Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Will GM animals follow the GM plant fate?

Abstract

Despite being both Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), GM plants and GM animals share few similarities outside the laboratory premises. Whilst GM plants were soon embraced by industry and became a commercial success, only recently have GM animals reached the market. However, an area where GM animals are likely to follow the GM plant path is on their potential to cause social unrest. One of the major flaws of the 90s GMO crisis was the underestimation of the influence that different players can have in the adoption of new biotechnological applications. In this article we describe the unique evolution of GM animals in two of the most important fields: the pharmaceutical and the breeding sectors. For our analysis, we have subdivided the production chain into three governance domains: Science, Market and Public. We describe the influence and interaction of each of these domains as a vehicle for predicting the future adoptability of GM animals and to highlight conflicting areas.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Chen KZ, Zhang Y (2011) Regional case study: R2. Agricultural R&D as an engine of productivity growth, China. In: Foresight project on global food and farming futures. Report from the Department of Business, innovation and skills, London

  2. Eurobarometer (2008) European’s attitudes towards animal cloning, analytical report. Survey requested by Directorate General Health and Consumers and coordinated by Directoreate General Communication (European Commission). In: Flash Eurobarometer, vol 238. The Gallup Organization, Brussels, October 2008

  3. Gordon JW, Scangos GA, Plotkin DJ, Barbosa JA, Ruddle FH (1980) Genetic transformation of mouse embryos by microinjection of purified DNA. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 77:7380–7384

  4. Hammer RE, Pursel VG, Rexroad CE Jr, Wall RJ, Bolt DJ, Ebert KM, Palmiter RD, Brinster RL (1985) Production of GM rabbits, sheep and pigs by microinjection. Nature 315(6021):680–683; Jun 20–26

  5. Houdebine LM (2010) Meeting Report: UC Davis Transgenic Animal Research Conference VII. Tahoe City, USA. Transgenic Res 19:127–130

  6. Kalaitzandonakes N, Bijman J (2003) Who is driving biotechnology acceptance? Nat Biotechol 21:366–369

  7. Kearnes M, Macnaghten P, Wilsdon J (2006) Governing at the nanoscale: people, policies and emerging technologies. Report by DEMOS ISBN 1 84180 156 9

  8. Kind A, Schnieke A (2008) Animal pharming, two decades on. Transgenic Res 17:1025–1033

  9. Ledford H (2006) The farmyard drug store. Nature 443(7107):16–17

  10. Moon Chapotin S, Wolt JD (2007) Genetically modified crops for bioeconomy: meeting public and regulatory expectations. Transgenic Res 16:675–688

  11. Mora C, Menozzi D, Aramyan LH, Valeeva NI, Reddy GP, Zimmermann KL, Merigo A, Pancini S (2011) PEGASUS deliverable 3.1-report on production chain context. Available at http://www.pegasus.wur.nl/UK/

  12. Murray JC, Maga EA (2010) Is there a risk from not using GE animals? Transgenic Res 19:257–361

  13. Neeteson-van Niewenhoven AM (1999) The future developments in farm animal breeding and reproduction and their ethical, legal and consumer implications. Report from the EC-ELSA project by Farm Animal Industrial Platform

  14. Powell K (2003) Barnyard biotech—lame duck or golden goose? Nat Biotechnol 21(9):965–967

  15. Ramessar K, Peremarti A, Gómez-Galera S, Naqvie S, Moralejo M, Muñoz P, Capell T, Christou P (2007) Biosafety and risk assessment framework for selectable marker genes in transgenic crop plants: a case of the science not supporting the politics. Transgenic Res 16:261–280

  16. Reardon T, Barrett CB (2000) Agroindustrialization, globalization, and international development: an overview of issues, patterns, and determinants. Agr Econ 23(3):195–205

  17. Renkoski MA (1997) Marketing strategies of biotechnology firms: implications for US Agriculture. J Agric Appl Econ 29(1):123–128

  18. Rollin BE (1995) The Frankenstein syndrome: ethical and social issues in the genetic engineering of animals. Cambridge University Press, New York

  19. Rollin WJ, Kennedy J (2011) Consumers and new food technologies. Trends Food Sci Tech 22(2–3):99–111

  20. Tait J (2007) Systemic interactions in life science innovation. Technol Anal Strateg 19(3):257–277

  21. Van den Hout JM, Reuser AJ, de Klerk JB, Arts WF, Smeitink JA, Van der Ploeg AT (2001) Enzyme therapy for Pompe disease with recombinant human alpha-glucosidase from rabbit milk. J Inherit Metab Dis 24(2):266–274

  22. Vàzquez-Salat N, Salter B (2011) Policy implications of introducing genetically modified (GM) animals in the European Union. PEGASUS Work Package 6.2 Deliverable. Available at http://www.pegasus.wur.nl/UK/

  23. Vàzquez-Salat N, Salter B, Smets G (2010) International multi-level governance of GMOs: the EU, USA and Indian cases. PEGASUS Deliverable 6.1—scoping report. Available at http://www.pegasus.wur.nl/UK/

  24. Vàzquez-Salat N, Salter B, Smets G, Houdebine LM (2012) The current State of GMO governance: are we ready for GM animals? Biotechnol Adv (in press)

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr Fillip Cnuddle for his comments on Fig. 1. This article draws on research conducted by the authors in the course of the PEGASUS programme. PEGASUS is an integrated project funded by the European Union in the Seventh Framework Programme (http://www.pegasus.wur.nl/UK/).

Author information

Correspondence to Núria Vàzquez-Salat.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vàzquez-Salat, N., Houdebine, L. Will GM animals follow the GM plant fate?. Transgenic Res 22, 5–13 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-012-9648-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Genetically modified animals
  • Transgenic
  • Governance
  • Policy
  • Public
  • Market