[ad_1]
Berkeley, California. A young laboratory badistant in a white coat walks hastily through the corridors of the small, low-rise building. At the University Campus Institute in Berkeley, she is looking for the latest biotechnological tool: the so-called gene scissors with the complicated name Crispr / Cas9: "The most interesting thing for German listeners should probably be our freezer, where we keep the Genschere. " He opens a large industrial freezer
"Here you can see here a tube of frozen liquid containing the Crispr / Cas9 complexes, where thousands of small scissors of genes swim."
The small test tubes They are anything but spectacular, but when the Crispr / Cas9 method was discovered in 2012 in Berkeley, it triggered a revolution in biotechnology. At the time, the world was watching the little California laboratory and the two explorers: the American biochemist Jennifer Doudna and the Frenchman Emmanuelle Charpentier, a microbiologist. For years, both have been among the big favorites for the Nobel Prize.
Tricky Lawsuit of France
Six years after their discovery, however, this week's looks will be on a building in Luxembourg: At the European Court of Justice on Wednesday read a historic verdict. The highest European judges have lost for months on the papers of a delicate trial of France. They have to decide how "natural" plants have changed their genome with the new Crispr method.
Simplified, researchers use gene scissors to rearrange the genome at the desired location, thereby changing plant properties.
19659002] French organizations for the protection of animals and nature pursue in Luxembourg: For them, Crispr plants are artificial plants, that is to say genetically modified plants, to which they belong. applies the European directive on the production of genetically modified organisms. For this, there are strict licensing regulations in the European Union. Proponents of the new methods argue that this GMO directive would only apply to organisms whose genetic material has been modified in a "naturally impossible" way. They claim that Crispr's technology only simulates nature and modifies plants as pastoralists have for centuries.
Emmanuelle Charpentier – one of the discoverers of the so-called "scissors of genes" – is now director of the Max Planck Society. Institute of Infection Biology. Not far from the Chancery and the German Bundestag, she conducts research on the site of Charity Berlin in its laboratory of advanced genetics
She looks forward to the decision of the ECJ and explains the meaning of his invention: Since 40 to 50 years ago, there have been many ways to artificially modify DNA, so Crispr technology now brings a huge degree of simplification, which is cheap, effective and completely complete – scientists who have trouble in find some DNA in some cells They can now do it in every cell, and with Crispr, they have the right genetic engineering tool. "
First products available on the American market
A few months after the discovery, the first Crispr products arrived in the US Market: A mushroom, a mushroom mushroom, for example, that does not tend to stains brown on pressure points.And the industry is already turning to promises of salvation and claims, for example, AIDS and cancer could be cured in the future more easily or the dangerous disease of malaria could be avoided by mutagenic mosquitoes It is also hoped that Crispr wheat could withstand extreme drought – a consequence of climate change It remains to be seen whether these promises will be fulfilled.
And even the researcher Charpentier is in favor of more Regulatory: "This technology is powerful and so we need a strict regulation, Europe could play this role, even if some countries like Cepe ndant, it would be very important for us to reach an agreement in Europe. "
The American biochemist Jennifer A. Doudna has developed the "gene scissors" Crispr / Cas9 (dpa / Alexander Heinl)
The European Commission will only comment after the court decision, and the German government also wants the clbadification of the method Crispr depends on the verdict: "In Germany, the commercial cultivation of genetically modified organisms is prohibited."
"The ECJ now has a historic decision, and if the verdict came, it certainly has a revolutionary effect," explainsProfessor Dr. Detlef Bartsch, head of the genetic engineering department of the Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) and responsible for approving new genetically modified products.
Bartsch is open to the new Crispr procedure: "On the issue of point mutation, we are, as an authority, of the opinion that they are exempted from the fact that". they are not covered by genetic engineering law, because we can not distinguish the product traditional breeding.This would mean that the breeders can obtain a product more quickly and more targeted, which is useful. "
Disagreement in the great coalition
The Federal Minister of Agriculture, Julia Klöckner, refuses a request for an interview on the subject. "We should not reject new methods such as Crispr / Reflex Case," said the CDU politician about the German editorial network.
Your cabinet colleague, Federal Environment Minister Svenja Schulze of the SPD a regulation: "What is clear to me, there must not be any d & rsquo; Introduction of genetic engineering by the door déro We need to make sure that people continue to have freedom of choice, that they can decide whether they want to eat genetically modified products or not. First of all, we do not want to expose genetically modified products in the field. This breeding is simply possible, and we can no longer control it and "catch" it.
Foods that are subject to the strict directive on EU GMOs can not be found in German supermarkets until now According to the latest study "Consciousness Study 2017" of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. 39 Environment, 93% of Germans refuse genetic engineering and large supermarket chains have clearly positioned themselves in the decision-making of the ECJ: Germany and Austria, such as EDEKA, Lidl, REWE and SPAR, have launched an urgent appeal to the European Commission. It is a matter of clbadifying the methods of the new genetic engineering and the resulting products according to the European law on genetic engineering as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and regulating them accordingly.
Bayer AG in Monheim, the largest agricultural society in the world It is there that great hopes are placed in the new technology: Adrian Percy, director of research at Bayer's agricultural division: "Crispr / Case is a purely natural process produced by an isolated bacterium. In addition, no foreign gene is introduced into the cell here. It's something that could happen in nature too. Scientists are now able to accelerate these natural processes only. That's why Crispr is such a fascinating technology. "
Emmanuelle Charpentier the" Genschere " Crispr / Cas9 developed in collaboration with Doudna. She is doing research at the Max Planck Institute for Infection Biology in Berlin. (Hallbauer & Fioretti)
Adrian Percy explains how he would use this "exciting technology" as he calls it: "Wherever genetically modified seeds are allowed to grow, we are changing the genetically engineered crop modified to be tolerant to the herbicide, our herbicide is applied in the field, and the plant remains alive, but the weeds die. "
Bayer AG maintains a research base near the Frankfurt airport for this purpose.The soccer field greenhouses not only seek new pesticides, but also produce crops using the latest biotechnologies. Purpose: crops should be able to survive and tolerate Bayer's plant-based poisons. "For example, corn tolerates maize fairly well, but soy is already hit, which would not be useful in soy as selective product. "
Hundreds of trials on small plants
.Until now, these mutagenic varieties have not been grown in Europe, with the judgment of the ECJ could change that, at least the company's hope. "Another Bayer employee explains why the company relies on the Crispr method: gene scissors can alter the DNA of the crop much faster and faster. more effectively so that the m If you use a Crispr / Cas biotechnology method, which is relatively easier to target, is much faster than these breeding approaches, then imagine that we need to test several million plants here. to find the one that may be resistant We do not know if it will work. "
Companies like Bayer AG are worried that they will not be able to compete in the international market, especially in the US, plants that have been developed with Crispr / Cas technology have long been approved as a new breed – without 39, they have to be labeled for the consumer
And in Germany While the European Commission still has all the options open, the ministries and authorities have already set themselves in camera. Environment, one is rather skeptical.On the other hand, at the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, the Federal Office of Consumer Protection is impatient.For Detlef Bartsch of the BVL, the friendly states of the Genetic engineering as the United States, Brazil and Argentina are models: "If there are point mutations that can not be differentiated, this is beyond the law of genetic engineering. e. I hope this will provide clarification. "
Dr. Margret Engelhard of the Federal Agency for the Conservation of Nature contradicts her colleague from the BVL She is the competent authority of the Federal Ministry of the Environment on this issue. and molecular biologist has worked in synthetic biology, so knows very well the opportunities and dangers of new genetic engineering: "When I change a gene, even a very specific change, then I still do not know how this change on the metabolism By introducing targeted point mutations in many parts of the genome, one can imagine that one can deactivate a whole metabolism in a targeted way, or positively regulate or down-regulate genes. And, of course, this can have an impact on your health or the environment, and it is important that we examine these organisms. "
According to them, it's not enough to look at the magnitude of the change in DNA is." He wants to examine what are the risks and consequences that may be related to new genetic procedures.
The decision of the European Court of Justice is that opponents and proponents of genetic engineering are also expecting Michal Bobek is the general counsel at the ECJ In a so-called request for a preliminary ruling, he was already d & # 39; agree with the opinion of supporters that Crispr would not be a genetic genius Detlef Bartsch: "He also said that, the general advocate," this mutagenesis per se could be regulated at the national level "There will have to be a case-by-case decision and I'm sure that will happen. And then we come into play. "
The BVL would then like to examine these new cultures, which were created using common scissors, in a" case-by-case decision "and possibly allow it in Germany. This is surprising because in terms of green genetic engineering approval is actually responsible for the European Union.And what happens if these mutagenic crops are on the market? 39, be grown in Germany in the fields and should not be labeled as "genetically modified" in the supermarket.The seed industry has welcomed this. "I think that a plaintiff simply needs the legal certainty that what society is developing is properly allowed, because it would be silly if it had a product, and they think that it's not genetic engineering, but genetic engineering. "
And then I think if we come into play we will really have to make individual decisions. We are actually asking for molecular data. Then we can decide, yes that is comparable to conventional products, would be exempted. Or, no, it's something so vast, we must allow genetic engineering. "
Interrogated by the Federal Minister for the Environment, Svenja Schulze vehemently contradicts and is also surprised:" I believe that in reality, it is very difficult to distinguish is. These are changes that are deliberately made. It is a manipulation of genetic engineering. And as such, it must also be verified. What impact does this have on the environment? Is it really safe? Is there no "widths" that you do not even see at first sight? I think every genetic modification needs to be studied very carefully. You can not say it this way in the field. We can not, simply because it's "new" and use a different method, say that it will not be so dangerous. "
This already suggests a dispute between the ministries concerned if the European Court of Justice votes in favor of Judging by the new biotechnological process such as Crispr.
" These are comparisons and statements that are scientifically completely absurd . One can not directly compare one with the other, "says Christoph Then of the Institute for Independent Biotech Impact Assessment, Biotech Test, and a long-time critic the debate, pointing out that the Crispr / Cas process is considered a
Stresses then that one can not simply compare a mutation that occurs by chance with the average of the scissors of genes on the I & # 39; DNA: "These are specific interventions, and to say that this should be safer than conventional breeding, it's just absurd." The traditional breeding has fed us pretty well so far But if you want to do something specific, if you put something on the plants, which you would not do normally, I have to look at it first, before I can make a safety statement. if Mr. Bartsch sees the opposite, he is simply out of place for me. "
Harald Ebner, spokesman for genetic engineering of the Green Party in the Bundestag, criticized the fact that the Federal Ministry of Agriculture He recalls that in 2016 the Federal Office has tried to admit a genetically modified "rape of Cibus", but that he could not take it to the German courts.
"Hanebüchen, that push against the population" [Incidemmentdansl'accorddecoalitiondelaCDU/CSUetduSPDestdéterminécommentfairefaceàlanouvelleingénieriegénétique:”Jepensequ'ilestscandaleuxdepoussericicontrelapopulationquibienévidemmentparlagrandemajoritédesLeconsommateurn'estpasrecherchéOnpourraitsil'onregardel'accorddecoalitionarriveràlaconclusionicicibleraitspécifiquementune”rupturedecoalition”préparéeParcequequiécritdanssonaccorddecoalitionqu'ilveutavoirunrèglementici«entenantcomptedelalibertédechoixetentenantcompteduprincipedeprécaution»quinepeutquemettreenplaceunrèglementpourl'ensembledunouveaugéniegénétique»[194559002] 
Svenja Schulze (SPD) alliance / dpa / Christophe Gateau)
However, the federal minister of environment, Svenja Schulze, is not bothered by this question. Because he insists on the coalition agreement.
It seems that the SPD does not want to be introduced to this issue by the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and remains firm in the strict regulation of the new genetic engineering: "The coalition agreement is very, very clear: He says we want regulation and we want to give consumers the freedom of choice, and I would still like to talk to my colleague, but the coalition agreement is very clear. "
Source link
