Biofuel

Hey there everyone!

An article by Kate Yandell highlights recent advancements in genetic engineering that has created strands of yeast better suited for biofuel production.

Baker's yeast plays an important role in ethanol production because it can covert sugar and starches into biofuel through the process of fermentation.

Normally, ethanol in high concentrations disrupts the potassium and proton gradients across the membranes of the yeast which means that the ethanol punctures the membrane of the yeast and disrupts the yeast's intracellular pH and potassium concentrations. So by engineering yeast to over-express proton and potassium pumps, researchers were able to increase ethanol production.

A separate group of researchers from Sweden were able to engineer strands of yeast that can withstand higher temperatures. This is an important milestone because currently, biofuel producers must use energy to constantly cool their yeast since the yeast generates heat as it ferments sugar.

Normally, yeast is most productive at 86 degrees Fahrenheit, but by engineering wild-strains of yeast to have an ERG3 mutation the yeast was able to thrive 104 degrees Fahrenheit.

Good News for the Environment

Hi there! I've found a couple of articles about promising technological advancements that could greatly benefit the environment.

The fist is an article written by Kate Yandell titled Engineered Microbe Could Ease Switch to Grass. Researchers have discovered a new approach to converting switchgrass into ethanol that eliminated the need for the grass to undergo chemical treatment. Switchgrass is an ideal choice for creating biofuel since it is abundant and it is not a food source like other plants that have been chosen to be converted into ethanol (e.g. Corn). Even though this technology is not ready to be commercialized, the study highlights the potential of this emerging technology.

In other news, Ancient DNA Could Return Passenger Pigeons to the Sky.

I'm disappointed that the authors of this article did not examine the possible environmental consequences of bringing back a species that has been dead for roughly 100 years. If this animal were reintroduced into an environment where it has not been present in about 100 years would it be like introducing an invasive species? Has the ecosystem evolved to function without the presence of this organism since it's extinction? Would said evolved ecosystem be thrown off balance if this organism were reintroduced? Or would it go back to the way it was before this species went extinct? And the same questions apply for any other species that scientists may want to bring back that have been extinct for an even longer period of time

However I am excited for the other environmental benefits of this technological discovery. This same technology can be used to save endangered animal and  plant species from extinction and help boost their population into the safe zone.

Medical Advancements Thanks to Genetic Enginering

Hello everyone! I have come across some exciting news concerning the medical field pertaining to genetic engineering.

The less recent news is that scientists think they have found a way to prevent Malaria by altering the DNA of mosquitoes. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), in 2012 alone there were an estimated 627,000 deaths worldwide as a result of malaria. Not only can this technology prevent the deaths of thousands of people, but also it can be used to make weeds that have evolved to be resistant to certain herbicides become vulnerable to them once more, and this is great news for farmers and consumers alike.

In other news, researchers have come across promising results for a treatment for leukemia which involves genetically programming T-cells.

(Tiny magnetic beads force the larger T-cells, an immune cell, to multiply to produce more cancer killing cells. Penn Medicine.)
Even though the treatment has not been perfected yet and still produces concerning side effects, the results of the study were more than scientists could have hoped for.

Op-Ed Piece: Mitochondrial Manipulation Technologies

This post shall provide commentary on an article written by Marcy Darnovsky titled Genetically Modified Babies.

Through the citation of scientific studies such as the researchers at Oregon Health and Science University, Darnovsky presents ample research and background which establishes credibility.

I agree with Darnovsky's concerns that the science is still too dangerous and primitive. I find clinical trials of these procedures carried out on human beings to be premature. The science is still new, and has not been studied enough to guarantee its safety; therefore, I feel that the British regulators who are eager to move to clinical trials would be wrong to do so.

Darnovsky also mentions that ethical and social policy issues are issues that must be addressed, and I agree with her in the sense that people who want to use this technology should take it in to account.

However, I don't agree with her criticism of he F.D.A. advisory panel for considering only the scientific aspects of mitochondrial manipulation technologies. I don't feel it is the role of the F.D.A. or any other organization or single person to decide the moral code for millions of people. As long as the technology is not hurting anyone, I think it is up to the individual to decide whether or not they want this procedure based on their morality and other personal factors.

I also take issue with Darnovsky's assertion that,"Genetic modifications of sperm, eggs, and early embryos should be strictly off limits."

I believe that mitochondrial manipulation and other technologies designed to prevent heritable illness needs to be studied much more to ensure that it is completely safe, and after mastery of this technology has been achieved, then it can be implemented.

I feel that mitochondrial manipulation can be used for a noble cause: allowing women to have biological children without the risk of fatal ailments that are passed from mother to child. I feel that Darnovsky approaches the subject coldly, and detaches herself from the emotional motives behind this technological innovation. She does not take into enough consideration the perspective of the mothers who face these issues. I think parents should be allowed to take advantage of the opportunity to prevent their child from acquiring devastating genetic predispositions.