Ethics of Guerrilla planting Transgenic plants

[Nico B.]

A few of the projects that are being done at the maker space I go to for synbio classes are directed towards bioremediation through transgenic guerrilla gardening. We've been discussing the need for heavy monitoring to prevent propagation for the potential of ecosystem/food web disruption, but I'd like to hear more reasons for why and why not guerrilla garden transgenic species of grasses/shrubs for biodegradation of pollutants, sequestration of heavy metals in urban soils, ground water filtration, etc.

Thanks

[scoc...@gmail.com]

If the plants are made transgenic using agrobacterium (nuclear transform) the pollen, which is paternal genetic material, will also carry the transgene. That could theoretically spread to plants that can receive. Also EPA worries about residual agro that can beget the herbicide marker to other plants upon wounding. I've swabbed leaves weeks after acclimatization and was able to regen agro.

I think, from a personal standpoint, it's unfair to openly violate regulations when others who try to do things by the books spend so much money and effort to do so. Its not art nor good science to release even the simplest transgenic under the guise of arrogantly "knowing exactly what the transgene is and does". I keep all of my creations confined to the lab even though I'd love to have a field of grass that glows under UV in my backyard. I don't care how phytoremidiation-y the plants are or how much "good" they can do to the environs, one doesn't simply ::insert meme here:: Break laws for the sake of a hunch especially when it comes to ecosystem alteration. Pardon the aggression but I would hate to see DIY plant engineering become heavily regulated or illegal all because some hipster decided to spread some experimental plants in a local superfund site. Keep it in the lab. Make experiments that prove concept. Apply for permission and deregulation. Do it by the books. End of rant.

Sebastian S. Cocioba
CEO & Founder
New York Botanics, LLC
Plant Biotech R&D

---

From: Nico B.
Sent: ‎11/‎23/‎2014 7:04 PM
To: diy...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [DIYbio] Ethics of Guerrilla planting Transgenic plants

A few of the projects that are being done at the maker space I go to for synbio classes are directed towards bioremediation through transgenic guerrilla gardening. We've been discussing the need for heavy monitoring to prevent propagation for the potential of ecosystem/food web disruption, but I'd like to hear more reasons for why and why not guerrilla garden transgenic species of grasses/shrubs for biodegradation of pollutants, sequestration of heavy metals in urban soils, ground water filtration, etc.

Thanks

--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/1ab357e8-a917-4d0b-b16e-c311ca55ebc6%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Tom Hodder]

On 22 November 2014 at 03:49, Nico B. <perpetuatet...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'd like to hear more reasons for why and why not guerrilla garden transgenic species

a) One of the benefits and safe guards of diybio is that it is an open method of science. Unlawfully releasing transgenic species would necessarily have to be a secret activity, and it would be impossible to obtain sufficient community assessment of the risk without giving away the intention of the activity.

b) The pressing need for solutions to environmental problems suggests that we need a radical, rather than progressive review of overall strategy. However what we do not want are radical tactics, which undermine the validity of diybio. I feel that extremism from the left are just as undesirable as extremism from right wing types.

c) I note that you email account is "perpetuate the imaginary", and therefore this might just be a hypothetical. But if your first sentence is a true statement, then I would have serious concerns about the people who attend your maker space. A deliberate GMO release would almost certainly be a political rather than scientific act, and this sort of political extremism is at best a distraction, and at worst will interfere with positive scientific progress in diybio.

[Forrest Flanagan]

Jacob and I did some stuff regarding bioremediation using regular plants a few years ago. For example, some plants (I recall indian mustard as one of the seeds) will collect heavy metals, and they can be pulled up and destroyed to remediate the area. 

Here's a paper on mushroom inoculation of diesel and heavy oil contaminated soil with useful methods:

 http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/fullreports/464.1.pdf

I think your biolab should focus on existing bioremediation techniques that already work well. If you absolutely have to try and improve on an organism and have it immediately useful, maybe try setting up artificial environments for plants, fungus, or bacteria and seeing if you can select for better bioremediation characteristics. 

Also what space is this with the transgenic gardening class? I'd like to trade a few emails.

--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CAB%2BzPJBWGwUnNiXDFT548HbLfokYL%3DWzBvEb4Ag%2BbJL6kXdw6w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Pieter]

Life finds a way my friend. Just watch Jurassic Park and you'll understand that heavy monitoring alone will not keep your mutants strictly on your field.

Why do you believe it is necessary to clean up soil in the first place? Is there a need for it, or do you think it is better in some way?

[Mega [Andreas Stuermer]]

I agree with Pieter that life finds a way. 

But watching it from another perspective... If you have an apple tree, all it's sexual offspring will have significantly different genomes. Maternal and paternal DNA mix, recombine, holiday junction, transposon, retorotransposons, rearrangements, gene deletion, gene duplication, mutation, .... Nature is crazily recombining.  

Now look at a field, millions of e.g. bellis perennis, each with different genomes. None is the same. Though also non of them becomes really a superweed. It is pretty paranoid to believe if you add GFP or a heavy-metal methylating enzyme will make it a superweed. It is just another recombinant (natural recombinants and unnatural recombinants included) plant.  

[Mega [Andreas Stuermer]]

So concluding... better ask your government for de-regulation...  However they shouldn't be too paranoid either. Else only big companies like Monsanto can afford de-regulation. 

[Maria Chavez]

I think that phyto-remediation is great. Make use of existing and researched plants. My favorite is Sunflowers for a hardy no maintenance species that uptakes heavy metals.

I agree with everyone's point about the responsibility we shoulder as those in the spotlight of diy bio. There are enough documented plants that aren't transgenic you can guerrilla garden.

Maria

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 24, 2014, at 12:22 PM, Pieter <pieterva...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Life finds a way my friend. Just watch Jurassic Park and you'll understand that heavy monitoring alone will not keep your mutants strictly on your field.
>
> Why do you believe it is necessary to clean up soil in the first place? Is there a need for it, or do you think it is better in some way?
>

> --
> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
> Learn more at www.diybio.org
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/7ee26f20-d045-44a6-9c16-ab0b6615dd92%40googlegroups.com.

[j boogie]

I've studied these things (agronomy to bioremediate soils, soils contamination, guerilla gardening). Frankly, its a waste of time. Better idea would be to stop pollution in the first place. In the US, that is tough, because contaminants and heavy metals have been spread across the country in agricultural lands, with heavy metals in toxic waste being magically converted to "soil amendments"- Read "Fateful Harvest" for more info. 

I don't think you can be a steward of the Earth in a guerilla fashion. The only way to have an impact is to control a process to a conclusion. For instance, many crucifers are great at pulling things like cadmium from the soil. But you aren't getting rid of it until you take the crop. Now you have a more concentrated pollutant. Then what? 

Plants can be modified to uptake stuff they wouldn't normally accumulate. But those genes probably don't lend themselves to selection so they will probably be shed.

Now to knock-on effects. You bomb a polluted space with transgenetic crops and now have toxic plants. Starting at the low end of the food chain, slugs, worms, and especially leafcutting caterpillars or other defoliating flies and insects eat this material. Where does this extra (cadmium, lead) go? It goes to those that feed on such creatures. For example, many songbirds who are strict nut-eaters turn out to be primary feeders on defoliators only when they are juveniles. So the rapidly growing cohort of these species get a bigger dose of the toxins. Then they fly about, poop toxins everywhere, and it goes into surface and groundwater. Their dead carcasses land in random places and are then scavenged by other creatures. Etc. 

I think the best hope for bioremediation, as mentioned, are organisms that are going to catalyze reactions that are going to neutralize, immobilize, or contain specific toxins. But the ultimate way is to stop financing the creation of such wastes, supporting political and regulatory action to stop their proliferation, and voting Republitards out of office, such as Mr. Mitt "I'm going to dismantle the EPA" Romney, and other magical fairy-dust snorting industrial greed PIGGS that are destroying the world. 

I think using plants to sequester some toxins might be a great way to prove criminal pollution cases, or alert communities to contamination sites. In this case you'd use a technique for quantifying a toxic load in a particular area by growing a control in a non-polluted area and a test case in a polluted one, then, to a heavy metals analysis using GC-MS or similar approach at a certified lab, and come up with some bio-accumulative load figures (in addition to some direct soil analysis). Then, find a lawyer and sue the hell out the perpetrators.

Using uptake transgenes to grab the toxins might be useful within the context of such an experiment but it would have to be more tightly controlled. Transgenes could be useful in tagging your plants to round out the experiment by making sure you are collecting the same plants you put in. But if plants already exist which uptake toxins, you'd maybe rather focus on genes which will make them hardy enough to grow in non-normal conditions you're likely to be bombing (which will probably be poorly draining, acidified, or compacted soil or substrate).

It all begs the question of why not do direct soil sampling, legal action against polluters- or just illegal action (trespass and sampling) and social media shaming. Force the courts and the perpetrators to shell out the funds for physical removal and treatment at a hazardous waste facility. I think the strongest argument against might be that you are just not going to remove a meaningful amount of contamination with covert or marginal action. The capacity of plants for this purpose is simply not that great. For most instances, what is really required is wholesale removal- and financial punishment- publicly broadcast. 

[Nathan McCorkle]

On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:16 PM, j boogie <justin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've studied these things (agronomy to bioremediate soils, soils
> contamination, guerilla gardening). Frankly, its a waste of time. Better
> idea would be to stop pollution in the first place. In the US, that is
> tough, because contaminants and heavy metals have been spread across the
> country in agricultural lands, with heavy metals in toxic waste being
> magically converted to "soil amendments"- Read "Fateful Harvest" for more
> info.

So would engineering ourselves to be more defensive of these toxins be
a quicker 'win'? Sure the songbird babies are still getting messed up
but we wouldn't be, which would either increase the population's
health overall leading to easier ability to read/learn (to not toxify
the environment)... or it would cause the resistant population to care
even less about the environment because it doesn't affect them.

If the latter case, then would the answer be to make us MORE
SUSCEPTIBLE to said toxins, to induce a NEED to keep the environment
toxin free?

[Mega [Andreas Stuermer]]

Hm, that's a good point. If we could improve all living things (like a computer update) to be resistant to heavy metals, that would remove the need to avoid heavy metals. Is that an ethical solution? 

[Mega [Andreas Stuermer]]

I was thinking. If you make everything resistant to lead e.g., enviromental protection laws will dissapear because lead is not toxic to any organism any more. So the industry can blow as much lead out of the chimney as it wants. But then, lead is not toxic to any organism anymore, so what's the point? What's the point of preserving the status-quo then? Preserve our planet for what? If aliens arrive which are not resistant to lead?^^ 

[Pieter]

You guys are starting to think like artists. I guess exactly the same questions where addressed in Andy Gracy's Drosophila Titanus project or our Designers & Artists 4 Genomics Award winner Jallila Esaidi's bullet proof skin: www.da4ga.nl/?p=157

Our obsession with "optimizing" nature is such a great example of our own naive lack of understanding of what these antropocentric actions lead to, it nearly becomes ironic.

[Mega [Andreas Stuermer]]

The Drosophila Titanus project looks really nice from an artistic point of view, but I consider it unlikely that you can make it qithstand -180°C, unless you replace the water in the cells by liquid methane I guess? 

[Brian Degger]

Obviously ;) they would have some small spacesuit...
the idea is to make 'flyonauts' that are more adapted to the local
environment ;)
Their wings would get smaller over time, and their rate of flapping,
as titan has a fairly dense atmosphere, with a lot of mutational
goodness in the form of cosmic rays.

> --
> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at
> https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
> Learn more at www.diybio.org
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "DIYbio" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/b48dcaab-4b9e-4921-8c89-d726a6728f7a%40googlegroups.com.

>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
----------------------------------------
Brian Degger
twitter: @drbrian

http://makerspace.org.uk
http://transitlab.org
----------------------------------------

[xmort]

No matter how good are your original intentions, guerrilla planting of transgenic plants is the fastest way to create massive public anxiety ageinst biotechnology and DIY-Bio in particular. If someone wants to have DIY banned, than it is the way to go.

[Nico B.]

I'm mainly looking into urban soils. Where I live, I have found that many large-scale infrastructural projects are aware of the use of industrial debris and wastes in their foundations in a layer of sediment that is called 'artificial fill.' The EPAs definition of this debris is quite limited for the state of CA, where other state's definitions are quite detailed. I've found reports of asbestos and lead based paints being used in this fill layer, along with some experience in construction and knowing what is often left behind or neglected. 

Now there are many organizations working in the clean up efforts, I had just thought of transgenic introduction after reading an article on CYP2E1 transgenic Poplars and their ability to degrade and sequester incredible amounts of such pollutants in brownfield or at superfund sites.

[Nico B.]

Thanks for the responses. This is predominantly a hypothetical question. some of the ideas for projects at the space had been circling around this topic but I'm sure there is no palpable desire to release transgenes with out permissions. 

I have read some interesting articles about trangenic poplars with CYP2E1 expression. I've given some thought into putting a similar gene of the P450 family into a transgenic P. virgatum for hastier root establishment. Sebastian made a point that nuclear transform then gives the pollen the same traits, which could possibly be accepted by another plant that could receive the transgene. Would this necessarily be a bad thing if its an expression for the metabolism of VOCs, BTEX, and halogenated compounds?

On Friday, November 21, 2014 7:49:34 PM UTC-8, Nico B. wrote:

[Patrik D'haeseleer]

Given how many plants, fungi and bacteria have already been demonstrated to have excellent bioremediation properties, I think it would be highly irresponsible to release any engineered organisms unless you can categorically prove that they do any better than any natural strains.

And even then, your first course of action should be to publish your work so that your peers can try to poke holes in, and/or improve on your results. If you can really make grasses that are provably better at bioremediation than any naturally occurring organisms, then that is something the whole world deserves to know - and deserves a chance to scrutinize.

Patrik

[TeMPOraL]

On Wed Nov 26 2014 at 19:02:49 Pieter <pieterva...@gmail.com> wrote:

You guys are starting to think like artists. I guess exactly the same questions where addressed in Andy Gracy's Drosophila Titanus project or our Designers & Artists 4 Genomics Award winner Jallila Esaidi's bullet proof skin: www.da4ga.nl/?p=157

Our obsession with "optimizing" nature is such a great example of our own naive lack of understanding of what these antropocentric actions lead to, it nearly becomes ironic.

I personally don't get this attitude. Nature is not optimized to reflect the goals of humanity, I don't see why we should expect it. Sure we don't understand a lot, but our "obsession with optimizing nature" is probably the most basic thing about humans. It's why we left caves, started agriculture, invented science, medicine and space travel. It's what engineers are for.

I don't see why our actions shouldn't be antropocentric (after all, who else are we to primarily care about?), but I'll agree that they shouldn't be stupid. Life is strong, it will endure pretty much anything we can throw at it now and in the near future. We're dangers to ourselves, not to the planet. The Earth will be just fine even without us here. But that's again just antropocentric thinking ;).

[j boogie]

It's in our best interest not to behave in an anthropomorphic way. 

[Nico Bouchard]

I agree with you there, but would providing transgenes not to some extent provide the plant world with the tools to fight what we have created out of a human-centric mindset?

--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/diybio/pxs6TR4f72k/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/64696b14-9288-4d0a-875a-a16eff02bd8d%40googlegroups.com.

[Mega [Andreas Stuermer]]

Sooner or later, the plants would develope these enzymes naturally. Or overexpress ABC transporters. Though in nature, some species would die out too without intervention. 

[Cathal Garvey]

I try to avoid being too anthropomorphic but then my organs fail so I
resume being human until symptoms subside.

On 09/12/14 20:44, j boogie wrote:
> It's in our best interest not to behave in an anthropomorphic way.
>
> On Monday, December 1, 2014 12:20:39 PM UTC-8, Jacek Złydach wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed Nov 26 2014 at 19:02:49 Pieter <pieterva...@gmail.com

> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
> You guys are starting to think like artists. I guess exactly the
> same questions where addressed in Andy Gracy's Drosophila
> Titanus project or our Designers & Artists 4 Genomics Award
> winner Jallila Esaidi's bullet proof skin: www.da4ga.nl/?p=157

> <http://www.da4ga.nl/?p=157>

>
> Our obsession with "optimizing" nature is such a great example
> of our own naive lack of understanding of what these
> antropocentric actions lead to, it nearly becomes ironic.
>
>
> I personally don't get this attitude. Nature is not optimized to
> reflect the goals of humanity, I don't see why we should expect it.
> Sure we don't understand a lot, but our "obsession with optimizing
> nature" is probably the most basic thing about humans. It's why we
> left caves, started agriculture, invented science, medicine and
> space travel. It's what engineers are for.
>
> I don't see why our actions shouldn't be antropocentric (after all,
> who else are we to primarily care about?), but I'll agree that they
> shouldn't be stupid. Life is strong, it will endure pretty much
> anything we can throw at it now and in the near future. We're
> dangers to ourselves, not to the planet. The Earth will be just fine
> even without us here. But that's again just antropocentric thinking ;).
>

> --
> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to
> diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group
> at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
> Learn more at www.diybio.org
> ---

> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "DIYbio" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:diybio+un...@googlegroups.com>.

> To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:diy...@googlegroups.com>.

> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/64696b14-9288-4d0a-875a-a16eff02bd8d%40googlegroups.com

> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/64696b14-9288-4d0a-875a-a16eff02bd8d%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.

[Mega [Andreas Stuermer]]

Antropomorphism sucks. I've always wanted 2 or three hearts. (A frog has nine, IIRC?)

[John Griessen]

On 12/10/2014 09:46 AM, Mega [Andreas Stuermer] wrote:
> I've always wanted 2 or three hearts. (A frog has nine, IIRC?)

I think frogs may have several big brain like ganglia that do reflexes...and vision
processing. So... a frog could have a heart attack and stroke and
still be kicking!

[Nathan McCorkle]

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:46 AM, Mega [Andreas Stuermer]
<masters...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Antropomorphism sucks. I've always wanted 2 or three hearts. (A frog has nine, IIRC?)

That may be hyperanthropomorphic, or just zoomorphic?

[David Weichselbaum]

It's the slippery slope that makes people uncomfortable about such ideas. Most people would accept "upgrades" of the ecosystem of this kind.
But stuff that has no advantage for the organism (like harvesting toxins) will just breed out. This also limits the usefulness of such an approach.

Responding to the live-designers in the thread: There is the possibility for real improvements, like replacing native Rubisco with a bacterial variant.
Plants like that would be impossible to control (and a PR-disaster for DIY-bio).

[Yuriy Fazylov]

>Responding to the live-designers in the thread: There is the possibility for real improvements, like replacing native Rubisco with a bacterial variant.
Plants like that would be impossible to control (and a PR-disaster for DIY-bio).

yes they would be impossible to control.... In a CO2 chamber. Bad PR.

As far as I can understand the limiting mechanism in plants with a bacterial RuBisCO is timely CO2 acquisition. Plants are too slow and need carboxysomes that never made it.

Anyone want to develop this idea any further? :)

[Mega [Andreas Stuermer]]

The problem with Rubisco is that it evolved in an anoxic atmosphere in cyanobacterial precursors of chloroplasts. It is inhibited by oxygen (it binds well to CO2 and O2) so o2 is a competitive inhibitor.

Finding a mutant that has less O2 affinity would be the goal. The bacterial Rubisco in plant is patented.

[Yuriy Fazylov]

>The problem with Rubisco is that it evolved in an anoxic atmosphere in cyanobacterial precursors of chloroplasts. It is inhibited by oxygen (it binds well to CO2 and O2) so o2 is a competitive inhibitor.

I just did a superficial look through and claims are that CO2 is 80x likely to bind with RuBisCO than oxygen. That affinity might deminish with higher temp. but not clear on which one RuBisCO it might be.

>Finding a mutant that has less O2 affinity would be the goal.

plants act in cool conditions and they have a large surface area. There's your 80x absorption. How much more could you need?

>The bacterial Rubisco in plant is patented.

Is that patent valid despite US supreme court ruling?

[Mega [Andreas Stuermer]]

 

>The bacterial Rubisco in plant is patented.
Is that patent valid despite US supreme court ruling?

That's a great point!  Probably yes though, because it is heterologous expression? But the protein is wild-type ads is the DNA - so it can't be patented. Legal experts here?

[Yuriy Fazylov]

Show me the patent before dragging out this conversation.

[Mega [Andreas Stuermer]]

http://www.google.com.ar/patents/US8129512

What is claimed is:
1. An isolated nucleic acid molecule comprising a polynucleotide sequence that encodes a polypeptide having at least 80% sequence identity to SEQ ID NO:27, wherein said polypeptide comprises a Threonine amino acid residue at position 99 of SEQ ID NO:27, a Serine amino acid residue at position 281 of SEQ ID NO:27, and a Glycine amino acid residue at position 352 of SEQ ID NO:27, wherein said polypeptide has ribulose 1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase (Rubisco) activity when expressed with a Rubisco small subunit.

[Cathal (Phone)]

My understanding is that the SCOTUS verdict is regarded as not really applying outside human genes (yet), but that's just a vibe I'm getting. Other gene patents are certainly less sure now, but I think more SCOTUS cases are needed to reverse decades of patenting works of nature.

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

[Jeswin]

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Nico B.
<perpetuatet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm mainly looking into urban soils. Where I live, I have found that many
> large-scale infrastructural projects are aware of the use of industrial
> debris and wastes in their foundations in a layer of sediment that is called
> 'artificial fill.' The EPAs definition of this debris is quite limited for
> the state of CA, where other state's definitions are quite detailed. I've
> found reports of asbestos and lead based paints being used in this fill
> layer, along with some experience in construction and knowing what is often
> left behind or neglected.
>

I think the title of this thread says it all. How can rogue GMO
cultivation on private or public property even need to be be
questioned as ethical or not? It's not ethical. I know I sound harsh
but think about the question being asked in the first place. However,
I think the question is not new and is being researched in academic
and commercial labs. The problem this thread seeks to address is the
pace of that research. That is understandable. The pace from research
to usable product is sluggish.

So, maybe a different approach needs to be taken. How about localized
cleanup? For example, plants that purify the air and the water inside
your home. How do they compare with other methods such as air filters?
Air and water filters have to be disposed of, so are plants more
better for disposable? I don't know much about this topic, but these
are some things that came to mind.

[Patrik D'haeseleer]

On Sunday, December 14, 2014 9:58:49 AM UTC-8, Cathal (Phone) wrote:

My understanding is that the SCOTUS verdict is regarded as not really applying outside human genes (yet), but that's just a vibe I'm getting.

I don't think that is correct. The way I understand it is that the main distinction is between naturally occurring genes, versus engineered genes. Interestingly, cDNA and codon optimized genes would theoretically be patent eligible according to the latest decision, because they do not occur in nature:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_for_Molecular_Pathology_v._Myriad_Genetics

The majority opinion delivered by Thomas held, "A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated, but cDNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring."[40] In Part III of the majority opinion, Thomas wrote:

It is important to note what is not implicated by this decision. First, there are no method claims before this Court. Had Myriad created an innovative method of manipulating genes while searching for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, it could possibly have sought a method patent. But the processes used by Myriad to isolate DNA at the time of Myriad's patents "were well understood, widely used, and fairly uniform insofar as any scientist engaged in the search for a gene would likely have utilized a similar approach," 702 F. Supp. 2d, at 202–203, and are not at issue in this case.

Similarly, this case does not involve patents on new applications of knowledge about the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Judge Bryson aptly noted that, "[a]s the first party with knowledge of the [BRCA1 and BRCA2] sequences, Myriad was in an excellent position to claim applications of that knowledge. Many of its unchallenged claims are limited to such applications." 689 F. 3d, at 1349.

Nor do we consider the patentability of DNA in which the order of the naturally occurring nucleotides has been altered. Scientific alteration of the genetic code presents a different inquiry, and we express no opinion about the application of §101 to such endeavors. We merely hold that genes and the information they encode are not patent eligible under §101 simply because they have been isolated from the surrounding genetic material.[40]

In his concurring opinion, which relates to the scientific details in the majority opinion,[39] Scalia wrote:

I join the judgment of the Court, and all of its opinion except Part I–A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology. I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief. It suffices for me to affirm, having studied the opinions below and the expert briefs presented here, that the portion of DNA isolated from its natural state sought to be patented is identical to that portion of the DNA in its natural state; and that complementary DNA (cDNA) is a synthetic creation not normally present in nature.[40]

[George Jackson]

You are not God. You are human - and as such subject to potentially the most grotesque forms of error in judgement. That's why the law exists. That's why the whole system of peer review and safety monitoring exists. Who are you to say you know what's good for the world and make these choices on your own? It is the most ardent form of idiocy I could possibly imagine. How's that for an argument against?

[Cathal Garvey]

Put a little more temperately, if you were asking about planting
non-native species that had not yet been tested in the ecosystem, we'd
probably say "don't" with some caveats. So, even though transgenic
native species are generally less different from known native species
than other species entirely, the same principal holds; we ought to rely
on responsible systems of testing and assessment before releasing
anything into the wild.

How rigorous these systems should be is all up for debate; I personally
think the risks are overplayed. But as long as the public feel those
risks merit testing, it's your responsibility to respect that sentiment,
or you risk burning your reputation and credibility for the sake of
impatience.

> --
> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to
> diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group
> at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
> Learn more at www.diybio.org
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "DIYbio" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:diybio+un...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:diy...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
> To view this discussion on the web visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/c6f4ac79-0544-41e8-a21e-59a617ba45d2%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/c6f4ac79-0544-41e8-a21e-59a617ba45d2%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.