EU SOCRATES ERASMUS European Community

IP “Bioethics in Life and Environmental Sciences”

“Why transgenic animals do not raise the same reactions of people as transgenic plants?”

By:

Doroteya Raykova – Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”

Grzegorz Dziurawiec – Uniwersytet Przyrodniczy w Lublinie

Michaël da Veiga Mendes – Universidade de Évora

Silwya Misiaszek – Uniwersytet Przyrodniczy w Lublinie

Vasil Savov – Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”

Lublin, 22 March – 5 April 2009

1

Table of Contents

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction................................................................................................................................. 2

1. GMOs – definition .................................................................................................................... 3

2. Producing GMO ....................................................................................................................... 3

2.1. How to obtain a transgenic animal? ....................................................................................... 3

2.2. How to obtain a transgenic plant? ......................................................................................... 4

3. What is the aim to create GMO? .............................................................................................. 4

3.1. Applications of transgenic animals ......................................................................................... 4

3.2. Applications of transgenic plants ........................................................................................... 5

4. GMOs – pros and cons ............................................................................................................. 6

4.1. Advantages of transgenic animals and plants ......................................................................... 6

4.2. Disadvantages of transgenic animals ..................................................................................... 6

4.3. Disadvantages of transgenic plants ........................................................................................ 7

5. Ethical issues ........................................................................................................................... 8

6. Why transgenic animals do not raise the same reactions of people as transgenic plants? .........11

Bibliography ...............................................................................................................................18

2

Abstract

Genetic modification is not really a recent phenomenon: thousands of years of selection have lead to the domestication of many animal and plant species. However, with the modern methods of genetic engineering and biotechnology, it is possible to cross the interspecific barriers and create transgenic organisms with newly acquired properties. All of these creatures are designed to serve a specific purpose, from which society is supposed to benefit. Undoubtedly, GMO have valuable applications in farming, food and pharmaceutical production and medicine, but they also have their disadvantages. For this reason, ethical issues are often raised and there are extensive and unceasing debates on the subject.

There seem to be hierarchies of acceptance in terms of the type of transgenic organism, the purpose of the application, and the nature of the benefits obtained. The reactions of society are controversial, but it seems that transgenic plants are perceived more positively than transgenic animals.

Keywords: GMO, transgenic animals, transgenic plants, genetic engineering, applications, bioethical issues, public opinion

Introduction With the term “transgenic” scientists connote an organism in which a gene has been

altered or added from another organism. In general terms, we could argue that crops created 8,000 years ago from common grasses were the first “modified” organisms. For instance, cabbage, broccoli, Brussels sprouts and cauliflower all originate from the same wild plant. Similarly, the Chihuahua and the Blood Hound in fact come from tamed wolves. The Belgian Blue cow is a more recent result from regular breeding, and it is oftentimes alleged as a monster of genetic engineering, without actually being one. The notion of genes originated some time after 1865 when Mendel started performing his famous experiments with peas, and thus established the foundations of clasical genetics. However, it wasn’t until 1944 that it was proven that DNA is the molecule which carries genetic information. Many years passed before researchers gathered the necessary knowledge and managed to develop the tools to transfer genes from one organism to another. In 1946 Max Delbruck showed that genes from two different viruses could be combined to form a new kind of virus, an experiment very close to transgenesis in its contemporary sense. In 1972 Paul Berg joined two DNA strands from different sources into one plasmid – he constructed the first recombinant DNA, which is the basis of the transgenetic process. Finally, in 1973, Herbert Boyer combined a bacterial gene with a gene from a virus and thus got a recombinant DNA that was then inserted into the genome of E. coli, obtaining in this way the first transgenic organism. Later on, Boyer established the company Genentech. In 1977 it genetically engineered bacteria which were able to produce a human protein. The revolution has begun.

3

1. GMOs – definition GMOs are genetically modified organisms that can be broadly classified into three

major groups – plants, animals, and microorganisms. They are defined as organisms which possess a foreign gene (called the transgene) deliberately inserted in their genomes by means of modern techniques in genetic engineering. For this reason, we also speak of transgenic animals and plants.

2. Producing GMO 2.1. How to obtain a transgenic animal?

To begin with, it is necessary to locate and isolate a specific gene to be inserted in the target animal’s DNA. This gene is first inserted in a plasmid and then it is obtained in multiple copies thanks to bacterial ability to rapidly reproduce and replicate their DNA. The next step is to isolate the gene from the bacterial plasmid and to obtain a linear piece of DNA which can at this point be used for genetic modification. Insertion of this foreign genetic material can be performed in several ways. One possibility is to inject it directly into the male pronucleus of a fertilized egg. Another way is to introduce the transgene into embryonic stem cells by microinjection. Then the ES cells are grown until they reach the blastocyst stage and are then inserted in the surrogate mother’s uterus (see example in Fig.2).

Fig.1. Producing transgenic plants

4

2.2. How to obtain a transgenic plant?

This procedure is pretty much the same in its principles as the process of engineering a transgenic animal. Main steps in this case include gene location and isolation from a donor, cloning of the gene, and its insertion into the host plant tissue. Again, plasmid vectors are used to carry out the transfer (see example in Fig.1.). Next follows transgenic plant regeneration, genetic characterization and marker-assisted selection.

3. What is the aim to create a GMO? 3.1. Applications of transgenic animals

The usual reason to create a transgenic animal is to serve specific needs of society, farming and economy by enhancing certain positive traits of the animal or administering new ones. For instance, transgenic animals may be created to show increased milk production (in sheep) or muscle tissue (in bulls). In this respect, transgenic animals can be conceived as food resources as well. An example is the incorporation of a human growth hormone into an animal’s genome. Thus, growth is accelerated and the transgenic animal becomes larger. This experiment has been performed on salmon, resulting in the creation of a so called superfish.

5

Apart from its larger size and better flesh color, such fish boast additional resistance to maladies.

Other applications are directed to production of certain medicinal substances for therapeutic needs. It is desirable that the transgenic animal used for pharmaceutical production secretes the desired substance at high levels without endangering its own health and that it passes this ability to its progeny. Animals altered in this way are often called transpharmers. A good example is the transgenic sheep Polly, which was born six months after the famous Dolly. Polly was a clone, too, but an additional gene of human origin was inserted into her genome. It led to the production of a specific blood plasma protein called factor IX, which takes part in blood clotting and is absent in patients suffering from some forms of haemophilia. The transgene, previously incorporated in the cultured cells, was subsequently transferred to an enucleated oocyte during the stage of fusion, and thus the gene product was expressed in Polly’s milk later on. Similarly, pigs can be genetically modified so that they produce human haemoglobin in their blood. Such proteins, secreted in milk or blood, have to be collected and purified and can be used for medical treatment.

On the other hand, transgenic animals may be used as disease models, and in this case they are modified so that they express human pathologies which they are otherwise not susceptible to. The idea is to be able to study different disease mechanisms so that therapy can be developed. For instance, transgenic mice have been used as models for disorders such as Alzheimer, some types of cancer (oncomice) and AIDS. Furthermore, transgenic animals are helpful in human gene therapy. The therapy consists in adding a normal copy of a gene to the genome of a person carrying a defective copy. For example, in Finland a transgenic calf was produced with a gene that promotes the growth of red blood cells in humans.

Still another application of GMAs is as animal organ sources. Certain species such as pigs can be genetically altered to turn into viable donors for tissues and organs for human transplants. This is a critical issue in many countries, since there is a great want for transplantations worldwide. Pigs can be genetically modified so that the gene responsible for the human rejection response is deleted; these knockout animals can be then cloned in order to multiply the effect of this manipulation known as xenotransplantation.

Apart from these applications, transgenic animals are also used for other more bizarre purposes. For instance, in 2001 the first transgenic monkey was engineered. Its genome contained a gene coding for the fluorescent jellyfish protein GFP. At the same time, transgenic pets are already on the market and some companies are even trying to create allergen-free cats for allergic pet-lovers.

3.2. Applications of transgenic plants Currently, transgenic plants take the primary position in GMO technology. The largest share of GMP worldwide is owned by Monsanto Company. Transgenic crops are mostly used in agriculture and their purpose is to raise the yields. For this reason, scientists try to provide GMPs with better “survival skills”. For example, resistance to herbicides or ability to produce persticidal proteins is eagerly sought after. The latter was achieved in a type of transgenic potatoes which carry a transgene of a Bacillus toxin deadly for Colorado potato beetle

6

(Leptinotarsa decemlineata). Bt plants are safe from this major pest that is feeding on their green parts without a necessity to be sprinkled with any chemicals. Another profitable application in the marketing is the ability of some transgenic plants to ripen for an untypically long period. For instance, the transgenic Flavr Savr tomato can be left to ripen on the vine for longer so that it improves its flavor. Similarly, some GMPs are altered so that they have higher nutritive value, bigger size, increased productivity, tolerance to extreme temperatures or drought, or longer shelflife. All of these profitable properties are useful in modern agriculture and in trade. Transgenic plants can also serve humanitarian causes. An example is the so called golden rise. It is a variety of Oryza sativa that is modified so that it synthesizes beta-carotene, a precursor of vitamin A, in its grains. The idea is to use this as food in countries where there is shortage of vitamin A in the diet.

4. GMOs – pros and cons

Despite the fact that the theme of our work is not a settlement whether genetically modified organisms are good or bad, necessary for a better understanding of our work seems to be bringing few facts related to GMOs.

4.1. Advantages of transgenic animals and plants

Transgenic organisms undeniably possess their advantages: they were genetically engineered so that they have some advantage over other individuals from their species. We can therefore claim that the positive sides and benefits of GMOs coincide with the applications they were created for.

4.2. Disadvantages of transgenic animals

In many cases, genes have more than one function. Often, a gene is considered to have one particular role in the organism, but in most cases, the animal with the gene removed has either unexpected adverse effects or behaves identically to an animal with the gene.

Literature is abundant with examples of transgenic animals with unexpected aberrations. In one study published 1997 in Nature, researchers genetically engineered a strain of mice that lacked a prostacyclin receptor. Prostacyclin is a chemical that keeps blood from clotting, and researchers were hoping to study stroke and cardiovascular ailments with their newly created mouse model. When the scientists engineered their mice, however, they found that the chemical had another function, too, a role in pain perception. This means that the knockout mice had more than one function silenced, which could be fatal.

Another example: cows that have been genetically modified to have larger udders produce more milk indeed, but are burdened to carry greater weight, so they cause more stress

7

on their limbs and may have more limb injuries. What is more, cloned animals are usually born with a variety of cardiopulmonary ailments.

One possible event that seems to provoke fear and heated debates is that genetically modified salmon can escape and cross-breed with a natural population of salmon, or even just escape into the wild. Female salmon fish choose a mate by paying most attention to the size of the male. It is obvious that if an genetically engineered salmon of five hundred pounds infiltrates a natural population, it will have a great advantage over all the normal males of that population. The females would show preference to this superfish when choosing their mate. This could create serious problems for biodiversity. There is a theory called the Trojan gene theory. This theory shows, through scientific tests, that the offspring of the transgenic salmon have disadvantages, such as poor muscles and decreased swimming ability in comparison with their natural counterparts. For this reason, and for many others, their survival rate is low. A computer-generated model predicted that in about forty generations, the native salmon population infiltrated by GM salmon could be destroyed completely. According to this theory, it would take only a few genetically engineered fish to cause the extinction of entire populations.

4.3. Disadvantages of transgenic plants

Genetically modified foods provoke a lot of heated discussions among many, both food producers and consumers. One of the arguments most often raised is the possibility for the creation of "artificial" nutritionally full plants through the implantation of genetic material into their DNA. This way of reasoning seems to be just as promising as it is dangerous. As experience shows, humankind has made many failures and underdevelopments in the past 20 years. A good example of such an error may be the creation of a species of corn called MON810, which, as it is clear from the research carried out by the Italian National Institute for Research on Food and Nutrition, disturbs the function of the immune system, lowers the fertility of experimental mice (regardless of age) and causes irregularities in the expression of the genes. Another example is the growing of the Brazilian soy bean which contains a gene from the genome of the ground-nut. The result was a plant containing a highly allergenic protein. It was also found that there is large-scale cross-breeding between GM and conventional plants. GM plant pollen is transferred by wind, insects, people to the neighbouring crops and there is no way to prevent this. The Central Science Laboratory report says that rape pollen can be spread by bees at a distance of as much as 26 km. The University of Reading, England, claims that GM oilseed rape cross-pollinate by way of dust rising from wild species like kohlrabi, turnips, fodder beets, radishes, creating a super weed form. The fields sown with conventional and organic production from neighbouring GM crops may experience contamination and farmers will be able to sell their products as free from GM, although in fact this is not going be the case. In this way, when people buy a product, they won’t really know if it is genetically modified food or not, and they cannot make a truly informed choice. The rights of consumers are discredited, which is why ethical questions are raised.

8

Plant pollen is not the only possible way of transmission of modified genes. Naturally occurring viruses in soils (which are used in biotechnological laboratories) have a high capacity to integrate into different DNA fragments, so that new plant strains can be produced, and they can spread the resistance to different plant antigens.

Also it is suspected that during the creation of GM crops as a result of the use of large quantities of antibiotics and xenobiotics, resistant bacteria may arise in effect. This issue is similar to the problem with resistant bacterial species arising because of the excessive use of antibiotics by humans and it is one of the central concerns of modern microbiology. Moreover, genetic modifications that have been performed with the idea to reduce the amount of herbicides, fungicides, etc. did not lead to the expected result. Another occurring of GM plants resistant to these chemicals gives rise to the need of even stronger spraying to make the latter effective. For example, Dr. Charles Benbrook of the Northwest Science and Environment Policy Center Idaho said that the use of pesticides and herbicides on 222 million hectares of soya-GM crops, GM-maize and cotton in the U.S. since 1996 was greater in comparison with the traditional crop by 22.7 thousand tonnes. Here appears also aspect of morality and responsibility of farmers, who encourage the vision of multiplying profits. Greediness and ignorance combined with the usage of greater quantities of chemicals may lead to contamination of their food production.

Scientists have attempted to create transgenic crops containing substances which should supplement the dietary needs of populations where such components are scarce. Humane as it is, this idea proved unsuccessful in the case of Golden rice, which was mentioned before. It was meant to produce vitamin A precursor, but along with this precious quality, it turned out that the consumption of Golden rice leads to accumulation of lactic acid in skeletal muscles. Although several brands of Golden rice were created, none of them is on the market at the moment because of its side effects.

Other disadvantages of transgenic plants include the possibility to worsen the taste of a fruit or a vegetable while trying to improve some other quality. This is in fact what happened to the Flavr Savr tomato which was designed to have stronger flavour, but unfortunately turned out to be far less delicious than normal, unmodified tomatoes.

Although they have their positive traits, Bt plants have also risen ethical and ecological debates. Indeed, when they are genetically modified in such a way they do not fall prey to Leptinotarsa decemlineata, but in this way the population of the beetle decreases. So far, so good; yet, as a result of that, ladybirds that feed on Colorado beetles are deprived of their natural food. This fact brings other consequences that are pretty serious in an ecological context: an entire food chain is broken.

5. Ethical issues

Ethical issues associated with genetically modified animals are often discussed. The transgenic process raises a lot of questions in the moral, philosophical or ethical sphere about the notions of “life”, “rights”, “instrumentation” and “property”.

Utilitarianism is seen by the philosophers as the most widespread and common way of thinking, which is typical of most modern people. It rests on the idea for maximization of the

9

good and wellbeing in a democratic society: in this context, an action is considered positive when its consequences are less harmful (or will harm fewer individuals) than is its opposite action. This philosophical trend is therefore the one through the prism of which animal ethical problems should be perceived.

Ethical issues concerning transgenic animal-human relationship arise from many sources. One reason for this is that there are different views, beliefs, and even religious practices tightly connected with animals and nature. In the context of Christianity, there are both positive and negative consequences from transgenesis. On one hand, God is the only creator who has the right to tamper with life and DNA was not meant for humans to “play” and experiment with it, let alone change it. On the other hand, nothing is really fixed in the texture of God’s creation, which is evident by paleontologic research showing that some species have become extinct and other evolved.

Experiments with animals have been performed for such a long period that it has practically turned into an unquestionable habit until recently when people started feeling more conscious about these problems. “The truth is we have been selecting characteristics ever since we first started domesticating plants and animals,” says Dr. Alex Livingston, dean of the Western College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Saskatchewan. The ones who reflect most on these pros and cons and who have to make ethical decisions are probably scientists, activists for animal welfare, members of animal ethics organizations and committees, but also commonplace members of society. The most widely discussed factors include the producing, use and applications of transgenic animals, the welfare of animals both genetically modified and unmodified, ecology, the environment, the economy, the society and the ethical dilemmas it faces and is going to face in the future, as well as human health. Naturally, what society should look for and needs is a balanced relationship between animal and human, and it should be informed and aware of the consequences of the using transgenic technologies upon animals, of their effect on the environment and the human race.

There are three different conclusions that seem to have formed as a result of extensive discussions on these ethical matters. The first deduction is that the use of transgenic animals can be considered ethically acceptable because the consequences on welfare, health and environment are viewed as insignificant by many, especially on the background of the benefits. Another prevailing idea is that the use of GMAs is acceptable if the benefits are considerably greater than the negative effects. And finally, the third notion is connected with specific aspects that exist in some societies in which the benefits and the negative consequences don´t have importance, because transgenesis is denied as a whole. These “intrinsic” values are observed both on a social and personal level. As mentioned above, in each religion the respect of nature is seen differently, for example in Hinduism the cow must not be harmed in any way because it is a holy animal.

Another important ethical question is the one about the barrier between humans and animals. The use of genetic technologies is weakening this barrier. Manipulation of genes and exchange of genetic material are blending the different species in a way that does not happen in nature, bringing consequences that are impossible to predict in the long run and possibly threatening biodiversity. The question is, aren’t these “combined species” an unethical change in the natural order of our world?

10

Moreover, man exploits animals to serve his needs since ancient times; but is this ethical? Belonging to the kingdom Animalia himself, does man have a true right to do this? Changing the animal genome is undeniably a major step forward in science but it also brings along vast responsibility. “Effort to safeguard and cherish the environment needs to be infused with a vision of the sacred”, Carl Sagan, Jerome Weisner and Stephen Jay Gould say. Are scientists playing the role of God? Do people actually “own” any other life than their own and doesn’t the creation of transgenic animals turn these GMOs into simple commodities?

Ethical issues about GMOs are also connected with medicine. As mentioned before, transgenic animals can be used as disease models, like donors for human organs, like producers of medicinal substances, and thus they can help humankind immensely in its fight against disorders. At the same time, an ethical question is brought up by a BBC article: “Is it unethical to create 'diseased' animals that are very likely to suffer?” At the same time, is it ethical to stop the experiments with transgenic animals and give up hope for treatment?

The ethical issues about transgenic plants join those concerning transgenic animals in some ways. In the public´s opinion, the main difference is the worry about the safety for the consumers of genetically modified food. Naturally, when a new product pops up on the food market, consumers are often suspicious; even more so when we are speaking of a transgenic organism. Bearing in mind the fact that ordinary people do not receive much information on the issue of GMOs, their reaction understandable. In fact, in one experiment scientists engineered a strain of transgenic soy bean containing a Brazilian nut gene to increase some commercially valuable features of the soy, but the final result was dangerous for people allergic to nuts. This case opens new horizons for ethical discussion because people start worrying about their health.

Another important facet is the chance of “genetic pollution”, which is a result of cross-breeding between GM plants and wild species. This is possible, although regulations require that transgenic crops are sown far from other plants. So environmentalists ask: what will happen if transgenic and non-transgenic plants mix? Is biodiversity threatened? If so, is it ethical to plant such GMPs? It is difficult to predict the possibilities and the outcomes.

It is true that many people who lack information about transgenic plants, or whose information is coming from sources like TV and newspapers (which in this case are not very reliable) actively voice their opinions. However, in the serious debates about transgenic plants, researchers, food producers, consumers and public groups take part in the role of decision-makers. In recent years, this subject was the central topic in many conversations. People are asking urgent questions about this new technology in plants. The first of these is asks whether all possible risks are correctly evaluated, because no notions of risks seem to be mentioned in the current EU regulations. Secondly, there aren´t any clear conclusions of researches, so society puts in question if this kind of products on the food market are dangerous for human´s health (and/or the health of animals, for that matter). The last issue is about the use of pesticides: there are doubts if parasites will become resistant to toxins in transgenic plants. No scientific information is available and debates are continuing.

There is a narrow relation between GMO, the environment, and health safety. Reality shows that there is a dispute between the defenders of the environment and those who agree that the science and the quality of life have to be reevaluated.

11

So, is it ethical to stop the advance and availability of the technology? Wouldn`t it be contradictory to protect the environment and to fight for more productive agriculture, higher income for the country, less aggressive, and with products more healthy? Who`s to blame – the inventors of transgenic technology, or those who use it in order to gain profit? It´s important to think and ask ourselves if it´s dangerous to use this technology, but also the opposite question has to be asked: what is the risk if we don’t use this technology? The solution to these problems is not clear yet, however the direction in which we have to look for it is trying to find a balance, in which everyone who gets in touch with transgenesis is content. Maybe the solution will be found in mutual compromise.

6. Why transgenic animals do not raise the same reactions of people as transgenic plants?

Since in 1986 two small biotechnological companies – "Advanced Genetic Sciences of

Oakland” in California and Monsanto – made their first experimental sowing of genetically modified crops, the protests against the use of GMOs in any form broke out and they seem to continue without end. Over the last twenty years the arguments of both supporters and opponents have changed only little. Most of them, despite the lack of basic knowledge in terms of biotechnology research, are still repeating myths that have been rebutted by scientists long ago, creating at the same time confusion among other people. What is interesting, most of these myths concentrate round GM crops. This fact is significant because it allows us to identify the starting point for understanding the way people perceive GMOs.

Keeping in mind the above statement, it is worth noticing that the European biotechnology foods based on genetic techniques are viewed negatively, and so are the use of methods of radiation on food, consolidating storage and the use of food additives, especially preservatives or synthetic dyes. For instance, surveys conducted in Germany in 2006 showed that 76% of respondents associated GMO with genetically modified plants, of which more than 80% hadn’t even heard of the possibilities and experimental use the genetic material of animals. The results obtained in Germany in fact do not stand out significantly against the background of other European countries. This seems to be little surprising statement compared with the fact that when similar studies were carried out it became apparent that knowledge about the nature of GMO did not differ in any significant way between groups of people with primary, secondary or higher level of education.

On the other hand, some people seem to be very well aware of the real situation. As an example here, we can use a letter submitted by Bulgarian scientists Dr Eva Cherneva from the Center for Transgenic Technologies in the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, USA, and Dr Didi Baev, research associate in molecular microbiology and genetics from the State University of New York, USA, to the authorities of this country. From the letter it becomes apparent that Bulgarian society is not really prepared to deal with GMO, because, to put it metaphorically, there are too many variables in this equation. Bulgarian newspapers write that the growing of transgenic crops is the most ecological agriculture, that there haven’t been any accidents with GMO until the moment and that these organisms have

12

only positive applications. However, it is impossible to make a long-term prognosis about the effects of GMO on human health – they may cause allergies or other problems. Bulgarian society doesn’t have enough information on both the negatives and positives of GMO in order to form an educated opinion and take adequate decisions and choices.

Similar situation occurs in Poland. One difference is that the lobby in Poland (e.g. Greenpeace), and the authorities tend to the opposite direction, i.e. inform the public almost exclusively about the disadvantages of GMOs. A very good reflection of this seems to be the proportion in which google.pl gives as a first 100 found pages: 47 negative, 39 with objective information, and only 4 positive.

With such dramatically different positions of the Government and the media against GMOs, it could be expected that the public in these two countries will have completely different views on whether we should continue doing research on GM plants. This time, as demonstrated by opinion polls conducted in June 2005 by Eurobarometer for the lack of acceptance of GMOs in these countries, Bulgaria and Poland differ only in about 20% in the prevailing public frame of mind.

13

These results may suggest that there is a source of influence on public opinion

in those countries that is other than media. During the tests carried out by Eurobarometer, respondents were divided according to the “social” category, which is represented in the following table:

14

These results are very interesting, especially because they reveal insignificant

differences in the acceptance of genetic engineering and independence of the level of education. Clearly, it appears that there is some other factor which might be called "fear of the unknown / new", which is responsible for this lack of acceptance, and far-reaching skepticism.

On the other hand, we have to remember that it is clear from various studies on public opinion and biotechnology that when the public judges biotechnological applications there are various levels of acceptability. First comes the priority of purpose. In general, applications intended to generate health and medical benefits are viewed most positively. This is followed by applications for environmental benefits. Food biotechnology has generated more concerns for a variety of reasons. When the technology succeeds in increasing the welfare of society, greater support for the application is elicited rather than when the purpose of transgenesis is seen as beneficial for certain individual (non-utilitarian) pursuits. For example, among Frenchmen respondents who were asked whether they approved of categories of genetically engineered animals, 53% approved of ‘bacteria to clean up oil spills’, a more even split was observed for ‘cows that produce more milk’ (42% approving to 40% disapproving), while only 19% approved of ‘larger sport fish’.

15

Even within the medical realm, not all medical applications are regarded

equally. For example, while Europeans view genetic testing with approval, there is much less acceptance for such applications as xenotransplantation.

16

Again, issues such as the development test cell colonies, which could raise the meat

yield without killing animals need public opinion seems to be geared much more negatively. As many sociologists explains this is due to the difference in human perception of the place of plants and animals in the ecosystem. Furthermore the introduction of genetic manipulation in animals is much more difficult, and what follows from that such research is carried out much more carefully, and scientists are more moderately in affirming the achievements and breakthroughs. Certainly has an effect on the ignorance of the subject by the public, but on the other hand, leads to a reduction in concern and controversy among the general public.

In conclusion, we can say that the relation of the majority of Europeans to genetically modified organisms is a result of a lack of interest in the topic or insufficient information.

17

This seems to be extremely paradoxical if we pay attention to the fact that more than half of Europeans openly expressed disagreement, if not hostility to GMOs. The question of why transgenic animals do not produce so negative reactions as GM plants (although the influence of transgenic crops in our daily life appears to be equally significant), seems to have not only one answer. However, few of these reasons seem to stand out, and we would like to repeat them once more. First and foremost, the majority of Europeans have only minimal knowledge about GM animals and plants. Second, people who are trying to find information on this subject encounter great difficulty in reaching independent and reliable sources, which would enable them to develop their own mind. As a third and the last we have to keep in mind that in today's realities, even the biggest skeptics accept GM animals, which are bioreactors of medicines, as creations ethically justified, in opposed to GM plants which are created almost in each case for profit.

18

Bibliography:

1. Einsiedel, E.F. Public perceptions of transgenic animals, Rev. sci. tech. Off. int. Epiz., 2005, 24 (1), 149-157

2. Rosu A., 1999. New trends in Agrobiotechnology Education. TEMPUS-PHARE CME 03066-97. Bucharest, International Conference, March 15-22nd 1999, 94p.

3. Wynne B., 2001. Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Science as Culture 10: 445-481

4. www.biotechnolog.pl 5. www.gajanet.pl/article.php3?id_article=32 6. www.archivo.greenpeace.org/toursoja/informes/Multinacionales/monsanto_eng.pdf 7. www.gajanet.pl/article.php3?id_article=32 8. www.icppc.pl 9. www.organicconsumer.org/ge/supreme_court_schmeiser.cfm 10. www.us.expasy.org/cgi-in/lists?allergen.txt 11. www.ifr.bbsrc.ac.uk/protall 12. www.greenpeace.org/deutschland/?page=/deutschland/news/gentechnik/argentiniens-

bittere-gen-ernte 13. www.gmofree-europe.org 14. http://www.who.int/en/ 15. http://www.gmo.biolog.pl/ 16. www.halat.com/gmopl.html 17. www.ine-isd.org.pl/gmo 18. www.mos.gov.pl/1aktualnosci/informacje_rp/17.02.2005.shtml 19. http://www.biotechnolog.pl/news-927.htm 20. http://www.wiw.pl/nowinki/biologia/200102/20010215-001.asp 21. http://www.zdrowie.med.pl/nowosc.phtml?start=20&slowo=zdrowsze&nr=1 22. www.ietu.katowice.pl/wpr/Aktualnosci/Czestochowa/Referaty/Klein.pdf 23. http://www.rp.pl/artykul/62966,95367.html?page=2 24. http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ANZCCART/news/15_1.pdf 25. http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/margawati.html 26. http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/gmfood.shtml 27. Milles, N. Genetically modified organisms. 2006 28. http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb100/transgenes.html 29. http://www.socialniprava.info/article1882.html