Animal Biotechnology

 

Animal biotechnology

 

The use of science and engineering to improve living organisms is known as animal biotechnology. The purpose is to develop microorganisms for specific agricultural applications, as well as to make products and improve animals.

Creating transgenic animals (animals having one or more genes introduced by human intervention), employing gene knockout technology to create animals with a specific inactivated gene, and making virtually identical animals using somatic cell nuclear transfer are all examples of animal biotechnology (or cloning).

AN Comprehensive HISTORY

Animal biotechnology as we know it now has a lengthy history. Traditional breeding procedures, which date back to 5000 B.C.E., were among the first biotechnology techniques used. Crossing different animal strains (known as hybridizing) to develop more genetic variability is one of these strategies. The children of these crosses are then selectively bred to produce the most desirable features possible. For the past 3,000 years, female horses have been bred with male donkeys to produce mules, and male horses with female donkeys to produce hinnies, both for usage as work animals. This approach is still in use today.

When American biochemist James Watson and British biophysicist Francis Crick unveiled his double-helix model of DNA in 1953, the modern era of biotechnology began. Following that, in the 1960s, Swiss microbiologist Werner Arber discovered specific enzymes in bacteria known as restriction enzymes. These enzymes precisely cut the DNA strands of any creature. In 1973, American geneticist Stanley Cohen and American biochemist Herbert Boyer used restriction enzymes to extract a specific gene from one bacterium and put it into another. That was the start of recombinant DNA technology, also known as genetic engineering. Genes from other creatures were first transferred to bacteria in 1977, paving the way for the first human gene transfer.

The technology involved

The science of genetic engineering is used in animal biotechnology nowadays. Other technologies utilized in animal biotechnology fall under the umbrella of genetic engineerings, such as transgenics and cloning.

 

Transgenics

The transfer of a specific gene from one organism to another is known as transgenics (also known as recombinant DNA). Gene splicing is a technique for introducing one or more genes from one organism into another. When the second organism absorbs the new DNA into its genetic material, a transgenic animal is born.

DNA cannot be transported directly from the donor organism to the recipient organism, or the host, in gene splicing. Instead, the donor DNA must be clipped and pasted, or recombined, into a suitable fragment of DNA from a vector, which is an organism capable of carrying the donor DNA into the host. The host organism is usually a quickly growing microorganism, such as a harmless bacterium, that acts as a factory for duplicating the recombined DNA in enormous quantities. The resulting protein can then be extracted from the host and employed in humans, other animals, plants, microbes, or viruses as a genetically designed product. Donor DNA can be injected directly into an organism using techniques such as cell injection through the cell walls of plants or into an animal's fertilized egg

By changing the protein makeup of the organism, this gene transfer changes its characteristics. Proteins, such as enzymes and hormones, play a variety of roles in organisms. Through the creation of proteins, individual genes influence an animal's features.

Cloning

Researchers employ reproductive cloning procedures to create numerous copies of mammals that are virtually exact replicas of other animals, such as transgenic animals, genetically superior animals, and animals that produce large amounts of milk or have another desirable attribute. Since the first cloned animal, a sheep named Dolly, in 1996, cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, horses, mules, cats, rats, and mice have been created.

Somatic cell nuclear transfer is the first step in reproductive cloning (SCNT). Scientists use SCNT to replace the nucleus of an egg cell (oocyte) with a nucleus from a donor adult somatic cell, which can be any cell in the body except an oocyte or sperm. The embryo is put into the uterus of a surrogate female for reproductive cloning, where it can develop into a living being.

Other Innovations

Scientists can employ gene knockout technology to inactivate, or "knock out," a specific gene in addition to transgenics and cloning. This technology opens the door to the possibility of human organ substitution. Xenotransplantation is the process of transplanting cells, tissues, or organs from one species to another. The pig is currently the most common animal considered a suitable organ donor for humans. Pig and human cells, however, are not immunologically compatible. Pigs, like nearly all mammals, have marks on their cells that allow the human immune system to recognize and reject them as foreign. The pig gene responsible for the protein that serves as a flag for pig cells is knocked out using genetic engineering.

ITS USEFULNESS

Animal biotechnology has numerous applications. Transgenic animals with greater growth rates, increased lean muscle mass, increased disease resistance, or improved utilization of dietary phosphorous have been generated since the early 1980s to reduce the environmental implications of animal waste. Transgenic poultry, swine, goats, and cattle have also been developed to produce huge amounts of human proteins in eggs, milk, blood, or urine, to exploit these products as human medications. Enzymes, clotting factors, albumin, and antibodies are examples of human medicinal proteins. The comparatively inefficient production rate of transgenic animals is a fundamental issue restricting their broad application in agricultural production systems (a success rate of less than 10 percent).

The transfer of the rainbow trout growth hormone gene directly into carp eggs is an example of these specialized applications of animal biotechnology. The transgenic carp that arise produce both carp and rainbow trout growth hormones and grow to be one-third the size of regular carp. The use of transgenic animals is another example to clone a huge number of copies of the gene for a cow growth hormone. The hormone is isolated from the bacterium, processed, and injected into dairy cows, resulting in a 10 to 15% increase in milk production. Bovine somatotropin, or BST, is the growth hormone in question.

The use of animal organs in humans is another prominent application of animal biotechnology. Pigs are now employed to supply human heart valves, but they are also being explored as a possible solution to the serious lack of human organs available for transplant surgeries.

The future of Animal technology

While forecasting the future is necessarily dangerous, some things regarding the future of animal biotechnology can be predicted with certainty. The government agencies in charge of animal biotechnology regulation, primarily the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are expected to rule on pending regulations and establish procedures for commercializing items developed using the technique. Despite strong resistance from animal welfare and consumer advocacy groups, environmental organizations, some members of Congress, and many consumers, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allowed the sale of cloned animals and their progeny for food in January 2008. It is also believed that technology in the sector will continue to grow, with significant anticipation for advancements in the use of animal organs in human transplant operations.

ISSUES CONNECTED

The enhanced nutritional content of food for human consumption; a more abundant, cheaper, and varied food supply; agricultural land-use savings; a reduction in the number of animals required for food supply; improved animal and human health; development of new, low-cost disease treatments for humans; and increased understanding of the human disease are just a few of the potential benefits of animal biotechnology.

Despite these potential benefits, there are various areas of worry surrounding animal biotechnology. A majority of the American population is currently opposed to animal genetic manipulation.

According to a poll done by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, 58 percent of individuals surveyed oppose scientific research on animal genetic engineering. According to a poll done by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, 58 percent of individuals surveyed oppose scientific research on animal genetic engineering. In a Gallup poll conducted in May 2004, 64 percent of Americans polled believed that cloning animals were morally unacceptable.

The unknown possible health impacts to people from food products made by transgenic or cloned animals, the potential effects on the environment, and the effects on animal welfare are all concerns regarding the use of animal biotechnology. Additional research will be required before animal biotechnology is widely implemented in animal agricultural production systems to establish whether the benefits of animal biotechnology outweigh the hazards.

SAFETY OF FOOD

"Is it safe to eat?" is the most frequently asked question about the safety of food produced using animal biotechnology for human consumption. However, answering that question isn't easy. Other questions, such as "What compounds expressed as a result of genetic modification are likely to persist in food?" must be addressed first. Despite these concerns, the National Academies of Science (NAS) published Animal Biotechnology: Science-Based Concerns, which concluded that the general level of concern for food safety was low. The report mentioned three specific food concerns: allergies, bioactivity, and nutritional value. as well as the dangers of unwanted expression items

Because the process introduces novel proteins, the possibility of new allergens being expressed in foods made from genetically modified animals is a genuine and valid worry. While food allergens are not a new problem, the challenge is predicting them effectively because they can only be found after a person is exposed and has a reaction.

"Will putting a functional protein like a growth hormone in an animal influence the human who consumes food from that animal?" asks another food safety concern, bioactivity. The FDA only approves these treatments if data and/or studies show that the food from the treated animals is safe to eat and that the drugs are effective. Neither the treated animal nor the ecosystem should be harmed. The drugs must also be efficacious, which means that they must function as intended. The FDA has authorized the labeling for each product, which includes all instructions for safe and effective usage. The FDA also makes a Freedom of Information Summary available to the public on its website for each approved product, which summarizes the information used by the FDA to determine that the drug is safe for the treated animals, and that the animal products (edible tissues such as meat) are safe for humans to eat and that the product is effective.

Finally, in the animal biotechnology process, there is concern regarding the toxicity of unexpected expression products. While the risk is low, there is no information available. According to the NAS report, it must be proved that the nutritional composition of these foods does not change and that no unintended and potentially dangerous expression products occur.

ECOLOGICAL CONCERNS

Another key concern about animal biotechnology is the possibility of harmful environmental consequences. Changes in the ecological balance in terms of feed supplies and predators, the introduction of transgenic animals that affect the health of existing animal populations, and the disturbance of reproduction patterns and their success are all potential downsides. Many more questions must be answered to determine the danger of these environmental effects, such as: What is the likelihood that the changed animal would reach the environment? Will the animal's introduction have an impact on the ecosystem? Will the animal be able to adapt to its surroundings? Will it engage with other animals in the new community and have an impact on their success? It is difficult due to the numerous uncertainties involved to make the assessment.

Consider this: if transgenic fish with genes intended to speed growth were released into the wild, they would be able to compete more successfully for food and mates than wild salmon. As a result, there is a danger that genetically modified organisms will escape and reproduce in the wild. Existing species are believed to be wiped out, disturbing the ecological equilibrium of creatures.

IMPLICATIONS IN LAW

Regulations

Animal biotechnology regulation is now carried out by existing government bodies. To date, no new rules or laws dealing with animal biotechnology and related issues have been implemented. The FDA is the major regulatory organization for animal biotechnology and its products. These goods are covered by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act's new animal drug requirements (FDCA). The inserted genetic construct is referred to as the "drug" in this context. Because the method for bringing genetically altered animals to market is unknown, the lack of concrete regulatory guidelines has raised many worries.

The FDA decided in 2015 that AquAdvantage Salmon meets the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act's legislative standards for safety and effectiveness. Many people are skeptical about using an agency that was created to control medicines to regulate living animals. The FDCA's lack of an environmental mandate and the agency's strong confidentiality restrictions are another cause for concern. It's still unclear how the agency's regulations for animals will be interpreted, and how numerous agencies will collaborate in the regulatory system.

When animals are genetically modified for biomedical research (like pigs are in organ transplantation experiments), the Department of Agriculture closely regulates their care and use. The work is also governed by the Public Health Service Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals if federal monies are utilized to support the research.

Labelling

Another debate concerning animal biotechnology is whether products made from genetically altered animals should be labeled. Opponents of obligatory labeling argue that it goes against the government's historic focus on regulating products rather than processes. If the FDA has determined that an animal biotechnology product is safe for human consumption and the environment and is not materially different from similar products produced using conventional methods, these individuals argue that it is unfair and without scientific justification to single out that product for labeling solely because of the manufacturing process.

Those in support of obligatory labeling, on the other hand, say that it is a consumer "right-to-know" problem. They argue that customers require complete information about items on the market, including the techniques used to create those products, not for food safety or scientific reasons, but to make ethical decisions.

 

Intellectual Property Protection

A new genetically engineered product takes an average of seven to nine years to create, test, and launch, and costs around $55 million. As a result, practically all animal biotechnology researchers use the patent system to protect their investments and intellectual property. The first transgenic animal, a strain of laboratory mice whose cells were modified to incorporate a cancer-predisposing gene, was patented in 1988.

However, some people believe that patenting life forms is unethical because it turns organisms into a corporate property. Others are concerned about how it may affect small farmers. Those who oppose using the patent system to protect intellectual property in animal biotechnology have recommended using breed registries.

 

CONSIDERATIONS OF ETHICS AND SOCIETY

Animal biotechnology has important ethical and social implications. This is especially relevant because researchers and developers are concerned that the public's approval of items developed from cloned or genetically altered animals will play a role in their future market success. There are both skeptics and outright opponents of animal biotechnology. The methods of transgenics and cloning, according to strict opponents, are essentially immoral. It's been compared to "playing God." Furthermore, they frequently oppose animal biotechnology as being unnatural. They claim that its processes contradict nature and, in some situations, cross natural species boundaries.

Others doubt the necessity of genetically modifying animals. Some speculate that it is done to boost corporate profits and agricultural production. They feel that there should be a compelling need for animal genetic manipulation and that humans should not exploit animals solely for our desires and purposes. Others say it is wrong to restrict technology that has the potential to benefit humanity. The FDA can only mandate further labeling of foods derived from Genetically Engineered sources if there is a substantive difference – such as a different nutritional profile – between the GE product and its non-GE counterpart as of May 27, 2016, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

While the topic of ethics raises more problems than it answers, it is evident that animal biotechnology sparks a lot of controversy and discussion among scientists, researchers, and the general public in the United States. Two major points of contention are the welfare of the animals involved and the religious implications of animal biotechnology.

 

ANIMAL PROTECTION

The animals themselves are perhaps the source of the most disagreement and controversy around animal biotechnology. While it has been observed that animals may gain from the use of animal biotechnology — for example, through enhanced health — the majority of the discussion has focused on the known and unknown possible detrimental effects on animal welfare.

Calves and lambs born via in vitro fertilization or cloning, for example, have larger birth weights and longer gestation periods, resulting in difficult births that frequently necessitate cesarean sections. Furthermore, several of the current biotechnology approaches are exceedingly inefficient at creating viable fetuses. Many transgenic animals that survive do not correctly express the inserted gene, resulting in morphological, physiological, or behavioral problems.

There's also the possibility that proteins engineered to make a medicinal product in the animal's milk could end up in other sections of the animal's body, causing problems.

Animal "telos" is an Aristotelian notion that refers to an animal's basic nature. There is debate about whether changing an animal's telos via transgenesis is ethical. Is it ethical, for example, to make genetically modified hens that can live in small cages? Those who oppose the idea argue that it is proof that we have gone too far in altering that animal.

Those who support modifying an animal's telos claim that it will benefit the animal by allowing it to adapt to living situations that it is not "naturally" suited to.

There's also the possibility that proteins engineered to make a medicinal product in the animal's milk could end up in other sections of the animal's body, causing problems.

Animal "telos" is an Aristotelian notion that refers to an animal's basic nature. There is debate about whether changing an animal's telos via transgenesis is ethical. Is it ethical, for example, to make genetically modified hens that can live in small cages? Those who oppose the idea argue that it is proof that we have gone too far in altering that animal.

Those who support modifying an animal's telos claim that it will benefit the animal by allowing it to adapt to living situations that it is not "naturally" suited to. Some contemporary theologians even consider biotechnology as a challenging, good potential for us to "co-create" with God.

Religious issues

Some religious groups may have issues with transgenic animals. Certain meals are restricted to Muslims, Sikhs, and Hindus, for example. Such religious constraints pose fundamental problems regarding animal identity and genetic makeup. Does a melon become "fishy" in any meaningful sense if a small quantity of genetic material from a fish is injected into it (to allow it to grow at lower temperatures), for example? Some claim that because all species share common genetic material, the melon does not hold any information about the fish. Others, on the other hand, believe that the transferred genes are what distinguishes the animal. As a result, eating the melon would be prohibited as well.