Epigenetics: the study of heritable changes in gene expression and other genomic functions without altering the underlying DNA sequence.
While controversial, epigenetics does appear to offer potentially significant value to livestock genetic programs. Epigenetic studies show that not all genetic information is in the DNA sequence as a significant portion is found in modifications on the epigenome, particularly in DNA methylation (DNAm). It makes sense that manipulating both DNA and methylation of the epigenomes could add significant value to overall livestock genetics efforts. What doesn’t make sense is that such has yet to be explored on any appreciable scale.
In the scientific article “Epigenetics: A New Challenge in the Post-Genomic Era of Livestock,” author Oscar Gonzalez- Recio, of the Departamento de Mejora Genética Animal, Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria in Madrid, Spain, explains the significance in variations in methylation patterns between individuals, even, if not especially, between those that are genotypically identical and what that can mean to breeders and farmers. The article explains the impact thusly:
“…the environment may affect the methylation pattern of up to three generations cohabiting under the same specific circumstances at a given time t during pregnancy: the productive female, the fetus, and the fetus’ germ cells. Hence, what happens to an animal during its lifetime may have consequences in future generations.”
Certainly the article does a good job in spelling out the science, but this SciShow video serves as excellent (and fun) crib notes, well, on humans, but the same concept applies to farm animals and crops as well.
While epigenetics is increasingly popular in genetic studies of cancer and other human diseases, it has yet to gain much attention in livestock genetic studies although the potential benefits in veterinary medicine alone are enticing. Gonzalez- Recio explains in the article that:
“Farms could use epigenetic information to reduce disease incidence and the use of antibiotics in animal production. Personalized medicine using methylation on DNA is currently carried out on cancer research in humans (Peedicayil, 2008; Gomez and Ingelman-Sundberg, 2009), and seems to be a promising strategy for veterinary medicine as well.”
While some farming operations may be unsettled at the thought that they may need to change the environment not only for the current animals' welfare but for future offspring three generations deep, they can likely see profits exceed the costs of doing so, according to Gonzalez- Recio.
“For instance, animals with concentrate and uni-feed diet systems are expected to be differently methylated than animals in a less intensive system based on a pasture feeding systems. It will be important to detect what practices are associated to favorable methylation patterns that affect disease resistance and other economically important traits.Finding this missing causality would assist in rising animals under favorable circumstances and reduce unfavorable methylation patterns.”
Among those “other economically important traits” are likely to be higher profits for epigenetically "certified" livestock and genetic material sales and improved public relations that can lead to better acceptance of meat products and fewer incidents of animal activist protests.
That is, of course, if anyone actually starts looking hard at epigenetics for livestock. It certainly looks to be the next promising frontier.
“We are sliding back into a dark era,” said Nina Fedoroff, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) at the 2012 AAAS meeting held in Vancouver in February. “And there seems little we can do about it. I am profoundly depressed at just how difficult it has become merely to get a realistic conversation started on issues such as climate change or genetically modified organisms.”
Fedoroff, one of the world’s most distinguished agricultural scientists, was speaking at an event most noted for its annual unveiling of scientific accomplishments. But instead of the expected introductory speech of ‘We are scientists and here is what we have learned,’ the audience heard what many knew but were loathe to voice. Fedoroff admitted out loud, in public, and in an official capacity that she was “scared to death” of the anti-science movement.
The movement is spreading throughout much of the western world at an alarming rate, primarily among large religious and conservative populations. It is the most powerful in the U.S. where, despite the Obama administration’s friendliness to science, a hoard of Republicans are actually regulating and campaigning on anti-science platforms.
Most notable of the science deniers is Rick Santorum, a GOP presidential candidate who is currently leading in the race. At the Republican party debate in Florida, Santorum declared he should be the presidential candidate for the party because he caught on to the “hoax” of climate change earlier than his opponents. This claim is hotly contested by his opponents not for the obvious error in calling climate change a hoax, but in which of them labeled it such first. Further, the candidates are competing on how fast and hard they can stomp evolution and climate change science out of existence. Worse still, throngs of followers are applauding the demise of science.
Up until recently, scientists believed turning the tide back to logical, critical thinking was a matter of education. The facts, scientists thought, would surely rectify the error in denying scientific findings. But that has not been the case partly because recent educational efforts have lacked the high-visibility of previous efforts such as those done by the patriotism-evoking NASA, and partly because the anti-science movement is attacking education itself.
The anti-science movement is attacking education on many fronts:
by insisting creationism be taught either as a replacement or beside evolution;
by lobbying to defund public education from the earliest grades through college level thereby limiting access to science education;
by thoroughly discrediting acclaimed scientists as alarmists and snake-oil salesmen;
and, by attacking science supporters as “snobs, elitists, and anti-religion.”
If science and the businesses that rely on using the sciences topping the movement’s hit list, e.g. genetic modification and climate change, are to succeed the fight-back must be as coordinated and well-funded as the anti-science movement is. Further, the pro-science efforts must appeal emotionally and not just logically to the man-on-the-street. Pro-science efforts must also protect and promote the value of education in general and not just for science and math. Others believe science defenders should also use fear to drive home the true severity of the problems mankind is facing. You can hear that argument in the video below.
Scientists are just now beginning to realize the behemoth threat in massive organized efforts to “undermine scientific data by people for whom that data represents a threat to their status quo” says Professor Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego and co-author of Merchants of Doubt. “Given the power of these people, scientists will have their work cut out for them.”
But businesses from the agriculture-based to alternative energy producers are going to have to step up and defend science too. If they fail to do so, they can expect to be heavily regulated or their businesses outright banned by those who would use religious dogma as a weapon against commercial competition and/or regulation of their own industries.
While much has been said about livestock’s contribution of greenhouse gases to climate change, too little has been said about how climate change will affect the world’s food supply. Indeed, scientists are justifiably worried about why food and sustainability are overlooked in discussions on human adaptability to climate change. Given the pressures on food production by environmental changes already taking place and a human population that will soon exceed 1 billion people, such an oversight can lead to record rates of starvation in the foreseeable future.
Such is mind-boggling since it should be obvious that producing drought- and disease- resistant livestock is a bigger imperative than ever if a booming human population is to be fed through a series of erratic changes in the weather.
This means that genetic modification is of more importance to human survival rates than previously thought. Yet the world’s focus tends to be on organic farming where genetic modification is at best frowned upon and at worst outright banned. Organic farming does indeed have an important role in human survival rates but it cannot be the only answer to the increasingly complex global problem of climate change.
Indeed, such a myopic view may prove devastating to the already shrinking genetic resources in every country of the world. Gene banks can act as a backup to maintaining breeds in the production systems where they were developed. But they can also provide hardier stock for countries where current livestock is not faring well in a suddenly altered environment.
Traditionally, livestock breeders have shared animal genetic resources willingly with neighboring breeders. More recently, there is some gene swapping among breeders in different countries although that is stifled by growing protections of intellectual property and commercial interests. But if climate change continues to impact entire regions, then gene restoration and/or gene modification may prove to be our last defense against starvation on a scale that few can imagine now.
In the journal Science, scientists spell out why it is so hard for food security to gain traction in climate change discussions. But those are not the only reasons. Chief among the resistance are the science-deniers found in big numbers in leading countries like the U.S. Science-deniers fiercely refuse to believe climate change or evolution exist. Further, they actively block the use and large-scale acceptance of the biosciences as a means to address many of man’s food problems.
Perhaps it is time for farmers to stand beside scientists and explain in an earthy way to the people around the world exactly what is happening now to both the weather and food production. Because this is no high-brow, intellectual discussion, nor is it an attack on religious or political values. Food is simply a necessity for all and even the science-deniers will learn that soon enough. It is better for us all if we present a show-and-tell than for nature to do so.
Since mankind’s very first war, attacking the opponent’s food supply has been an extremely effective tactic. Yet somehow in modern times it is difficult for the public to perceive such a threat beyond the occasional benign production bungling that typically leads to a regional outbreak of disease. Governments and scientists, on the other hand, are much more aware of the true scope of agroterrorism risks and they are struggling to address them – partly through the biosciences and partly through a reorganization of defenses.
In regards to the latter, governments are tilting away from relying on public-private partnerships and are now turning to farmers around the globe as the first line of defense.
The two sides of the debate have very different opinions on how to prevent or curtail such threats. Those that favor organic farming believe that the evolution of natural foods is the best defense. They contend that removing antibiotics, artificial fertilizers, pesticides and aggressive genetic manipulations allows livestock and crops to develop natural defenses against disease while also preserving the effectiveness of antibiotics in the fight against an outbreak in humans.
Those that favor genetic enhancement of both livestock and crops argue that defenses against agroterrorism induced diseases can be thwarted faster and more effectively via the proactive use of the biosciences. Time, they say, is the real enemy because too much of the food supply can be lost to agroterrorism and decades of starvation may elapse before nature can recover on her own.
What the two arguments have in common is the belief that the answer lies in genetics. One side argues for natural evolution, the other for man-aided evolution, but they are both talking about genetics as both the cause and the cure.
Whatever the outcome of these debates, one truth is laid bare: the biosciences are no longer the strict and regulated province of elected governments and formally trained scientists. Biohackers, both those of the benevolent and the malicious ilk, have forever changed the question of manipulating genetics from one of morality to one of mortality.
The question of right versus wrong in regards to genetic manipulation has shifted from man’s “right” to use, to man’s intent of use. The days of considering foregoing its use entirely are long behind us. In the end, agroterrorism is the tie-breaker in the debate.
Scientists are getting closer to producing cultured meat products for broad human consumption. The first lab-grown hamburger is expected to be produced “in the coming year” according to a Reuters report on Mark Post’s progress with stem cells harvested from slaughterhouse leftovers. Post is a vascular biologist at the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands and so far he’s been quite successful in producing inch long strips of animal flesh.
Granted the meat strips don’t look all that appetizing considering they lack blood vessels and therefore lack the vibrant red coloring consumers expect from a slab of meat. They are also incredibly thin, appearing more akin to gossamer butterfly wings than a thick, sizzling steak. Lastly, they lack fat which means that the taste likely falls somewhere between bland and ick!
None of those early shortcomings bother Post. Not even the need to regularly exercise these tiny slices of meat deters him. Yes, he must exercise the meat as it is muscle tissue and like all muscle tissue, it will waste away if not exercised regularly. Post deals with this by stretching them between Velcro tabs to provide resistance against the muscle fibers natural tendency to contract.
Post says the first hamburger will likely be made of thousands of layers of these cultured meat strips seasoned by lab-made fat and pressed into the expected patty shape. The whole process is labor-intensive which will likely push the burger’s price tag upwards from 300,000 U.S. dollars. However, production costs will drop with time as every technology does once the process is refined and perfected.
Supporters say the cultured meat rivals growth hormone and antibiotic fed animals produced by factory farms in terms of nutrition. Detractors say that the lab-grown meat will still meet with defeat in light of the current trend favoring organic and free-range foods.
In any case, cultured meat is not likely to pose any significant competitive threat to traditional or factory farmers in the immediate future. Production costs are still prohibitive and production processes far too slow to hit sufficient volumes to lower those costs.
More work also needs to be done to improve appearance, taste, smell, and texture so that the public will accept the food more easily. A serious and extensive public education campaign will also likely be necessary.
But when all is said and done, cultured meat is a necessity if a world full of humans are to be fed, says Post and his supporters. Conventional meat production is terribly inefficient and ultimately unsustainable which is why scientists keeping looking for ways to improve the entire process. Cultured meat, it is hoped, can eventually resolve many of these problems. To learn more, watch Mark Post’s TEDxBrainport presentation on advances in cultured meat in the video below.
