Experientia

, Volume 49, Issue 3, pp 225–234 | Cite as

The true meaning of ‘exotic species’ as a model for genetically engineered organisms

  • P. J. Regal
Multi-author Reviews Gene Technology and Biodiversity

Abstract

The exotic or non-indigenous species model for deliberately introduced genetically engineered organisms (GEOs) has often been misunderstood or misrepresented. Yet proper comparisons of ecologically competent GEOs to the patterns of adaptation of introduced species have been highly useful among scientists in attempting to determine how to apply biological theory to specific GEO risk issues, and in attempting to define the probabilities and scale of ecological risks with GEOs. In truth, the model predicts that most projects may be environmentallysafe, but a significant minority may be very risky.

The model includes a history of institutional follies that also should remind workers of the danger of oversimplifying biological issues, and warn against repeating the sorts of professional misjudgments that have too often been made in introducing organisms to new settings.

We once expected that the non-indigenous species model would be refined by more analysis of species eruptions, ecological genetics, and the biology of select GEOs themselves, as outlined. But there has been political resistance to the effective regulation of GEOs, and a bureaucratic tendency to focus research agendas on narrow data collection. Thus there has been too little promotion by responsible agencies of studies to provide the broad conceptual base for truly science-based regulation. In its presently unrefined state, the non-indigenous species comparison would overestimate the risks of GEOs if it were (mis) applied to genetically disrupted, ecologically crippled GEOs, but in some cases of wild-type organisms with novel engineered traits, it could greatly underestimate the risks. Further analysis is urgently needed.

Key words

Ecological theory environmental safety exotic species genetic engineering introduced species recombinant DNA risk analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Brill, W. J., Why engineered organisms are safe. Issues in Science and Technology4 (1988) 44–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Campbell, A., Recombinant DNA: past lessons and current concerns, in: Introduction of Genetically Modified Organisms into the Environment, pp. 9–13. Eds. H. Mooney and G. Bernardi. Wiley, New York 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Colwell, R. K., Ecology and biotechnology: expectations and outliers, in: Risk Analysis Approaches for Environmental Releases of Genetically Engineered Organisms, pp 163–180. Eds J. Fiksel and V. T. Covello, Springer-Verlag, New York 1989.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davis, B. D., The recombinant DNA scenarios: Andromeda strain, chimera and golem. Am. Sci.65 (1977) 547–555.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis, B. D., Evolution, epidemiology, and recombinant DNA, in: The Recombinant DNA Debate, pp. 137–154. Eds D. A. Jackson and Stephen Stich. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N. J. 1979.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davis, B. D., Bacterial domestication: underlying assumptions. Science235 (1987) 1329–1335.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davis, B. D. (Ed.), The Genetic Revolation: Scientific Prospects and Public Perceptions, Johns Hopkins, Baltimore 1991.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gillett, J. W., Stern, A. M., Levin, S. A., Harwell, M. A., Alexander, M., and Andow, D. A., Potential impacts of environmental release of biotechnology products: assessment, regulation, and research needs (ERC-075 Cornell, reprinted as) Environmental Management10 (1986) 433–463.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grobstein, C., Asilomar and the formation of public policy, in: The Gene-Splicing Wars: Reflections on the Recombinant DNA Controversy, pp. 3–10. Eds R. Zilinskas and B. K. Zimmerman. Macmillan, New York 1986.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Halvorson, H. O., Pramer, D., and Rogul, M., Engineered Organisms in the Environment: Scientific Issues. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D. C. 1985.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Knoll, A. H., End of the proterozoic era. Sci. Am.265 (1991) 64–73.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Krimsky, S., Biotechnics and Society: The Rise of Industrial Genetics. Praeger, New York 1991.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laycock, G., The Alien Animals: The story of Imported Wildlife. Audubon/Ballantine Books, New York 1970.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Levidow, L., A precautionary note for GEMs? Reflections on the Second International Conference on the Release of Genetically Engineered Microorganisms (REGEM 2). Microbial Releases1 (1992) 55–60.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    McCormick, D., Frankenfood... or frank discussion? Bio/Technology10 (1992) 829.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Introduction of Recombinant DNA-engineered Organisms into the Environment: Key Issues. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1987.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Research Council (NRC) Field Testing Genetically Modified Organisms: Framework for Decision. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1989.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Office of Technology Assessment, New Developments in Biotechnology 3: Field-Testing Engineered Organisms: Genetic and Ecological Issues. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 1988.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Page, R.E., Neotropical African bees. Nature339 (1989) 181–182.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Regal, P. J., The ecology of evolution: implications of the individualistic paradigm, in: Engineered Organisms in the Environment: Scientific Issues, pp. 11–19. Eds H. O. Halvorson, D. Pramer and M. Rogul. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C. 1985.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Regal, P. J., Models of genetically engineered organisms and their ecological impact, in: Ecology of Biological Invasions of North America and Hawaii, pp. 111–129. Eds H. A. Mooney and J. A. Drake. Springer-Verlag, New York 1986.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Regal, P. J., Sate and effective biotechnology: mobilizing scientific expertise, Application of Biotechnology: Environmental and Policy Issues, pp. 145–164. Ed. J. R. Fowle III. Westview Press, Boulder Colorado 1987.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Regal, P. J., The adaptive potential of genetically engineered organisms in nature. Trends in Biotechnology (Special combined issues of TIBTECH and TREE)6 (1988) s36-s38.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Regal, P. J., Biotechnology jitters: will they blow over? Biotechnology Education1 (1989) 51–55.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Regal, P. J., Gene flow and adaptability in transgenic agricultural organisms: long term risks and overview, in: Risk Assessment in Agricultural Biotechnology: Proceedings of the International Conference, Davis, California, 1988, pp. 102–110. Eds J. J. Marois and G. Bruening. Publication No. 1928, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California 6701 San Pablo Av., Oakland, California 1990.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sharples, F. E., Spread of organisms with novel genotypes: thoughts from an ecological perspective. ORNL/TM-8473, Oak Ridge National Laboratory environmental Sciences Division Publication No. 2040. 1982 (Reprinted in Recombinant DNA Technology Bulletin 6: 43–56)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sharples, F. E., Regulation of products from biotechnology. Science235 (1987) 1329–1332.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sharples, F. E., Ecological aspects of hazard identification for environmental uses of genetically engineered organisms: Risk Assessment in Genetic Engineering: Environmental Release of Organisms, pp. 18–31. Eds M. A. Levin and H. S. Strauss, McGraw-Hill, New York 1991.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tiedje, J. M., Colwell, R. K., Grossman, Y. L., Hodson, R. E., Lenski, R. E., Mack, R. N., and Regal, P. J., The planned introduction of genetically engineered organisms: ecological considerations and recommendations. Ecology70 (1989) 297–315.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wrubel, R. P., Krimsky, S., and Wetzler, R. E., Field testing transgenic plants: An analysis of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's environmental assessments. BioScience42 (1992) 280–289.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Birkhäuser Verlag Basel 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. J. Regal
    • 1
  1. 1.Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior DepartmentUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations