I think that all of us at least once have imagined a Frankenstein-like laboratory with who knows what strange tools and secret operations, it was really useful to see how GMOs are actually created and discover that everything is much simpler than in our imagination!
Aw thank you Adam! Love what you're doing with your channel 🤗Have you considered joining WeCreateEdu? It's a wonderful community of Edutubers and a great space for learning/sharing/collaborating. You can check it out here: wecreateedu.wordpress.com/
This was great! I'm thoroughly convinced that GMOs wont hurt me if I eat them. But what about geopolitics and environmental impact? Can we trust all of the companies that develop GMOs to develop crops that are in our best interests? I'm thinking specifically about Monsanto and Glyphosate (the most common GM crop). I'm not concerned that round up ready crops are bad for my body, but doesn't their use encourage agricultural methods, like monoculture and herbicide reliance, which have a demonstrably negative ecological impact?
We need a whole extra episode to talk about these questions! Environmental impacts of genetically engineered crops are certainly more difficult to study than consumer safety, but so far it seems that GM crops do not have a greater environmental impact than existing industrial agriculture techniques (www.nap.edu/resource/23395/GE-crops-report-brief.pdf). Monoculture has been in practice long before GM crops were developed, as has herbicide/pesticide application (and subsequent acquired resistance of those pests). I think the general ire towards the biotech industry has tainted the conversation about genetic engineering technology in and of itself...I’m not an expert in the GM-related debates surrounding biotech companies so I’m not in a position to defend or admonish them. Large-scale, mechanized agriculture is how we're feeding the world's population, and technology is going to emerge that supports that industry. Our efforts should be directed at making that industry as sustainable as possible, which could be applied to GM and non-GM crops alike. Higher yield GM crops, for example, would decrease the amount of farmland needed to obtain a given amount of harvest, which would mean less rainforest stripped for agricultural use. I’m sure there are companies out there that are working on higher yield & drought/heat-tolerant crops to address our changing climate and growing population. And, scientists like Joyce are on it already!!
(Nitpick: Glyphosate is the name of the pesticide, you're talking about the GMO crops with the glyphosate resistance gene) Speaking as a plant molecular biologist: Monsanto is absolutely, uh... I don't use the word "evil" lightly but look, they are originally an agrochemical company i.e. they have historically made their profit by selling fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides. They have used the GMO technology to sell more herbicides. This is pretty sad considering that GMOs are our best pathway towards reducing chemical use. It is absolutely important to advocate for RESPONSIBLE GMO use and hold companies like Monsanto/Bayer accountable. To that, videos like this one (dispelling the wrong reasons to be skeptical of GMOs) are invaluable.
@@ScienceIRL Speaking as a plant molecular biologist who is quite familiar with this topic: GMOs, used RIGHT, can be vastly more environmentally friendly (as well as pose a lower risk to the health of consumers and farmers) than conventional crops. There are several ways this can happen: - Crops with inserted pathogen resistance genes do not require as much spraying with bactericides, fungicides, etc. This is usually done by taking the required resistance gene from other plant species that have it, or even from the wild relative of the domesticated species in question (crop species tend to become less robust and more susceptible to stress and disease during domestication) - Crops with inserted insecticides (a good example of this is Bt-cotton in China, implementing it has resulted in massive savings in insecticide spraying, including illegal insecticides like DDT that are hazardous to farmers' health which were widely used because insect pests had grown resistant to approved inseticides) - Tangential positive effects on environment because less chemical use is kinder to the soil and biodiversity of the area. E.g. studies on Bt-cotton found that reduced insecticide use spared the insects and arthropods that effectively do biological pest control, e.g. spiders eating other pests that aren't affected by the plant insecticide. - "De novo domestication" refers to taking a wild plant (e.g. tomato), modifying key genes that were identified as genes of interest in the domesticated relative, removing undesirable genes (e.g. wild Solanaceae, including tomatoes and potatoes, are poisonous...), and thereby creating a newly domesticated species that has all the benefits of the wild relative (robustness and resistance to stress and disease) and all the desired qualities of the domesticated relative (large fruit, an easy to harvest growth form, etc.) - It is possible to create GMO "supercrops" that address nutrient deficiencies (see Golden Rice) in ways many current staple crops do not. Not a direct benefit on the environment but something that saves time, resources and health anyway. Important caveat: The science is only one part of making sure these agricultural strategies work. Compliance with recommended practices is another. This is much like preventing antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Example: When dealing with e.g. Bt-cotton, which produces an insecticide, it is IMPERATIVE to follow certain practices to make sure the insect pest does not become resistant to this toxin. These strategies include "refuge crops" (essentially planting non-GMO crops that your pest can freely feast on, thereby reducing the selection pressure on it to become resistant to the insecticide) and resistance gene stacking. These practices are important, but they are often not followed and regulation and enforcement of compliance is lacking. So that's important to keep in mind if one hears of "failure stories" or underwhelming results from GMO crops. The science is there, but legislation is currently lagging way behind.
@@Hekateras wow thank you for taking the time to contribute all of this super helpful information! Totally agree that responsible GMO use with the goal of solving major problems in agriculture is the way forward. I've also heard that because all of the bad feelings toward GMOs, companies that want to produce GM crops need legal and PR teams so huge that the expense makes it really tough for smaller biotech companies who actually want to use this technology for the betterment of humanity to stay afloat. And it just enables and perpetuates the model of using GM tech to create perfect money-making schemes like manufacturing the herbicide and the GM crops that are resistant to it, ahem Monsanto. Oof.
@@ScienceIRL You're right on the money you regarding the matter biotech companies trying to be competitive. A few years ago the EU legislation was supposed to be revised to account for the existence of Crispr-Cas9 (a technology which, unlike the Agrobacterium method, potentially allows completely traceless genome editing with no hint that bioengineering was even applied; depending on the genes edited, the resulting organism could be completely indistinguishable from one you'd find through natural variation or obtain through tedious interbreeding). A major hope was that loosening the legislation when it comes to Crispr-Cas9 technologies would reduce the number of hoops and red tape research groups and companies need to jump through to get a GMO on the market. Unfortunately, this didn't happen, and the EU legislation considers Crispr-Cas9-edited GMOs to be subject to heavy regulation and red tape. For one thing, this makes it difficult for competitors to enter the field if, as you say, they're not big and rich enough to navigate this red tape as easily as Monsanto. For another thing, it's a pretty silly decision because it's not really going to be enforceable, either. Traceless genome editing means you're potentially relying on the honours system/detailed metadata (i.e. an engineering history) to know that this mutation did not arise naturally, or through "classical" methods like radiation mutagenesis and whatnot. (And by the way, don't get me started on how much "classical" breeding methods like radiation mutagenesis, hybridisation, protoplast fusion and straight-up selective breeding have historically been given a free pass... considered to be safe because technically no directed gene editing is being done, even though these methods are vastly more unpredictable than genome editing.. (Let me put a fine point on this. In terms of "spirit", exposing a huge amount of seed stock to X-rays to induce mutations, then screening for mutations of interest, like larger yield or larger size or whatnot, is not fundamentally different to editing target genes using genome editing technologies, save that with the latter you have a better idea of what you've actually changed in the DNA. We have been doing radiation mutagenesis for decades, before we even knew what DNA is. Which is probably the only reason it (and the other methods I mentioned) is not considered "genetic manipulation" while more precise methods are, because the distinction is a completely formal one. It's always important to remember that when we're discussing the benefits and risks of GMOs, we're talking about an alternative method to something that already exists, so we need to weigh those benefits and risks not against a blank slate but against the current established method. An example of "classically-bred" crops being "safe" :') : www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/horrific-tales-of-potatoes-that-caused-mass-sickness-and-even-death-3162870/ Yes, they usually screen commercial potato cultivars for solanin levels, but that's just one example of a relevant trait that can be altered unpredictably through "classical" methods. Others may not be so easy to screen for. ) I should note that after the results of this EU legislation decision, massive petitions went around universities and research institutes here in Germany (where the anti-GMO sentiment is significantly stronger amongst the public), with hundreds of major researchers signing. Basically nobody who actually works with these technologies thinks the strict EU legislation is a good idea. Thanks for letting me talk :D. Public perception of these things is one thing that's holding us back, and it's very understandable. Good science communication is so important.
Even if the little leafy bits were not cleaned of the agrobacterium, the plants that they form are not the ones that end up on the market (as far as I know). The seeds from those plants would be harvested to grow a second (and larger) generation of the crop, and then their seeds would be harvested. Farmers buy GMO seeds, not seedlings formed from bits of leaf, and I strongly suspect that they'd be at least a third generation crop by the time they reach farmers. By moving a few generations down the plants family tree, the bacteria that lived on one seedling are not super likely to be sticking around by then.
You're absolutely correct! The process shown in this episode is how the gene is first altered; the genetically modified plants that grow up from the tissue culture reproduce normally by making flowers, whose fertilized ovules become seeds contained inside the fruit (tomato). Those seeds have inherited the genetic modification from their parents, and will be able to pass it to their offspring in turn. The genetically modified crops that ultimately make it to market are many many generations removed from the original plant that was modified in the lab.
Also, the strain of Agrobacterium that's used to put DNA into plants is basically just a glorified live syringe. It possesses very few of the bacterium's original genes and cannot be pathogenic on plants, let alone humans (not their host). Anyone who's ever eaten a strawberry straight off the strawberry patch has probably put worse than that in their mouth.
isaaa.org is a good source of fact-based info on GMOs too! We have an online database on what GMOs are in the market and a yearly report on the global plantings of GMOs.
This is probably one of the sweetest and most wholesome channel on TH-cam I love what y'all do
Hey! Please dont stop doing science videos. I am a BS Bio-Genetics student and I am learning so much from ur videos. Thank youuu! 💚
Shit I want to create watermelon that produce THC It would be one hell of a watermelon
The best channel ever!! Please, make more videos!! Love it!!
I think that all of us at least once have imagined a Frankenstein-like laboratory with who knows what strange tools and secret operations, it was really useful to see how GMOs are actually created and discover that everything is much simpler than in our imagination!
Wow, I love the editing detail on your videos. I’m learning so much for my own videos on my channel! Thanks for your subscription!!!!!
Aw thank you Adam! Love what you're doing with your channel 🤗Have you considered joining WeCreateEdu? It's a wonderful community of Edutubers and a great space for learning/sharing/collaborating. You can check it out here: wecreateedu.wordpress.com/
Science IRL wow, I’m learning so much. I’m going to check it out. I love collaborating!!!
Miss then how to collect gmo plant or hybrid seeds in large numbers for comercial production seeds
This was great! I'm thoroughly convinced that GMOs wont hurt me if I eat them. But what about geopolitics and environmental impact? Can we trust all of the companies that develop GMOs to develop crops that are in our best interests?
I'm thinking specifically about Monsanto and Glyphosate (the most common GM crop). I'm not concerned that round up ready crops are bad for my body, but doesn't their use encourage agricultural methods, like monoculture and herbicide reliance, which have a demonstrably negative ecological impact?
We need a whole extra episode to talk about these questions! Environmental impacts of genetically engineered crops are certainly more difficult to study than consumer safety, but so far it seems that GM crops do not have a greater environmental impact than existing industrial agriculture techniques (www.nap.edu/resource/23395/GE-crops-report-brief.pdf). Monoculture has been in practice long before GM crops were developed, as has herbicide/pesticide application (and subsequent acquired resistance of those pests).
I think the general ire towards the biotech industry has tainted the conversation about genetic engineering technology in and of itself...I’m not an expert in the GM-related debates surrounding biotech companies so I’m not in a position to defend or admonish them. Large-scale, mechanized agriculture is how we're feeding the world's population, and technology is going to emerge that supports that industry. Our efforts should be directed at making that industry as sustainable as possible, which could be applied to GM and non-GM crops alike. Higher yield GM crops, for example, would decrease the amount of farmland needed to obtain a given amount of harvest, which would mean less rainforest stripped for agricultural use. I’m sure there are companies out there that are working on higher yield & drought/heat-tolerant crops to address our changing climate and growing population. And, scientists like Joyce are on it already!!
(Nitpick: Glyphosate is the name of the pesticide, you're talking about the GMO crops with the glyphosate resistance gene)
Speaking as a plant molecular biologist: Monsanto is absolutely, uh... I don't use the word "evil" lightly but look, they are originally an agrochemical company i.e. they have historically made their profit by selling fertilisers, herbicides, pesticides. They have used the GMO technology to sell more herbicides. This is pretty sad considering that GMOs are our best pathway towards reducing chemical use. It is absolutely important to advocate for RESPONSIBLE GMO use and hold companies like Monsanto/Bayer accountable. To that, videos like this one (dispelling the wrong reasons to be skeptical of GMOs) are invaluable.
@@ScienceIRL Speaking as a plant molecular biologist who is quite familiar with this topic:
GMOs, used RIGHT, can be vastly more environmentally friendly (as well as pose a lower risk to the health of consumers and farmers) than conventional crops. There are several ways this can happen:
- Crops with inserted pathogen resistance genes do not require as much spraying with bactericides, fungicides, etc. This is usually done by taking the required resistance gene from other plant species that have it, or even from the wild relative of the domesticated species in question (crop species tend to become less robust and more susceptible to stress and disease during domestication)
- Crops with inserted insecticides (a good example of this is Bt-cotton in China, implementing it has resulted in massive savings in insecticide spraying, including illegal insecticides like DDT that are hazardous to farmers' health which were widely used because insect pests had grown resistant to approved inseticides)
- Tangential positive effects on environment because less chemical use is kinder to the soil and biodiversity of the area. E.g. studies on Bt-cotton found that reduced insecticide use spared the insects and arthropods that effectively do biological pest control, e.g. spiders eating other pests that aren't affected by the plant insecticide.
- "De novo domestication" refers to taking a wild plant (e.g. tomato), modifying key genes that were identified as genes of interest in the domesticated relative, removing undesirable genes (e.g. wild Solanaceae, including tomatoes and potatoes, are poisonous...), and thereby creating a newly domesticated species that has all the benefits of the wild relative (robustness and resistance to stress and disease) and all the desired qualities of the domesticated relative (large fruit, an easy to harvest growth form, etc.)
- It is possible to create GMO "supercrops" that address nutrient deficiencies (see Golden Rice) in ways many current staple crops do not. Not a direct benefit on the environment but something that saves time, resources and health anyway.
Important caveat: The science is only one part of making sure these agricultural strategies work. Compliance with recommended practices is another. This is much like preventing antibiotic resistance in bacteria. Example: When dealing with e.g. Bt-cotton, which produces an insecticide, it is IMPERATIVE to follow certain practices to make sure the insect pest does not become resistant to this toxin. These strategies include "refuge crops" (essentially planting non-GMO crops that your pest can freely feast on, thereby reducing the selection pressure on it to become resistant to the insecticide) and resistance gene stacking. These practices are important, but they are often not followed and regulation and enforcement of compliance is lacking. So that's important to keep in mind if one hears of "failure stories" or underwhelming results from GMO crops. The science is there, but legislation is currently lagging way behind.
@@Hekateras wow thank you for taking the time to contribute all of this super helpful information! Totally agree that responsible GMO use with the goal of solving major problems in agriculture is the way forward. I've also heard that because all of the bad feelings toward GMOs, companies that want to produce GM crops need legal and PR teams so huge that the expense makes it really tough for smaller biotech companies who actually want to use this technology for the betterment of humanity to stay afloat. And it just enables and perpetuates the model of using GM tech to create perfect money-making schemes like manufacturing the herbicide and the GM crops that are resistant to it, ahem Monsanto. Oof.
@@ScienceIRL You're right on the money you regarding the matter biotech companies trying to be competitive. A few years ago the EU legislation was supposed to be revised to account for the existence of Crispr-Cas9 (a technology which, unlike the Agrobacterium method, potentially allows completely traceless genome editing with no hint that bioengineering was even applied; depending on the genes edited, the resulting organism could be completely indistinguishable from one you'd find through natural variation or obtain through tedious interbreeding). A major hope was that loosening the legislation when it comes to Crispr-Cas9 technologies would reduce the number of hoops and red tape research groups and companies need to jump through to get a GMO on the market. Unfortunately, this didn't happen, and the EU legislation considers Crispr-Cas9-edited GMOs to be subject to heavy regulation and red tape. For one thing, this makes it difficult for competitors to enter the field if, as you say, they're not big and rich enough to navigate this red tape as easily as Monsanto. For another thing, it's a pretty silly decision because it's not really going to be enforceable, either. Traceless genome editing means you're potentially relying on the honours system/detailed metadata (i.e. an engineering history) to know that this mutation did not arise naturally, or through "classical" methods like radiation mutagenesis and whatnot.
(And by the way, don't get me started on how much "classical" breeding methods like radiation mutagenesis, hybridisation, protoplast fusion and straight-up selective breeding have historically been given a free pass... considered to be safe because technically no directed gene editing is being done, even though these methods are vastly more unpredictable than genome editing.. (Let me put a fine point on this. In terms of "spirit", exposing a huge amount of seed stock to X-rays to induce mutations, then screening for mutations of interest, like larger yield or larger size or whatnot, is not fundamentally different to editing target genes using genome editing technologies, save that with the latter you have a better idea of what you've actually changed in the DNA. We have been doing radiation mutagenesis for decades, before we even knew what DNA is. Which is probably the only reason it (and the other methods I mentioned) is not considered "genetic manipulation" while more precise methods are, because the distinction is a completely formal one.
It's always important to remember that when we're discussing the benefits and risks of GMOs, we're talking about an alternative method to something that already exists, so we need to weigh those benefits and risks not against a blank slate but against the current established method.
An example of "classically-bred" crops being "safe" :') : www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/horrific-tales-of-potatoes-that-caused-mass-sickness-and-even-death-3162870/ Yes, they usually screen commercial potato cultivars for solanin levels, but that's just one example of a relevant trait that can be altered unpredictably through "classical" methods. Others may not be so easy to screen for. )
I should note that after the results of this EU legislation decision, massive petitions went around universities and research institutes here in Germany (where the anti-GMO sentiment is significantly stronger amongst the public), with hundreds of major researchers signing. Basically nobody who actually works with these technologies thinks the strict EU legislation is a good idea.
Thanks for letting me talk :D. Public perception of these things is one thing that's holding us back, and it's very understandable. Good science communication is so important.
Even if the little leafy bits were not cleaned of the agrobacterium, the plants that they form are not the ones that end up on the market (as far as I know). The seeds from those plants would be harvested to grow a second (and larger) generation of the crop, and then their seeds would be harvested. Farmers buy GMO seeds, not seedlings formed from bits of leaf, and I strongly suspect that they'd be at least a third generation crop by the time they reach farmers. By moving a few generations down the plants family tree, the bacteria that lived on one seedling are not super likely to be sticking around by then.
You're absolutely correct! The process shown in this episode is how the gene is first altered; the genetically modified plants that grow up from the tissue culture reproduce normally by making flowers, whose fertilized ovules become seeds contained inside the fruit (tomato). Those seeds have inherited the genetic modification from their parents, and will be able to pass it to their offspring in turn. The genetically modified crops that ultimately make it to market are many many generations removed from the original plant that was modified in the lab.
Also, the strain of Agrobacterium that's used to put DNA into plants is basically just a glorified live syringe. It possesses very few of the bacterium's original genes and cannot be pathogenic on plants, let alone humans (not their host). Anyone who's ever eaten a strawberry straight off the strawberry patch has probably put worse than that in their mouth.
and i am from colombia how can i enter a university in the united states?
isaaa.org is a good source of fact-based info on GMOs too! We have an online database on what GMOs are in the market and a yearly report on the global plantings of GMOs.
I know it's not really part of this video, but I love your green dress.
Great video :)
This is veri interesting
Wha is this university?
This was filmed at the Boyce Thompson Institute which is located on the campus of Cornell University! btiscience.org/
Ok thanks so much