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.
