise enough to create better products that people want and need."