Transcript GMO lecture - Forest Tree Breeding and Forest Genetics

GMO (Gene Modified Organism)
applied to forestry
Is there a Future for GMTrees in
Forestry in this Century?
Dag Lindgren
Canton 2006-03-20
Updated to also fit a presentation Umeå 06-03-08
Somewhat touchy...
GMO
GMO
Institute
GMO finder
Dramatic and recent increase in
commercial agriculture!
Thousand times the area of
HongKong is now planted with
GMO crops!
GMO is extremely
successful areawise in
agriculture!!
The theoretical arguments
are overwhelming
• Intelligent design (=GMO) must logically be
superior to artificial evolution (current main
stream)!,
• Scientific knowledge moves forwards,
• Human approaches new frontiers,
• The real great new development in the management
of living resources is that we can read, understand,
manipulate and write the language of life!!
So why not forestry?
Let’s first take a closer look
at agriculture
Development
of
GMO
over
time
Increase in GMO use during a decade!
Source; ISAAA (2006)
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
Countries
6
9
12
13
13
Million ha
2
11
28
40
44
53
2005
21
90
The development is less speedy for number of countries
GMO area by country 2005
Country
USA
Argentina
Brazil
Canada
Paraguay
China
India
All others (14)
milj ha
50
17
9
6
2
3
1
2
Americas dominate!!, USA alone more than half!
No European country >0.1, but share in Europe raises rapidly
Source: ISAAA (2006)
The mainly positive ten year experience of
large scaled use including hundreds of
thousands hectares in EU countries could
motivate use in Sweden.
There must have been some problems….
GMO by species 2005
60 percent soybean
24 percent maize
11 percent cotton
 5 percent canola
 <1 percent all other species
Success only in four species
GMO does not expand much to new species
Characters
Characters in commercial
use world-wide, per cent
of area
1999
2005
Herbicide tolerant
69
71
Insect resistant
Both above
Virus resistant
Others
(Crop quality)
21
7
3
0.2
18
11
<1
<1
Major commercial success only in two characters!
Commercial Characters
success in two characters!
GMO for herbicide tolerance enables farmers to spray
wide spectrum herbicides on their fields killing all plants
but GMO
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt-gene) inserted; GMO crops
produce their own insecticides.
Applications besides the two large has declined the last 5 years.
GMO has been remarkable unsuccessful in finding new areas of
commercial application!
GMO Deliverables
Herbicide tolerance
M. Carson
Pesticide expression
Z. Zhang, Beijing Forestry University
Commercial success in two characters!
Public attitudes towards the area where GMO has its focus,
pesticides and insecticides, are not positive.
Commercial success for crop management - not crop quality. The
driving force has not been needs of the end-user (the consumer),
but the farmer (or may be the seed seller). More focus on
consumers needs and desires would have made the public more
positive!
Lots of good ideas are presented.
Some of them have selling names, like
“Golden rice” (which is not released yet)
There is a long list of additional successful
commercialization's. But <1% in total!
There may be ecological problems
A species terminator! - A Trojan horse?
A small Asian fish (2cm) used as organism. GMO fish in aquaculture get their growth magnified 100% by GMO. A GMO-fish
may escape and spread its genes to the wild population. The
super males were very successful in mating and getting offspring,
females have a strong preference for the big guys. But the GMO
offspring did not do well! Simulations suggested rapid species
extinction if these GMO fishes escaped.
Remember that most species has became extinct, and probably
many of them because they were trapped in an insane sexual
selection pattern, just think on the pea-cock…
At first sight it does not seem to be a danger with big fish!
Neither with big trees….
Co-existence
GMO may spread into non GMO, in
particular risk for organic farming
 European Commission Joint Research Centre reports
(May 2002) that it will be extremely difficult for
GMO-free and GMO crops to co-exist on a farm. In a
region it may be possible for some crops, but difficult
for others. It seems clear that trees belong to the crops
it will be difficult for.
 An evident remedy is sterility. It was much talked
about “terminator-genes”, making seeds sterile,
preventing farmers using them. Pollen sterility is also
an option. These technologies do not seem to offer a
remedy in Agriculture.
Swedish GMO outdoor plant
experiments
År
Potatis
Raps
Socker
beta
Backtrav Äppel-
Arealer 1998-2005
Övriga
grundst växter*
am
Totalt
2005
16 ha
9,6 ha
0,5 ha
20 m2
0,2 ha
480 m2
27 ha
2004
4,9 ha
8,8 ha
460 m2
20 m2
370 m2
10 m2
14 ha
2003
9,1 ha
7,3 ha
0,2 ha
20 m2
370 m2
-
17 ha
2002
9,6 ha
5,5 ha
800 m2
15 m2
370 m2
-
15 ha
2001
4,3 ha
8,5 ha
0,2 ha
20 m2
120 m2
-
13 ha
2000
170 ha
9,6 ha
2,4 ha
-
-
-
180 ha
1999
390 ha
7,4 ha
4,6 ha
-
-
-
400 ha
1998
350 ha
5,9 ha
1,3 ha
-
-
0,8 ha
360 ha
No commercial GMO in Sweden
Field trials dropped dramatically since 1998
(in parallel to that the commercial use in the
world raised dramatically)
Most applications are successful! Only 3%
are denied.
The raise and fall of GMO “field trials” within the EU
Year
1990
Number of field trials with
plants
0
1992
86
1994
166
1996
239
1998
244
2000
129
2002
35
Field trials with GMO declines since 1997
Source Fenning et
al 2003
Agricultural GMO – summary
Only two characters! GMO does not spread to more!
Only four species! GMO does not spread to more!
USA dominate!
Declining experimentation in Europe!
GMO has evident limitations!
GMO in Forestry
Forest crops – World wide
Semi-commercial GMO 2005
Two semi-commercial applications:
Papaya
GM papaya fruit trees modified for viral resistance used since
1998 on Hawaii (≈1000 ha) in intensively managed horticultural
orchards.
Papaya
Ringspot virus-resistant papaya is an
operational genetically modified “tree”
7 months after establishment
4 months later
Operational
Forest crops – World wide
Semi-commercial GMO 2005
Poplars in China
China has planted more than a million seedlings with
Bt-poplars.
China still sees this activity as a massive experiment
and is uncertain about its continuation and how
successful it has been in controlling insects.
There is no exact control of how many or where they
are (Wang 2004). It seems transgenes may spread
uncontrolled.
Genetic modification: Populus tomentosa
Z. Zhang, Beijing Forestry University
Semi-commercial GMTrees 2005
Poplars in China
Comment about China: Worries are not large. Hope is
that GMO will solve special problems as insects in some
poplar regions. There is still insufficient information to
say if the application really has been a success. The
government pushes for advanced tech rather than
environmental worries, the plantations are legal. The
project is more to save the environment than for
production (China builds a Great Green Wall). China
will learn to control partly by experience.
Experimentation is rather free. There is public
acceptance. Against this background I am surprised
there are not more or larger scaled applications in China.
GM tree “environmental releases” in
the World 2004
 “Environment releases”, “outdoor experiments”
seldom look like ordinary “field trials”.
 More than 200
 16 countries
 Most in US
 Half with populus
 Small (16-2500 plants)
 Generally short duration
 Numbers of “releases” accumulate, no statistic for
remaining, but half-life is only a few years.
Swedish laws support forest GMO!
Commercial GMO forests are legal, the
demands are similar to agriculture!
The reason is to encourage GMO!
Outdoor experiments are allowed!
The only ”environmental release” ever applied
for was approved!
No refused or pending applications!
Sweden – GMO trees outdoors
Department of forest genetics and plant physiology at
Umeå run a hybrid aspen plantation for a season at
Sävar with (among other transgenes), a tree-fish
hybrid, but it is now history. The trees died as they
were of too southern (Czech) provenance, the
scientists involved lost interest and the experiment
has not resulted in a published document.
GMO trees in EU
List of all GMO “environmental releases” in EU on the web.
An extract for “forest trees” (“corrected” for non plant tests).
GMO forest trees outdoors in EU
Common Name
Eucalyptus
DE
ES
FI
1995-2001
·
1
·
FR
·
GB
1
PT
·
Total
2
02-05
0
European aspen
2
·
·
·
·
·
2
European aspen (alba x tremula)
·
·
·
1
·
·
1
Poplar
·
·
·
2
1
·
3
Poplar (alba x tremula)
Quaking aspen
·
1
·
4
1
·
6
silver birch
·
·
2
·
·
·
2
tasmanian blue gum
·
·
·
·
·
1
1
Total forest trees:
Total all species:
17 (+5), no conifer!
1649
0
0
2
2+1
0
0
The raise and fall of GMTree “field trials” in EU
Year
Trees
1990
0
1992
0
1994
1
1996
6
1998
7
2000
4
2002
1
Decrease since 1998!
Source Fenning et al 2003
Note that rules have not been tougher!
UPSC has now a ”release” with
GMO trees at Umeå (Stefan Jansson)
The genotypes not hardy, in
greenhouse in winter, so it is only a
semi-release!
Perhaps the only outside GMO
trees in whole EU 2006?
Since 1998 about an experiment annually is
established in EU.
No single “real field experiment” with any
conifer has ever been done in EU
The only field experiment with trees relevant to
Swedish forestry trees were birch trials in
Finland.
GMO silver birch in Finland
(What you see is actually just protecting devices)
GMO experimenters give priority to easy
organism over commercial importance
A GMO tree must be
made from a transformed
cell. Usually this means
a change in propagation
technique. It is more
difficult to get a conifer
tree than a deciduous
tree from a single cell.
Therefore scientists
prefer to use e.g. poplars
as experimental systems.
Vegetative
propagation
Forest plants delivered 2004 in Sweden
Scots
Pine
Million
Plants
126
Norway Other
Spruce conifers
188
11
Hard
woods
Sum
2,4
327
<1% hardwoods (deciduous trees)
Commercial forestry in northern Europe is dominated by conifers!
Sweden will have to wait for half a
century for large-scaled applications
One reason is the need for sufficient and
relevant field-testing.
GMTrees need long field testing before
the first commercial release!
In agriculture, a cultivar is tested over many complete
rotations before commercialisation.
At least a few GMtree field trials in settings similar to
forestry for a considerable part of the rotation will be
needed before commercialisation.
EU has still a long way to go before year 0!
GMOs makes a difference to classical breeding!
Classical forest tree breeding increases the frequency of
desirable plants, rather than creating trees never occurring
before.
Classical tree breeding changes frequencies of genes rather
than inserting new ones.
Classical genes have loci and are not introduced at random in
the genome (epistasis may cause larger problems)
GMO causes more drastic changes in the target character than found in the
nature (otherwise we should not use it) and therefore somewhat longer
testing is justified.
Genotypes are more expensive
Early evaluation?
It can be claimed that the characters are important and not
how they are obtained. The same testing procedure ought thus
to be enough whether it is GMO or not.
That may be argued when experiences from commercial
releases with trees has accumulated over some time.
The advantage of GMO may be possible to evaluate
early, even if trees live long.
But what happens when trees grow? Has the genetic
change other effects than on the target character?
Ecological or production consequences may pass
undetected in short term test.
Are longer tests needed for GMO-clones than other clones?
The most evident application of GMO in Sweden I can
think of is the Bt-gene as a remedy to insect damage
on spruce plants shortly after plantation (snytbagge).
Insects damaging stems on seedlings are a major
problem the first years after planting spruce in
southern Sweden. Bt could be the solution! If GMO is
a remedy can be evaluated in a few years. Actually it is
surprising no-one has tested it.
But is it realistic to believe and argue that those plants
could be commercialised without knowing what this
insecticide does later in the life of the trees?
GMO limitation
GMO and other biotech (MAS) have led to a neo-Mendelistic
overconfidence that the genetic control is always simple. Genes
for hardiness, flowering, fibre-characters, production, resistance,
criminality and intelligence do exist, it is just to identify (and
insert) them.
This view is often (even if not always) oversimplified.
It is more common it is a complex interaction with many genes.
GMO can only be a complement to ordinary breeding, not a
superior alternative.
Sweden makes legal efforts to
control GMO
A preparedness was build-up at the Forest Agency to handle GMOapplications as such were anticipated six years ago. But only one came, and
that was better dealt with as agriculture stuff…
Legal documents controlling Swedish forestry (SKSFS)
GMO laws
Other laws
Number
2
27
Text mass (kb) 40
930
For each seed lot, the responsible (Finnvid) has to declare its GMO status
(“stambrev”)!.
The GM legislation has never been applied, it just gets attention!
Market forces
The basic idea of market economy is to make money. There
are two ways this can be done. Either control the market or
make a competitive product.
With GMO it is easier to control a market (e.g. seed sale) thus
the market forces will focus on GMO to control the market
instead of what could be better for the consumers.
Northern Europe GMO forests have
to wait till the public accepts that
GMO escapes!
(or been proven not to escape)
I guess the wait is at least half a century for that
The escape
of GMO!
GMO will not stay confined
Seeds may spread kms, e.g. loblolly turns into a weed in
South Africa.
A bird or hurricane may carry seeds over 100s of kms.
Important forest trees are wind-pollinated with
airborne pollen. As much pine pollen was found
twenty kms from the coast as in a pine forest in a
Finnish study. Pollen inflow in Swedish pine and
spruce seed orchard is 50%.
Long distance mass gene migration is a fact of life
for many conifers. Like Scots pine and Norway
spruce.
GMO escapes…
Seems like:
In the only commercial GMO forest
(poplars China), there is no efficient control,
escapes are almost certain.
In commercial Agriculture, escapes occur or
are predicted for many systems. Organic
culture is threatened. In spite of
“terminator”-technology and sterility genes!
Sterile trees?
Can’t we make trees sterile?
Select sterile clones?
Insert “knock out genes”, which make them sterile?
Trees have millions of generations of billions of reproductively successful
ancestors without a single case of sterility in their pedigree! They can be
expected to find ways to circumvent efforts to block fertility. Sterility may be
unstable and broken down. Trees live long and in different environments and
circumstances, how to guarantee that they keep sterile under all circumstances?
Long term large scaled field tests followed to mature age seems a minimum
requirement for certainty.
Requirement for sterility adds tremendously to the cost and difficulty to the use
GMO. And sterility is not helpful in getting public acceptance!
And GMO-sterility may escape,…and turn into a species terminator????…
Avoiding escapes
Sterility genes helps in reducing the magnitude of
escapes even if they are not eliminated.
Shortening rotation time is one way of reducing the problem,
juvenile trees spread few genes. I recommend this strongly and
not mainly because of GMO!
There seems no way to guarantee stable sterility. Trees close
to natural potential mates are no good candidates to start to
apply GMO to.
The more unnatural and exotic the crop is, the smaller is the
problem, and the easier to get acceptance for some escapes.
Forest = Nature
Forest is viewed as Nature by the "public“. They do not like to get
"Nature" spoilt. In the long-term perspective even the European
public may accept that escapes are unlikely to cause much harm.
The people will get accustomed to escapes from Agriculture GMO
and escapes from the first forest application (China). This is a
slow process.
The agriculture flagship (herbicide resistance) has limited
appeal for forestry, at least in Europe.
The other success (natural insecticide) has much more
unpredictable ecological effects in forestry than in agriculture.
Some reasons for public skeptic
• GMO is associated to death:
•
•
•
•
insecticide;
herbicide;
“terminator”;
Sterility.
• Commercialisation for profit;
• “Gene patents” associated with
commercialisation in a bad sense;
• Public often hear about problematic projects;
• Positive information is often phrased with
over-enthusiasm and “sales-talk”.
Swedish "FSC-standard" for "green"
certification (980505) does not allow GMO
trees with alien genes.
Stora Enso has decided not to use GMO
trees commercially. I guess that goes for
GMO-potato starch in the processing also. I
guess that goes for China as well as
Sweden!
Swedish breeders (1995): “Gene technology
will not be of practical use within the
foreseeable future.”
The attitude (in Sweden) has not turned
more positive in the last decade
Conclusion:
GMO for ordinary Swedish practical forestry
is very far away
Sabotage
Many cases of sabotage directed against gene manipulation in
trees (target for "greenies" and "eco-fascists" similar to attacks
against butcheries, whaling, nuclear plants and clear-cuttings).
Responsible of trials are often very worried about publicity,
because of the sabotage risk. Even demonstrations which
does not make physical harm, cause problems.
The sabotage risk makes the research more expensive and
less attractive for scientists. It also contributes to the difficulty
to get hosts or managers for field experiments, I guess the
experiments can be placed only on research forests and
managed by the research organisation scientifically
responsible
GMO trees under attack
The only field trials with trees of relevance
for Scandinavian forestry were visited by
activists in July 2002. Warning signs were
posted, but no other harm.
GMO trees under attack
The trial was destroyed June 20, 2004. The
seedlings were broken off or ripped from
the ground.
When the vandalism was reported to the police, local greenies
reciprocated by reporting the Institute for unsafe management and
for unreported material in this field experiment.
GMO are most easy to implement if clonal propagation is
implemented. The first commercialisations will be where
monoclone cultures already are common and accepted and a
large operation.
Clonal forestry does not exist in Sweden today in spite
of considerable efforts and investments. There are
little unsolved biological problems, the reason is just
that the added effort does not pay the added gain.
GMO seems most applicable to short rotation exotics with
intensive forestry, like Eucalypts in Brazil and China.
Later to Pinus radiata in NZ,
and – much - later to intensively manage moderate rotation
forestry with natural species and where clonal forestry is not
established (as P taeda in SE USA).
After many decades of big scale commercial use and
accumulation of experiences of what happens when trees get old
in warmer countries, and when public accepts a few escape
GMO is unlikely to harm (if this seems likely at that time),
GMO may perhaps come to spruce and pine in Sweden.
GMO may be worth considering if:
•Rotation time less than 10 years
(reasonable testing time)
•Exotic (limited escape risk)
•Clonal forestry established (easy masspropagation)
•Ongoing breeding program (adapted
material and competence for field testing
available)
•Will to make a risky investment
•Public acceptance
•Good interface with Science
Nothing for Sweden! Perhaps for Southern
China?
Eucalyptus?
Eucalypts in southern China would
be a logic early application of GMO
But that day seems to be in the far future…
GMTrees will be important in the far
future, how can we speed up the process?
 We must learn to manage common field experiments
with GMTrees. I know about the ending of 3, they
ended because of:
1. Unhardy provenance
2. More important land use
3. Sabotage
None was ended “normally”. The competence to run GMO
field tests is a limiting factor!
 Because forest companies are worried about bad PR,
the only realistic is on experimental forests by
University scientists.
 We should learn how transgenic genes work on trees
in the outside environment to commercialize them.
We should first study genes for basic knowledge of
transgenics in nature, not assumed commercial
importance.
Dag’s list for GMO breeding
Vision
Develop a gene control language (like a
programming) for issuing orders by physical
signals to genetic switches. Genes like flowering
and insecticides can when be switched on and
off by will.
Develop a gene kit package to be inserted in all
trees with many options controlled by the
language
Alternative to GMO breeding
Vision
Develop mRNA and methods to apply it, which
exercise their action only when and where
needed, not permanent GMO incorporated in the
genome. That would be much nearer practical
use in trees!
Dag’s list for GMO breeding
Priorities
Understand and control under field conditions;
Keep to exotics (e.g. lodgepole pine) to limit the
risk and consequence of escapes;
Use valuable species to make experiences
relevant;
Adapt and develop the field trial technique;
Packages suitable for studying the behavior and
control of transgenes in nature;
Dag’s list for GMO breeding
Priorities
 Shortened rotation time:
1) Shorter test period;
2) Faster tree improvement will proceed more rapid;
3) Long term disadvantages appear earlier;
4) If disadvantages appear, the crop can be taken out faster;
5) The crop will not be sexual mature for long, the escape
problem reduced;
6) Investment closer to economical return.
 Negative appeal Tree harming animals (e.g. moose, vole,
rabbit) have feelings and psychology. Injuries are
associated with taste, feel and smell. Apply GE for
modifying biochemical pathways to develop something
unattractive, which interferes minimally with other aspects
of the trees life. Environmental friendly GMOs.
More?
More about the subject can be found by browsing:
http://www.genfys.slu.se/staff/dagl/
Dag Lindgren’s email is [email protected]
End
What follows is just slides used
earlier, just for storage, not a part
of a lecture
A Swedish spruce clone need to be tested in nine years to be
allowed for use in 1 million copies. It seems unlikely that GMO
clones would need less testing. To fill Sweden with GMO clones,
300 selected GMO clones after test per year is needed. Much!!
Many gene transfers of the same type required (forestry works
with hundreds of unrelated parents and many thousands of
tested clones), this increases costs magnitudes.
Clones often mature during vegetative propagation. If a GMO is
introduced into a tested, well adapted clone, that clone may
change by maturation before commercial multiplication. As long
testing of GMOs is needed, clonal ageing is a severe problem,
more severe than for non-GMO clones.
One wants to pack many "alien" genes with different
characteristics into the same organism, which is also
“classically bred”. This means probably monoclonal forestry
and complex interactions.
A boreal forest regeneration material is adapted to an
environmental niche. There are 50 differently adapted breeding
populations for Swedish conifers, and each need their own GMO
cultivars. The market for each GMO clone will be small.
Those who give orders to the breeders must consider if the
additional benefits of GMO clones pay the additional costs
compared to non-GMO clones. Seems uncertain it will be
profitable.
Using GMO without releasing it
GMO
in Nature
GMO may be applied to the breeding population only
without being transferred to the production
population. E.g. a gene could be inserted for induction
of early flowering, the breeding population could be
cycled fast for a number of generations and when the
alien gene removed before mass-multiplication. GMO
Institute
is a research tool, which can pinpoint at genes which
the breeder can devote attention.
GMO and similar things may be applied to the own
genes. Their action may be depressed, enforced or
better controlled in time and room. There are border
cases and grey zones.
GMOs can be used to study the function of genes, e.g. by
transferring a pine gene to Arabidopsis, much can be learned
about how the conifer genetic machinery works.
Now knock out libraries are done, when each of the existing
genes can get its function stopped, and in that they it can be
understood what it does.
GMO is a powerful research tool with much future
development potential.
This leads to a biased research, where too much
resources are invested in fancy looking biotech
projects with the hope of applications to practical
forestry in the near future. This leads to that other
research which would benefit practical forestry
more is not done, and also that biotech progress
becomes more inefficient, because its emphasise is
too much on practical applications (e.g. patents).
GMO may never reach the Swedish conifer stage!
Scenario:
Genetic engineering is potentially very powerful and will with almost 100 %
probability be successful and acceptable safe in the future. The limiting factor
is the testing time. If crops are genetically engineered, we want to see how they
perform during a considerable part of the rotation time, at least for some
similar systems.
In seventy years I guess GMO will be considered acceptable as main method
for long rotation forest trees close to natural mates.
But at that time we have learnt to master genetic engineering, we can do the
same things as tree does in shorter rotation crops. These can be engineered in
the desired direction much faster and more reliable.
And these crops are much more reliable to grow in an industrial plantations.
The shorter the rotation, the more certain that the market for the product will
remain between sowing and harvesting.
But this is just a guess……
The BIG risks
GMO properly used with reasonable safety precautions does not
seem biologically risky. But there are other dangers...
GMO is a powerful research tool. But over-trust in its near
practical application creates a biased research. By far too much
resources are invested in fancy looking biotech projects today.
Other research, which would benefit practical forestry more, is
not done. The biotech done becomes more inefficient, because its
emphasise is too much on practical applications (e.g. patents).
Word-wide enquiry about funding for Forest
Genetics (Fenning early 2002)
“the funding for 'pure' research (especially
with a biotechnological or molecular bent)
was almost universally reported to be
increasing at the expense of applied or more
traditional tree improvement and breeding
work.”
GMO is fancy and futuristic and therefore attracts science. Some
ideas will succeed and some will fail. But because of overconfidence
on the new technique, we will not develop the more conventional and
thus will be worse of for the cases where GMO fails.
The great amount of funding and development of competence, which
goes into GMO related research will stimulate scientists to function
as demand machines. As their results and methods are uninterpretable for non-specialists, and as many of them live far from
future clients, it is often promised too much (explicit or implicit).
Such promises make it understandable that the public distrusts
scientific and political statements that GMO are not dangerous.
When scientific arguments gets generally little weight, as some
scientists are not trustworthy, thus the public become more sceptical,
than motivated from a purely scientific point of view.
Forest Genetic field trials
The forest faculty in Sweden has currently 300 ”active” trials
within Forest Genetics. 40 were established 1990-1995 and 3 later.
Year of establishment of last field trial are listed.
Group
Silviculture, Umeå
Genetics, Umeå
Management, Uppsala
Genetics, Uppsala
Last field trial
1997 (planning new)
1996
1990
1989
Conclusion: Field tests are abandoned, but partly replaced by GMO
tests in secure green houses. The faculty’s forest genetics will loose
its contact with reality!
Note: Forest Tree Breeding has an independent organisation, which
has not stopped to establish field trials, neither has any GMOs.
No-one knows if GMO yet has been favourable for agriculture
or not. It is much used and has affected many crops, but maybe
larger and more desirable improvement would have been done
if GMO had not been so much in the focus. (Parallel to hybrid
maize, there the large benefits are to seed producers rather than
customers). GMO has future biological potential, but also
potential to draw the commercial system away from biology.
GMO increases the emphases on the development on large nontransparent complexes of commercial companies, states, Big
Science, political opportunism, over the interest of "end
consumers".
GMO based breeding systems will be large and complex and
include many others than forest specialists into tree breeding.
Layers, salesmen and directors replaces foresters and breeders.
These "forces" are likely to promote GMO even if not
"objectively" good.
Bad will
If there is an ill will behind (black mailer, terror group, rogue
state, frustrated scientist; or just scientist who wants to show that
they are best), I imagine pretty bad things are possible. I imagine
that GMO technology will develop fast, so the options and ease of
bad will use and the possible consequences will magnify
considerable compared to the current world. The risk that this
happens increases with the spread and relaxed control of the
technology. The risk is magnified by commercial secrecy. This is
one reason I think human should not overuse these techniques.
Getting used to GMO, safety precautions will get relaxed and
often in practice neglected. When a nuclear reactor blows up,
authorities are unable to hide, as radioactivity can not be hidden.
But GMOs are not that visible. Still really bad scenarios seem
unlikely.
Life may become redundant
Evolution is extremely inefficient in creating
living beings compared to what the
intelligent Man can create by GMO. Small
micro robots or cellular factories will
become more efficient than existing living
beings, and will take over. No Life created by
Evolution will remain after a few hundred
years, intelligent design (=GMO) will take
over.
Gene patents
Patenting has become common in molecular
breeding. Patenting of genes may actually
kill the use of GMO. Legal issues become
difficult to handle, and focus attention from
biology. It will be too difficult and risky to
commercialise a good project, if it must be
combined with 100 other patents. “Resting
patents” which may be vitalised if a
successful commercialisation seems in sight
is one threat.
If something is “published” it cannot be
patented. I feel strongly that Universities
and Research supporting agencies should
encourage publishing instead of patenting.
But they act opposite!!
Many agricultural crop breeders are not happy with GMO
legalistic.
• patent and legal problems must be overcome. A GMO
cultivar may depend on hundreds of genetic patents,
each potentially able to stop all use; there may lurk not
evident patents.
• There is a plant breeders rights system (UPOV,
International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of
Plants), which is not implemented into forestry (at least not
often). UPOV does not stop further developing protected
cultivars in the way GMO-patents do. UPOV conflicts with
patents and is not in harmony with GMO, and this is also
an issue of problems. UPOV does not prevent further
developing UPOV protected cultivars in the more powerful
way patents can do, but GMO “degrades” UPOV (the
systems get harmonised).
Doubtful profitability in patenting
For forestry there is little potential profit for patents. A patent
is valid only 20 years. Seedlings planted year 2006 reflect
decisions, selections, and investments 40 years ago, which much
exceeds the length of a patent.
According to Sweden legalistics, which were formally abandoned
Xmas 2002, but still are thought of as a sound conceptional
ground for what is required, Swedish spruce clone need to be
tested in nine years to be allowed for use in 1 million copies. To
fill Sweden with GMO clones, 300 fresh GMO clones are needed
annually. Much!! To select 300 annually with a meaningful
selection intensity means that 3000 different promising GMO
clones has to be made annually.
Many gene transfers of the same type required (forestry works
with hundreds of unrelated parents and many thousands of
tested clones), this increases costs by many magnitudes.
Clones often mature during vegetative propagation. If a GMO is
introduced into a tested, well adapted clone, that clone may
change by maturation before commercial multiplication. As long
testing of GMOs is needed, clonal ageing is a severe problem,
more severe than for non-GMO clones.
One wants to pack many "alien" genes with different
characteristics into the same organism. That probably means
focusing on a single well-tested clone. Classical breeding produces
new better clones continuously... Thus GMO may halt the assured
progress of classical breeding.
A boreal forest regeneration material is adapted to an
environmental niche. There are 50 differently adapted breeding
populations for Swedish conifers, and each need their own GMO
cultivars. The market for each GMO cultivar will be small.
Those who give orders to the breeders must consider if the
additional benefits of GMO clones pay the additional costs
compared to non-GMO clones. I guess it will not look profitable.
Overusing clones?
Some experimentation may be done with well known and
well tested clones,
Even if the idea of clonal forestry is accepted, it is not the
same thing as clonal forestry with a single clone. Even those
using monoclonal blocks, usually use many clones in
parallel.
Probably the commercialisation of GMO clones will force
what many will perceive as overutilization of a few clones.
GMO will introduce more secrets, patents, breeder's right etc.
into breeding. It becomes more difficult to utilise each other's
material. There will be many small patents, which may cause
legal disputes, and which make it more difficult to combine genes
in a commercial variety. Who owns and controls different parts
of the "wild" genome will become more important. Much effort
will be spent on legal rather than biological problems.
Scientists will use their taxpayer paid work time and facilities to
make patents and to – for some of them - make money from their
work. Greed, disputes, and legality matters will add to create a
climate with many secrets. Bad scientific results can be hidden by
talking about patents. These problems exist, but the GMO
discussion makes them worse, and spreads over to all tree
improvement and probably makes it less effective. Thus GMO
may well have negative effects for the well being of mankind.
Are longer tests needed for GMO-clones than other clones?
The risk of harm to humans or nature of GMO seems rather
small and not much different from other risks involved with
crop management. Mistakes has occurred and will occur, life
is risky. Sometimes a nuclear reactor blows up or a
hydropower dam bursts or a space shuttle goes down. The
risks of GMO seem not be of larger magnitude, rather
smaller. The genetic risk management of society seems
sometimes a bit conservative.
Testing of success is not easy
The exact location and how an "alien" gene is inserted
matters. Thus different insertions have to be individually
tested. Classical breeding works with changing the f alleles in
their normal position in the genome, GMO adds alleles in
abnormal positions. It may even be many copies of GMOs
inserted at the same time.
Each GMO clone has to be thoroughly tested, both in the lab
and in the field. Just a few GMOs will pass the test, the
character should be expressed on the right level and place.
Large investment!
Genes are regulated, and expressed.
That is probably more important than
the genes themselves in isolation.
Time, position and environment
matters for how genes are regulated.
That may not be the same in the green
house as in the field, it may not be the
same in different environments and
circumstances and it may not be the
same in a young and an old tree.
Hot
Moist
Dry
Cold
Correlations are often weak or even
negative between green house and
field, to identify circumstances when
correlations are reliable high requires
certainly mature field tests.
Greenhouse
Field
Classical breeding works mainly by changing gene frequency,
GMO breeding by adding individual genes. That may very well
cause another juvenile-mature relationship. Or the situation
becomes more depending on environment than for ordinary
genes.
GMO causes more drastic changes in the target character than the
natural genetic variation (otherwise we should not use it) and
therefore somewhat longer testing is justified.
After
transformation
Before transformation
It may be claimed that change in individual genes
are simple and small changes, which do not require
long field-testing. That may be so, but some long
term field testing feels required to support the
statement.
Environments in forestry are more variable than in
Will she retain, the
agriculture and it is more difficult to test many
individuals, thus reliability of field testing is lower. ability in long run?
As commercial GMO plantings probably will be
based on long field experience, practical use must be
far ahead (>50 years for pine and spruce). The first
GMOs seem to need field testing for a considerable
part of the rotation time. The required test time
seems, at least initially to be much longer than for Has the modification
caused any negative
conventional breeding.
reaction?
End