 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||
 |
 |
 |
|||||||
| Copyright © 2012. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
Field Testing Genetically Modified
Organisms:
Framework for Decisions
Committee on
Scientific Evaluation of the
Introduction of Genetically Modified
Microoganisms and Plants
into the Environment
Board on Biology
Commission on Life Sciences
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1989
OCR for page R2
National Academy Press . 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
.
Washington, D.C 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the
Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the
councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering,
and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report
were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance.
This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to
procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the
National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute
of Medicine.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society
of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the
furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon
the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has
a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical
matters. Dr. frank Press is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter
of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers.
It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with
the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government.
The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at
meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior
achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy
of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of
Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the
examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts
under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional
charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to
identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Samuel O. Thier is president
of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences
in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's
purposes of furthering knowledge and of advising the federal government. Functioning in
accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the
principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National
Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the
scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both
Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Frank Press and Dr. Robert M. White are
c}lairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
This study by the Board on Biolo~zv was {ended be the R;~t-~hn~t^~r R^;-n-"
Coordinating Committee composed of the Department of Agriculture, Environmental
Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, and
the National Science Foundation, under grants numbers BBS 8820985 and 12-34-30-
0024-GR.
_ ~a, ~
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 89-63061 First Printing September 1989
International Standard Book Number 0-309-04076-0 Second Printing, June 1990
Copyright @) 1989 by the National Academy of Sciences
No part of this book may be reproduced by any mechanical, photographic, or electronic
process, or in the form of a phonographic recording, nor may it be stored in a retrieval
system, transmitted, or otherwise copied for public or private use, without written
permission from the publisher, except for the purposes of official use by the United
States Government.
Printed in the United States of America. First Printing, September 1989
Second Printing, June 1990
Third Printing, March 1992
OCR for page R3
COMMITTEE ON SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION OF THE
INTRODUCTION OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED
MICROORGANISMS AND PLANTS INTO THE
ENVIRONMENT
Steering Committee
Robert H. Burris (Chairman), University of Wisconsin, Madison
Fakhri A. Bazzaz, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Ralph W. F. Hardy, BioTechnica/Boyce Thompson, Ithaca, New
York
Edward L. Korwek, Law Offices of Hogan & Hartson, Washington,
D.C.
Richard E. Lenski, University of California, Irvine
Eugene W. Nester, University of Washington, Seattle
Stanley J. Peloquin, University of Wisconsin, Madison
Calvin O. Qualset, University of California, Davis
Ralph S. Wolfe, University of Illinois, Urbana
Subcommittee on Plants
Stanley J. Peloquin (Chairman), University of Wisconsin, Madison
Roger N. Beachy, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri
Donald N. Duvick, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, ~c., Johnston,
Iowa
Robert T. Fraley, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri
Ralph W. F. Hardy, BioTechnica/Boyce Thompson, Ithaca, New
York
Richard N. Mack, Washington State University, Pullman
Ann M. Vidaver, University of Nebraska, I,incoIn
...
111
OCR for page R4
SUBCOMMITTEE ON MICROORGANISMS
Richard E. Lenski (Chairman), University of California, Irvine
Peter J. BottornIey, Oregon State University, Corollas
Ananda M. Chakrabarty, University of Illinois, Chicago
Rita R. Colwell, University of Maryland, College Park
Steve K. Fa~rand, University of Illinois, Urbana
Robert Haselkorn, University of Chicago
Roger D. Milkman, University of Iowa, Iowa City
Lu~s Sequeira, University of Wisconsin, Madison
James M. Tickle, Michigan State University, East Lansing
Board On Biology Staff
Alvin G. Lazen, Study Director
Clifford Gabriel, Senior Staff Officer
Joseph L. Zelibor Jr., Staff Officer
Juliette Walker, Administrative Secretary
Kathy Marshall, Senior Secretary
Caitilin Gordon, Editor
1V
OCR for page R5
BOARD ON BIOLOGY
Francisco J. Ayala (Chairman), University of California, Irvine
Nina V. Fedoroff, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Baltimore,
Maryland
Timothy H. Goldsmith, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
Ralph W. F. Hardy, BioTechnica/Boyce Thompson Institute,
Ithaca, New York
Ernest G. Jaworski, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri
Simon A. Kevin, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
Harold A. Mooney, Stanford University
Harold J. Morowitz, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia
William E. Paul, National Institutes of Health, Washington, D.C.
David D. Sabatini, New York University
Malcolm S. Steinberg, Princeton University
David B. Wake, University of California, Berkeley
Bruce M. Alberts (ax-officio), University of California, San
Francisco
Oskar R. Zaborsky, Director
v
OCR for page R6
COMMISSION ON LIFE SCIENCES
Bruce M. Alberts (Chairman), University of California, San
Francisco
Perry L. Adkisson, Texas A&M University System, College Station
E`rancisco Ayala, University of California, Irvine
J. Michael Bishop, University of California Medical Center, San
Francisco
Freeman J. Dyson, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New
Jersey
Nina V. Fedoroff, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Baltimore,
Maryland
Ralph W. F. Hardy, BioTechnica/Boyce Thompson Institute
i,
Ithaca, New York
Richard J. Havel, University of California, San Francisco
Leroy E. Hood, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Donald F. Hornig, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston,
Massachusetts
Ernest G. Jaworski, Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri
Simon A. Levin, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York
Harold A. Mooney, Stanford University
Steven P. Pakes, University of Texas, Dallas
Joseph E. Rall, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland
Richard D. Remington, University of Iowa, Iowa City
Paul G. R:sser, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Richard Setlow, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York
Torsten N. Wiesel, Rockefeller University, New York
John E. Burris, Executive Director
V1
OCR for page R7
Preface
The potential benefits from the use of genetically modified m~-
croorgan~sms and plants are enormous bacteria that biodegrade
environmental pollutants, trees that grow more rapidly, food plants
that flourish under saline or dry conditions, viruses that control in-
sect pests, and a productive and economical agricultural enterprise
whose plants use less fertilizer and resist pests. National, state, and
local governments are considering safeguards to ensure that such
benefits are maximized while possible hazards to the health and wel-
fare of humans and damage to the environment are minimized. The
necessity exists for timely field research of genetically modified m~-
croorgan~sms and plants in environments similar to those ~ which
they eventually will be used. A flexible, well-reasoned, scientifically
based oversight system must be applied so that tests of genetically
modified organisms in the field can proceed when they are deemed
safe.
Before deciding whether to allow a field test, we are first obliged
to define what scientific information and issues must be considered,
and then we must ask whether we know enough scientifically to be
able to determine the relative safety or risk of the introduction. To
obtain a reasoned consensus about these questions, the Biotechnol-
ogy Science Coordinating Committee asked the National Academy
of Sciences to prepare a report on the introduction of genetically
·-
V11
OCR for page R8
modified plants and microorganisms into the environment up to the
level of field testing.
A steering committee was formed by the National Research
Council within the Board on Biology of the Cornrnission on Life
Sciences. The steering committee was responsible for the final re-
port; two subcommittees also were organized, one concerned with
plants and the other with microorganisms, each chaired by a mem-
ber of the steering committee but with a membership that extended
the expertise available to address the questions in a balanced fashion.
Over the past ten months, the committees have grappled with an
extensive body of facts, concepts, and opinions and have attempted
to formulate a concise, thoughtful, and objective summary that can
contribute to resolving the issues. The committees felt their most im-
portant task was to reach a consensus about the science surrounding
the issues of environmental introductions. Our committees had the
luxury of doing this unbound by, but not oblivious to, the existing
regulatory principles and approaches that have been applied in this
area.
The report that follows starts in the middle ~ the sense that
the committee has not attempted to write a primer on new technol-
ogy, such as recombinant-DNA techniques, nor to provide a detailed
background on the biological information that has led to our present
level of knowledge. Many other sources provide such information.
Rather, we have focused on the issues regarding planned testing of
genetically modified plants and micrc~c~r~ni~m~ in the _..
and field.
O ~^ ~~~- ~ ~-vie ~ ~ ~
As with all committee-written documents, not every member
may agree with every statement. However, the report represents a
consensus to which all members agreed.
The committee benefited from discussions with members of the
Biotechnology Science Coordinating Committee and thanks them
and its chairman, Dr. James Wyugaarden, for meeting with the
committee and defining the charge.
Special thanks are due the chairmen of the subcommittees, Dr.
Richard Lenski and Dr. Stanley Peloquin, who graciously accepted
an enlarged share of the work load. All members of the committees
deserve credit for hewing to the short deadlines. Timely completion
of the report would have been impossible without their dedication
and concern.
Reviewers of the report, though anonymous, deserve thanks for
their unportant contribution; they have given close attention to the
· ..
vm
OCR for page R9
content, style, and scientific integrity of a report dealing with complex
and sometimes contentious issues.
Staff members of the Board on Biology and the Commission on
Life Sciences were invaluable in their assistance. Dr. John Burris
provided wise counsel as the committee work proceeded. Dr. Alvin
Lazen, study director, kept the comrn~ttee and staff on the path in
pursuit of a finished report. Dr. Clifford Gabriel and Dr. Joseph
Zelibor, Jr., guided and coordinated the efforts of the subcommittees
on plants and on microorganisms, respectively, and worked closely
with the steering committee. Ms. Juliette Walker and Ms. Kathy
Marshall skillfully and patiently arranged meetings and handled the
administrative and clerical work. We thank Dr. Caitil~n Gordon for
her expert editorial assistance in the final stages of writing the report.
We sincerely hope that our report will help attain what we ad
seek a safe and prudent use of a technology that holds tremendous
promise for advancing the welfare of humanity.
Robert H. Burris
Chairman
1X
OCR for page R10
OCR for page R11
Contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2 INTRODUCTION
,...1
7
The Genetic Modification of Organisms: Merging Classical
and Molecular Techniques, 8
Plant Modifications-Classical Techniques, 10
Plot Modifications-Molecular Techniques, 10
Comparison of Classical and Molecular Techniques in Plants, 11
Genome Modification of Microorganisms Classical
Techniques, 12
Genome Modification of Microorganisms Molecular
Techniques, 13
Comparison of Classical and Molecular Techniques In
Microoorganisms, 13
Summary, 14
3 PAST EXPERIENCE WITH GENETIC MODIFICATION
OF PLANTS AND THEIR INTRODUCTION
INTO THE ENVIRONMENT.................................
Types of Genetic Modification in Plants, 18
The Results of Genetic Modification, 20
X1
16
OCR for page R12
Modifications and Their Effects on Persistence, 21
Case Studies of Introduced Crops, 24
Past Experience with Confinement, 32
Summary Points, 36
4 ENHANCED WEEDINESS: A MAJOR
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE
General Principles, 37
The Relationship Between the Introduction of Exotic Plants
and Genetically Modified Plants, 39
The Ability of Crops to Revert to a Wild or Weedy
Condition, 42
Hybridization Between Crops and Their Wild Relatives, 43
Summary Points, 53
5 PAST EXPERIENCE WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF
MODIFIED PLANTS: MOLECULAR GENETIC
TECHNIQUES .... e · - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - - - - - e · e · - - e e e · - - - - - - e e · - -
Properties of Molecular Genetic Modifications, 55
Case Studies of Plants Modified by Molecular Genetic
Techniques, 59
Summary Points, 64
6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
PLANTS e e e · - ~ - e e e e e e e e e e ~ e e e e e ~ - - - - - - - ~ e e ~
What Does Past Experience Teach Us?, 66
Control and Confinement of Genetically Modified
Plant Varieties, 68
Large-Scale Introductions and Commercialization, 69
A Framework for Assessing Risk, 70
Geographic Frame of Reference, 74
Oversight Considerations, 76
54
...65
7 PAST EXPERIENCE WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF
MICROORGANISMS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT 77
History of Beneficial Uses of Microorganisms and Prospects
for the Future, 77
Similarities and Differences Between Classical and
Molecular Methods, 83
·.
X11
OCR for page R13
Considerations Associated with Unfamiliar Applications of
Microorganisms, 84
Summary Points, 85
8 PROPERTIES OF THE GENETIC MODI1?ICATION
History, 87
Genetic Considerations, 89
Summary Points, 97
9 PHENOTYPIC PROPERTIES OF SOURCE
MICROORGANISMS AND THEIR GENETICALLY
MODIFIED DERIVATIVES ............................
Persistence, 99
Phenotypic Properties Affecting the Ecosystem, 102
Characteristics of Microbial Pathogens, 105
General Phenotypic Characteristics of Pathogens, 108
Summary Points, 111
10 PROPERTIES OF THE ENVIRONMENT RELEVANT
TO THE INTRODUCTION OF GENETICALLY
MODIFIED MICROORGANISMS..........................
Types of Environments, 113
Habitability of Environments, 114
Disperse, 115
Suitability of Microcosms for Testing of Microbial
Introductions, 117
Scale and frequency of Introduction, 119
Potential Effectiveness of Monitoring, 119
Mitigation, 120
Summary Points, 121
11 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
MICROORGANISMS ..................
APPENDS Historical Overview of Nucleic Acid
Bic~ter~ology: 1973 to 1989..............
LITERATURE CITED..
INFORMATION ON COMMITTEE MEMBERS
· --
X111
....... 86
...... 99
113
123
..133
.143
165
OCR for page R14
