We believe in ethical research
Is it ethical to genetically modify organisms?
As an emerging field, synthetic biology is distinguishing itself from Genetically Modified Organisms. This new technology assists scientists to, not only alter the functions of existing functions in an organism, but also input new functions into the organisms. [2]
Even though they are different, we could argue that the same issues found with the use of engineered modified organisms would be found in using synthetically modified organisms. Therefore, to weigh out the ethical impacts of using synthetically engineered organisms, we will apprehend the issues genetically modified organisms raise.
The Nuffield Council of Bioethics has drawn out “five sets of ethical concerns” about GMO crops. They are as follow: (1) “The potential harm to human health; (2) [The] potential damage to the environment; (3) [The] negative impact on traditional farming practice (4) [The] excessive corporate dominance; (5) [The] ‘unnaturalness’ of the technology;” [1]
(1) “The potential harm to human health;”
Addressing the first concern, we are using strain Sp. PCC 6803. This strain does not have any inherent harmful genes. It is considered GRAS, Generally Regarded As Safe. We are introducing via a plasmid construct the OPH and opdB genes. These genes are not harmful to human health. They are not toxic or produce any harmful protein.
(2) “The potential damage to the environment;”
This will be implemented in water treatment systems in the first place. So there would be no negative impact on traditional farming practices.
In the future we would implement it in agricultural water systems. This practice is already in place, we would only be contributing to cleaner water.
(3) “The negative impact on traditional farming practice;”
The problem would be the upkeep of plant diversity and controlling the by-product of the enhanced transgenic plant.
(4) “Excessive corporate dominance;”
We have integrated expert opinions which are in line with more sustainable methods to implement this project. Throughout our project we aim to build this technology while keeping the farmers’s safety and rights in mind.
(5) and “the 'unnaturalness' of the technology.”
Synthetic biology can create a whole unnatural and new system. [3] In our project, we are only adding a function for a targeted and specific purpose. We are also using it to rectify a known imbalance. Thus this conserves the environment's natural processes.
Keeping the novel organism contained by design: The Killswitch
To tackle these issues we decided to build a killswitch.
To learn more about its safety aspect in detail , click here.
To learn more about its design in detail, click here.
References
[1] Weale, Albert. (2010). Ethical Arguments Relevant to the Use of GM Crops. New biotechnology. 27. 582-7. 10.1016/j.nbt.2010.08.013
[2] Andrianantoandro, E., Basu, S., Karig, D. K., & Weiss, R. (2006). Synthetic biology: new engineering rules for an emerging discipline. Molecular systems biology, 2, 2006.0028. https://doi.org/10.1038/msb4100073
Safety from the start - Laboratory Commitments
Trainings
WHMIS for Laboratory Personnel
The WHMIS (Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System) for Laboratory Personnel training is an online training provided by the Environment Hazard Security department of Concordia University. It covers the different hazards in the laboratory and the labeling, handling and disposal of them. This is a required training for any laboratory member.
Hazarfous waste disposal for laboratory personnel
The Hazardous waste disposal for laboratory personnel is a training that focuses on the disposal of hazardous waste and the identification of different storage methods for hazardous material. It also covers the standard university pick-up, storage and disposal procedures. It is mandatory training for anyone using and handling hazardous waste.
EHS Biosafety
The EHS (Environment, Health and Safety) Biosafety training covers the following: “definition and classification of biological agents; elements of risk assessment; policies, guidelines and regulations; laboratory management and operations; good microbiological laboratory practices; biosecurity; safety equipment; principles of sterilization and disinfection; waste disposal and spill response procedures.” This mandatory training covers essential understanding about laboratory principles and standard regulations in Canada.
For more information, click here
Safety form
the safety form is in your iGEM account
About your project
We will engineer organophosphate hydrolase into PCC 6803, a cyanobacteria strain, to degrade fenitrothion, an organophosphate pesticide. Additionally, in order to contain the spread of its genetic material, we added a kill switch system to our circuit that induces cell death once residual pesticide is degraded. We are using the e.coli plasmid strains DH5-alpha, BL21 to transform our cyanobacteria with our desired features.
Identifying project risks
There are several risks associated with our project. The main one of which is the use of fenitrothion in the lab which is potentially harmful to humans while being manipulated.
Fenitrothion is a toxic chemical found in pesticides that can cause burn or rash if handled without proper PPE; therefore our lab members will manipulate the chemical using pipettes while wearing the proper PPE (gloves, lab coat, goggles).
There are also the hazards of GMOs inside the lab as well as outside of the lab. The risks of using GMOs is that it can harm humans when being manipulated and they are accidentally released into the environment without proper implementation and precautions they can damage the ecosystem.
We are not planning on taking our GMO outside the lab for actual implementation, however if it does get out of the lab, the risk of it spreading through the environment to other organisms and transferring genes with other organisms can have serious adverse effects on the biodiversity and the ecosystem at large. In the lab, while working with DNA and the GMOs there may only be a danger if a team member cuts themselves and is in direct contact with the engineered DNA which could lead to a risk of infection due to the foreign genetic material
Anticipating future risks
Currently in the lab we are only developing a prototype or proof of concept. However, our project could potentially be applied in the tertiary phase of wastewater treatment facilities, farms, and agricultural wastewater treatment. In order to implement our technology in wastewater treatment plant facilities, we would need our results to show the efficiency of our degradation system and how the efficiency of our kill switch mechanisms. The risk of this is that there would be dead biomass at the end of this process, but the interesting thing with the wastewater treatment plants is that we could filter out this dead biomass before the wastewater passes onto the next phase.
The risks with this implementation is introducing a GMO as well as a nonnative cyanobacteria into the environment which could cause hard to wild plants and animals via horizontal gene transfer, out-competing non-engineered organisms, as well as other adverse effects on the environment. There is also risk to agricultural animals, crops, and domesticated animals due to potential ecological disturbances. These disturbances may occur upon accidental release of an engineered organism or part into the environment.
If we were to fully develop our project, there should theoretically be no autonomous spread of our engineered organism or part into the environment. This is because in our project we will implement a toxin/antitoxin kill switch system. This system works best because it will cleave all of the DNA in such a way that it won’t be transmissible. By coupling it with our degradation pathway, this would give us more control on the efficiency of the degradation.
Managing risks
In order to manage the risks described above we seeked advice from our university’s Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) regulations and the biosafety officers, as well as following the WHMIS regulations used in Canada. If our project were to be implemented into the real world we would need extra support to reevaluate and manage the risks we described above. Our team members who worked in the lab all received safety and security training. During this training our team learnt the following; Lab access and rules (e.g. appropriate clothing, eating and drinking), Responsible individuals (e.g. lab or departmental specialist or institutional biosafety officer), Differences between biosafety levels, Biosafety equipment (e.g. biosafety cabinets), Good microbial technique, Disinfection and sterilization, Emergency procedures, Rules for transporting samples between labs or shipping between institutions, and Chemical, fire and electrical safety.
We used the following biosafety and security measures to manage the risk of our project; Accident reporting, Personal Protective Equipment / PPE, Inventory controls, Physical access controls, Data access controls, Lone Worker or Out of Hours policy, and Waste management system.
In order to further minimize risks we took additional measures such as; Participating in a safety workshop hosted by iGEM and Consulting with other experts about managing risks.The workshop helped us question our safety measures where the users are also included, by making workshops where we would explain the design and the safety measures to take. We have been in contact with EHS Concordia that has helped us manage lab risks.
Our in-lab researchers have completed three safety and security trainings provided by Concordia University. The members will never be in the lab alone and will have to comply with the appropriate PPE at all times. They also have emergency equipment in the lab for any urgent first-aid care. For any questions, we can always contact the EHS, the biosafety contact of our university, by email or by phone for instructions and proper practices.
We will also work with fenitrothion in a way that would comply with level 2 biosafety. This will be done with EHS support, to implement correct protective procedures.
Additionally, another risk is the safety of the engineered cyanobacteria. We will contain its spread by only using it in a closed environment, the research lab. We are building a bio-containment system, the kill switch system, to ensure its containment outside of the lab though, at present, we will not be taking our cyanobacteria into a field environment.