Transcript Terrorism in the debate over tree genetic

Terrorism in the debate over
tree genetic improvement
Toby Bradshaw
College of Forest Resources
University of Washington
[email protected]
From the ELF communiquè
"Bradshaw, the driving force in
G.E. tree research, continues
to unleash mutant genes into
the environment that is [sic]
certain to cause irreversible
harm to forest ecosystems.
As long as universities
continue to pursue this
reckless 'science', they run
the risk of suffering severe
losses. Our message remains
clear, we are determined to
stop genetic engineering."
From the ELF FAQ
“The ELF targets have included
such issues as deforestation
(for human development of
roadways, for luxurious living
and/or recreation areas, for
profit by selling or using
trees, etc.), urban sprawl,
genetic engineering, natural
habitat and ecosystem
destruction, the use of slave
labor by corporations and
more.”
Setting Fires
With Electrical
Timers - An
Earth
Liberation
Front Guide
Human demand for wood and
fiber is increasing
Population growth
• Lumber
• Paper
• Fuel
• More agricultural land needed to grow food for
humans; less land for forests and wilderness
Biobased economy
• Biological raw materials augment and eventually
replace petroleum to achieve sustainability
The upside potential for yield
non-growing
season
22%
reflectance,
respiration, etc.
21%
non-PAR
56%
net photosynthesis
1%
A 1% increase in
conversion of solar
energy to fixed
carbon will double
biomass yield
The role of genetics in
agriculture
Genomics
and
biotech
19
90
19
80
19
50
19
40
19
30
19
20
Doublecross
hybrids
19
70
Singlecross
hybrids
19
60
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
19
10
kg/ha
Maize yield
Plant breeding involves two
distinct phases
Domestication
• Radical transformation of wild plant
• A few key mutations with huge effects
• Initial progress is extremely rapid
Refinement
• Subtle alterations in plant structure and function
• Controlled by many genes with small effects
• Progress is slow but steady
Corn domestication
• Primitive Maize
• Modern Hybrids
• Teosinte
Timeline:
7000 ybp
5000 ybp
today
Forest tree domestication will
follow an agricultural model
• Domestication of crops radically modified them
• Profound changes in morphology and physiology
• Domesticated plants cannot survive in the wild
The first genetic mutations that lead to
domestication are rare and valuable, but are
only apparent under intensive cultivation
Where are we
now and where
will we be?
Effect of
mutations
?
?
refinement
domestication
Number of mutations
Genetic engineering (GE) will be
required for tree domestication
• One cycle of conventional breeding takes a
decade; GE takes 6 months
• Outcrossing mating system prevents recovery of
recessive mutations; GE can create them easily
• Many vital tree functions are supported with
duplicated genes; GE can ‘knock out’ all copies of
a gene at once
• Using genetic engineering, domestication could
be compressed into a few decades instead of
centuries of conventional breeding
What is a GMO?
• Genetically Modified Organism
• Asexual gene (DNA) transfer (genetic
engineering/GE)
• Unlimited gene pool
• Research tool
• Pharmaceuticals
• Crops (‘Frankenfood’)
• Livestock?
• Forest trees?
• Fish?
• Humans?
Gene transfer (transformation)
Typical traits engineered into crops
•Herbicide resistance (e.g., ‘Roundup Ready’)
•Insect resistance (Bt toxin)
•Vitamin A (‘golden rice’)
•Fruit firmness (‘Flavr Savr’ tomato)
Potential benefits of GE plants
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Accelerates plant breeding
Increased yield spares wilderness
Tolerance of harsh environments
Improved nutritional quality
Reduced use of chemical pesticides
Vaccine delivery
Novel products (e.g., pharmaceuticals,
industrial raw materials)
Concerns about GE crops and
food
• Human health (e.g., allergies)
• Unnatural breaching of species
barrier
• Corporate control of agriculture
• Unethical (e.g., ‘playing God’)
• Environmental risk
Potential environmental risks of
GE plants
• Non-target effects (e.g., Monarch
butterfly)
• Insects become resistant to Bt, making it
useless for organic farmers
• Increased use of broad-spectrum
herbicides
• Gene flow to wild relatives (e.g.,
‘superweeds’)
• Loss of biodiversity (e.g., monoculture)
Traits being genetically
engineered in forest trees
• Herbicide resistance (weed control)
• Insect resistance (leaf beetle, budworm)
• Disease resistance (chestnut blight,
Dutch elm disease, fusiform rust)
• Lignin reduction (reduced chemical use,
waste, and energy consumption in
pulping)
• Reproductive sterility (prevention of
transgene flow)
Traits of the future
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Growth and yield
Branching
Microfibril angle
Tolerance of cold, drought, salt
Novel photosynthetic pathways
Self-pulping wood
‘Farm’aceuticals
Industrial chemical feedstocks
Who opposes tree genetic
engineering research?
• Earth Liberation Front: “You cannot control
what is wild.”
• Greenpeace: moratorium on all field research
with transgenic plants
• Forest Stewardship Council: denies
certification to entities conducting field research
on transgenic trees
Forest Stewardship Council
The use of exotic species shall be carefully
controlled and actively monitored to avoid
adverse ecological impacts.
No species should be planted on a large scale until
local trials and/or experience have shown that
they are ecologically well-adapted to the site, are
not invasive, and do not have significant
negative ecological impacts on other
ecosystems.
Issues to discuss
• What are the trade-offs involved in the
adoption or rejection of genetically
engineered trees?
• Does genetic engineering differ in any
meaningful way from conventional plant
breeding?
US National Research
Council/National Academy of
Sciences position on GE and
conventional plant breeding
“The same physical and biological laws
govern the response of organisms
modified by modern molecular and
cellular methods and those produced
by classical methods.”
US National Research
Council/National Academy of
Sciences position on GE and
conventional plant breeding
The focus should be on
PRODUCT,
not PROCESS
From the ELF FAQ
“Capitalism as a target is not
easily identifiable due to it
being an ideology rather
than a physical object.
But forms and symbols of
capitalism can be targeted
successfully … [t]he list is
endless but could include
such symbols in the U.S.
as Mt. Rushmore, the
Statue of Liberty, Disney,
Wall Street, etc.”