Will we be doing something like this, i.e. chemically induced competence?
If so, we don't appear to be doing anything which is an example of a technique constituting genetic modification:
a) recombinant nucleic acid techniques involving [ā¦] the insertion of nucleic acid molecules, produced by whatever means outside an organism [ā¦]
b) techniques involving the direct introduction into an organism of heritable genetic material prepared outside the organism [ā¦]
c) cell fusion or hybridization where live cells with new combinations of genetic material are formed through the fusion of two or more cells by means of methods that do not occur naturally.
As I understand it, we:
a) Don't introduce any nucleic acid molecules produced outside the organism
b) Don't introduce any heritable genetic material prepared outside the organism, and
c) Don't fuse cells in a non-natural way to produce new cells to produce cells with new combinations of genetic material.
What we will be doing is making the cells more likely to take up DNA (read: nucleic acids, heritable material) from their environment -- by putting holes in their cell walls.. But that is not genetic modification under these rules for two reasons: we are not inserting DNA (nor are we providing DNA for them to take up, which could be considered "insertion"), and we are not fusing cells in any way at all (natural or not).
I'm confused by Wikipedia though, which says that induced competence is transient (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_competence). When we make our competent cells, how long will they remain competent? Until they die, or for a or shorter time?
N