The Advantages of Genetic Modification

Elias Nelson

Genetically modified organisms are those which have had their genomes modified by

scientists to achieve a desired result, such as increased drought tolerance, disease resistance, and

improved crop yield (Purdue Agricultural College, n.d.).

The process of making GMOs involves multiple steps and several distinct techniques.

The scientist overseeing the process transfers the desired gene into a plant cell, either using
plasmid rings, a type of ring-shaped DNA found in bacteria, into a bacterium of a particular

species called Agrobacterium tumefaciens, or by coating tiny metal particles with genetic

material and firing them at cells, a technique known as the gene gun (The Royal Society, 2016).

Then, this single cell is stimulated with plant growth hormones to become a full-sized plant

(Purdue Agricultural College, n.d.).

When the idea for the gene gun was first had, it was tested on onions, and the first

development that the scientists working on the project made was a system for firing from the

other room, because the onion would be destroyed by the metal and several good suits were

ruined in this way. Later developments made the metal unable to penetrate at all, which was only

marginally better, since it made the technique entirely unfunctional but saved a lot of money in

suits. Finally, through years of trial and error, it became functional.

Once a genetically modified plant has been developed, the seeds can be sold. When they

grow, the resulting plants can have whatever traits were considered useful by the geneticists,

including but not limited to drought resistance, resistance to various pesticides, increased crop

yield, pest resistance, increased CO2 absorption, and increased nutrition (“Seminis Seed

Catalogue,” 2019). Almost any trait that a farmer might need in a plant can be obtained through

GMOs.

There are many real arguments against unnecessary reliance on genetic modification.

Several studies have suggested the possibility of a link between genetically modified food and

cancer. Scientists injected small concentrations of glyphosate, a pesticide commonly used in

conjunction with GMOs, into a cell culture taken from a human breast, and produced tumors
(Thongprakaisang, Thiantanawat, Rangkadilok, Suriyo, & Satayavivad, 2013). This was

correctly seen as worrying, and immediately published.

In addition, GMOs could promote increased use of pesticides by giving valuable crops

resistance while allowing the weeds to die, possibly causing enough to be sprayed to poison

humans (The Non-GMO Project, n.d.). This worrying idea, while theoretical so far, may bear

investigation.

Furthermore, GMOs can be patented under US law, which could pose major threats to

food security and farmer sovereignty by allowing companies to prevent seed saving and other

traditional farming practices in favor of forcing them to continue buying seeds year after year,

potentially drowning out organic competition and creating monopolies (Ibid).

Despite these reasonable and often intelligently argued points, a wealth of good can be

achieved using this technology. Any disease in the world, such as leukemia, HIV, bubonic

plague, or coronavirus, but regrettably not government, can be cured by taking a sample of the

relevant DNA and converting it into an antigenic protein, before modifying some common crop -

corn, for instance - to produce the protein in its edible part. Once the crop is eaten, the protein

would stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies for the relevant disease before the

recipient actually grows sick, giving them a huge advantage while fighting off the disease

(Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.).

Furthermore, GMOs can be used to create insulin, a key protein the absence of which

causes diabetes. Before this technology existed, every individual diabetic required a separate cow

for every single dose of insulin needed, since it was only available by “borrowing” it from the
pancreas of cows and swine, which was fatal to the animal (Asimov, 1976, p. 58). However, now

that genetic modification has started to gain prominence, insulin can be grown in E. coli cells and

used as needed without killing the bacteria, making it much easier and cheaper to produce insulin

(Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.), thus making life much easier for some 34.2 million diabetics in

the US alone (Diabetes Research Institute, n.d.).

Great as these medical applications are, the humanitarian ones are perhaps even greater.

Genetic modification could be used to solve problems of malnutrition and famine worldwide.

This is a fairly simple logical leap from previously mentioned arguments about potential cures

for diseases. Scientists can take genes coding for, for example, vitamin A production from

broccoli, which, besides being utterly disgusting, is also relatively difficult to grow in tropical

areas and expensive, and insert them into rice, which is relatively palatable, cheap, easily grown

in tropical climates where most famines seem to occur, already used as a staple crop by many

cultures, and contains most nutrients apart from vitamin A. Then, the resulting crop can be

distributed to developing countries. As of 2013, 250 million children in developing countries

suffer from vitamin A deficiency, up to five hundred thousand preschoolers go blind as a result

of this every year, and a quarter million of them die (National Center for Biotechnology

Information, 2013). All this could be stopped using genetic modification.

Last and most important, GMOs can actually help fight climate change. Already

mangroves, unlike most plants, absorb significantly more CO2 than they produce. According to

President Obama’s former energy secretary, Ernest Moniz, other plants could be engineered to

produce much more oxygen and/or store much more CO2 in various ways, such as by producing
grass with deeper roots, which would store carbon in the roots and thus trap it underground upon

decomposition (McMahon in Forbes, 2019).

As must be expected for any field as emotionally charged and impactful as

biotechnology, many of the preceding arguments are subject to disputes. These objections will

only be included here if their veracity is verifiable, as with the following two items.

The results demonstrating a link between glyphosate and breast cancer (Thongprakaisang

et al., 2013) are doubly invalid. Firstly, glyphosate is a pesticide, neither a GMO or produced

using GMOs. It is widely used in conjunction with certain GMOs, and that is all. Perhaps this is

a minor distinction, and does not, by itself, invalidate the results, but it certainly invalidates the

use to which they have been put (GMO Answers, n.d.). Secondly and more significantly, the cell

culture used in the experiment was grown in a laboratory from already cancerous cells. This

does completely and inarguably invalidate the results of the experiment (Ibid.).

The arguments suggesting a threat to farmer sovereignty by the ability of corporations to

patent GMOs are also invalid. GMOs can be patented, but this is not unique to GMOs, nor a

recent development. All plants demonstrating asexual reproduction can be patented, under an act

of Congress predating Social Security (Library of Congress, 1930), and the law was extended

under Nixon to include all plants (House of Representatives website, 1970). It would appear that

if patents on plants truly threatened farmer sovereignty, then it would long since have been

threatened out of existence and would thus be irrelevant as an argument now.

Genetic modification is a technology that carries countless possibilities for the future. As

stated previously (McMahon in Forbes, 2019), plants could be modified to store more carbon and
trap it underground, thus producing significant positive effects in the battle against climate

change. Further, others have speculated that this technology could actually be used to remove

toxic compounds from plants, opening up literally thousands of potential new food sources for

people in developing countries (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine,

2016).

However, not all of these possibilities are necessarily good. The world has its share of

madmen, fanatics, and terrorists, and if any of them were to gain access to such technology, the

results could be terrifying. Terrorists have already attempted horrible things using biological

weapons, and given the chance to make diseases more dangerous, many would jump at the

opportunity. The results can be left to the imagination.

In conclusion, genetic modification is a very powerful technology which could be used

for much good, but which carries many inherent dangers. We teeter on the edge of a bottomless

chasm. Our decisions now on how to use this technology could save or destroy our civilization

and radically reshape life as we know it. Those who control it have a great responsibility, not just

to us, but to the entire world. Let them not misuse it.

Sources:

Asimov, I. (1976). Only a Trillion (First Thus ed.). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Adfo

Books.

Diabetes Research Institute. (n.d.). Diabetes Statistics. Retrieved March 16, 2020, from

https://www.diabetesresearch.org/diabetes-statistics
 Encyclopedia Brittanica. (n.d.). Genetically modified organism - GMOs in medicine and

research. Retrieved February 13, 2020, from

https://www.britannica.com/science/genetically-modified-organism/GMOs-in-medicine-and-rese

arch

GMO Answers. (n.d.). How can you say that they are safe when recent studies (not

conducted by Monsanto) show a direct link to breast cancer from glyphosate? Retrieved

February 13, 2020, from

https://gmoanswers.com/ask/how-can-you-say-they-are-safe-when-recent-studies-not-conducted-

monsanto-show-direct-link

Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. (2015, August 11). How to Make a

GMO. Retrieved February 11, 2020, from

http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2015/how-to-make-a-gmo/

House of Representatives website. (1970, December 24). [USC02] 7 USC Ch. 57:

PLANT VARIETY PROTECTION. Retrieved March 19, 2020, from

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title7/chapter57&edition=prelim

Library of Congress. (1930, May 23). Plant Patent Act of 1930. Retrieved March 18,

2020, from

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/71st-congress/session-2/c71s2ch312.pdf

McMahon, J., in Forbes. (2019, May 7). What If GMOs Can Fight Climate Change?

Retrieved February 13, 2020, from

ge/#263df4b73e1b

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016, May 17). Future

Genetic-Engineering Technologies - Genetically Engineered Crops - NCBI Bookshelf. Retrieved

March 19, 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK424553/

National Center for Biotechnology Information. (2013, December 1). Prevalence of

Vitamin A Deficiency in South Asia: Causes, Outcomes, and Possible Remedies. Retrieved

March 18, 2020, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3905635/

Purdue Agricultural College. (n.d.). What are GMOs? Retrieved February 11, 2020, from

https://ag.purdue.edu/GMOs/Pages/WhatareGMOs.aspx

Seminis Seed Catalogue. (2019, November 22). Retrieved March 10, 2020, from

https://seminis.co.uk/products/

The Non-GMO Project. (n.d.). GMO Facts. Retrieved February 13, 2020, from

https://www.nongmoproject.org/gmo-facts/

The Royal Society. (2016, May). What are GM crops and how is it done? Retrieved

February 13, 2020, from

https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/gm-plants/what-is-gm-and-how-is-it-done/

Thongprakaisang, S., Thiantanawat, A., Rangkadilok, N., Suriyo, T., & Satayavivad, J.

(2013, September 1). Glyphosate induces human breast cancer cells growth via estrogen
receptors. Retrieved March 10, 2020, from

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691513003633