A Closer Look: A Case Study in Agricultural Bioengineering & its Ethicality
By Bethany Jarrett, Global High School Fellow (Horace Mann School ‘24)
In the jigsaw puzzle of elements that make up the ecosystems of the world, one piece remains one of the most vital yet one of the least remembered — agriculture. Ecology dictates that every living thing relies upon one another for survival, and nothing showcases that better than the industry dedicated to raising and caring for the animals and plants that are the root source of human energy and life. Responsible agriculture holds a delicate balance between producing and distributing the most high-quality produce possible and caring extensively for the global environment that it upholds. Such an impactful goal warrants a team of scientists working to maximize both objectives and thus, the field of agricultural bioengineering. As the need for sustainability, food justice, and environmental stewardship has intensified in recent years, agricultural bioengineers have responded with research at the intersection of all the pieces that comprise the ecological puzzle. Agricultural bioengineering truly affects everyone, therefore it is imperative that there is transparency between scientists and the public to inform us about the meaningful implications of their work. Through this article, I hope to provide a transparent analysis of one particular topic in agricultural bioengineering — genetic modification as it pertains to animal wellness.
The process of genetically modifying organisms is one of the most highly recognized and highly controversial developments that define modern agricultural bioengineering. Often referenced by its acronym, GMO, the sheer simplicity and nondescript nature of this shortened common name have indubitably contributed to the notorious traction GMOs have gained since their resurgence in the 1970s. Numerous political and prominent public figures have contributed to the rampant spread of misinformation that GMOs are inherently harmful to humans and the environment. However, this fearmongering is not scientifically accurate. In order to understand what GMOs truly are, we must quite literally start from the root. Genetically modified organisms are simply any living thing whose DNA has been purposefully altered. The practice of genetic modification has been taking place in agriculture for centuries, through familiar techniques such as crossbreeding of animals and cross-pollination of crops. However, modern developments in laboratory science have simply evolved these procedures, not contorted them into anything differing from their original purpose — to solve agricultural problems and improve cultivation for the betterment of the farming system. Thus, it is a little-known fact that GMOs are not only used in food crops but also in animals.
One outstanding example is the use of gene editing to combat Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome in pigs. Pigs are naturally susceptible to a disease called Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome, also known as PRRS. This illness has catastrophic effects on the health of any pig that contracts it, such as lung decay, lethargy, and premature piglets. From its first identification in 1987, PRRS’s spread began a spiral of expensively devastating effects on swine husbandry in the United States and beyond, costing over $600 million a year to this industry. As a solution, scientists found a way to use CRISPR-CAS-9 gene editing technology to edit the CD163 gene of pigs with a sequence that rendered them and their offspring resistant to PRRS. After extensive safety testing, treatment of live pigs started in 2015 and was more successful than any other prior treatment, leading to a slow but deliberate rollout of the procedure to farms across the nation that is in progress to this day as of 2023. This development was marveled as a great salvation, helping pig farmers nationwide get back on their feet with a new, healthy generation of livestock. However, one question remains in this equation — what indirect effects does this procedure have on the pigs themselves?
According to a 2019 study conducted by the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, the broad implications of live-animal genomic editing are complex, yet qualitatively explorable through seven lenses: “human health, efficiency, risks and uncertainty, animal welfare, animal dignity, environmental considerations, and public acceptability.” The PRRS gene-editing experiment rests heavily at the intersection of all these factors, and it is important to consider them in order to analyze the ethicality of this specific study.
Most broadly, what are the direct impacts of this experiment on the animal welfare and dignity of the subject pigs? In the inaugural PRRS study conducted by Whitworth et. al. at the University of Missouri in 2016, the researchers outline the role of the pigs in their procedure. They bred a litter of piglets from parents who were naturally susceptible to the virus and then weaned them after only 3 weeks, tagged them, and transported them to the Kansas State University farm. There, they were placed all in one pen and the experiment began. The scientists declare in their research methods that “Pigs were challenged with approximately 105 TCID50 (i.e. approximately 100,000 infectious viral particles) of the virus. One-half of the inoculum was delivered intramuscularly and the remainder was delivered intranasally. Maintaining the piglets in a single group allowed continuous exposure to the virus from infected pen mates. One CD163+/+ piglet developed severe diarrhea, poor body condition, and muscle wasting despite supplemental feedings, and was humanely euthanized by intravenous injection of sodium pentobarbital on day 1 of the study.” The uncertainty of whether or not the gene editing would work unfortunately made the risk involved for the control group piglets a necessity. However, 3-week-old piglets having to be subjected to the known calamity of this virus is a very dubious necessity. In human-subject medical trials, there are numerous phases of testing for any therapy before it is tested on humans, especially with a large sample size. Even though all the pigs who contained the modified gene were immune to the virus and survived and thrived, the loss of more pigs to PRRS in the name of this study is indubitably regrettable.
Furthermore, in the ethics declaration at the conclusion of the research report, the only information provided concerns the funding and patent licensing of the research. While the aforementioned minimal information about the humaneness of this research was present within the article, this lack of transparency or depth in reporting how this study considered the animal welfare of its subjects highlights room for growth in the scientific community when it comes to holistic, socially aware review of all our research. While the effects of this gene-editing technique will have an amazingly transformational effect on PRRS and agricultural sustainability, the process it took to reach this conclusion counts just as much as its final effects. The beauty of science’s discipline is that it is constantly changing to adapt to advancements in the world it serves, and a future that prioritizes problem-solving through a lens that considers the ethicality of every method will add a flourishing aspect that enriches every discovery and, most importantly, create a scientific community that cares.
Sources:
de Graeff, N., Jongsma, K. R., Johnston, J., Hartley, S., & Bredenoord, A. L. (2019). The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 374(1772), 20180106. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2018.0106
Mark Cigan, A., & Knap, P. W. (2022). Technical considerations towards commercialization of porcine respiratory and reproductive syndrome (PRRS) virus-resistant pigs. CABI Agriculture and Bioscience, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43170-022-00107-5
Nutrition, C. for F. S. and A. (2022). Science and History of GMOs and Other Food Modification Processes. FDA. https://www.fda.gov/food/agricultural-biotechnology/science-and-history-gmos-and-other-food-modification-processes#:~:text=1973%3A%20Biochemists%20Herbert%20Boyer
%20and
Purdue University. (2022). What are GMOs? Purdue University — College of Agriculture. https://ag.purdue.edu/gmos/what-are-gmos.html
Whitworth, K. M., Rowland, R. R. R., Ewen, C. L., Trible, B. R., Kerrigan, M. A., Cino-Ozuna, A. G., Samuel, M. S., Lightner, J. E., McLaren, D. G., Mileham, A. J., Wells, K. D., & Prather, R. S. (2015). Gene-edited pigs are protected from porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus. Nature Biotechnology, 34(1), 20–22. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3434
