Hi there
First, I try to answer the question: What regulatory issues could be
raised in using Crispr/Cas9-modified plants in the field. As written in my blog
there is a pioneering discussion about the topic going on, how to deal with genetical
engineering at the level of international and national law. In Europa, the
authorities are currently debating on how to implement these newish methods in
the existing law.
Swiss law says: “Genetically modified organisms may be put into
circulation only if the Confederation has granted authorisation.” (Gene Technology Act, Art. 12, BAFU)
That means in general that the handling of this GMO’s is forbidden or at least
very difficult, as is research. But in the same act there is this one sentence:
“Genetically modified organism means
organisms in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not
occur under natural conditions by crossing or natural recombination.” (Gene Technology Act, Art. 5, BAFU) So
in principle the Crispr/Cas9-method does not go under the term of genetic modified
plants. Which leads to the conclusion that the Swiss regulation could allow genetic
engineered plants.
To answer the question above: Regulatory issues should be carefully
considered, but transparency must be given. Coexistence models could be
conceived which specifically identify the attachment areas of the plants. In my
opinion there is from today’s perspective no scientific reason to handle Crispr/Cas9
as strict as GMO’s, but a controlled cultivation makes sense, especially in the
beginning phase of acceptance. The precautionary and polluter-pays principles apply.
(GTA, Art. 2, BAFU)
But still even biotechnology scientists recommend at least a monitoring
program of the ongoing researches, especially at on- and off-target mutations. (Lawrenson et al, 2015) And the Federal
Council in Switzerland extended last year the moratorium against GMO’s until
2021, to have more time in the discussion about the future of GMO cultivation
in Swiss agriculture. (media release, Bern, 29.06.2016) What shows
how sensible the topic is. Nobody “wants to burn their fingers”, how the Swiss
would say, at the same time, however, much is at stake. The latest news in the
patent dispute is that the European Patent Office (EPA) allocate a patent to the
Broad-Institute about Crispr-Cpf1 (a variation of the Cas9 enzyme). (NZZ-article, 02.03.2017) That these
patents are cradles of gold is needless to say.
It’s hard estimate how the society will react in the coming ten years.
There will always be a part of the society which is absolutely decline Gen
technology out of emotional reasons. Will the research community succeed in
conducting a fact-based discussion in public? Will the pressure from industry and medicine
be too great to allow any discussion at all? Whatever the outcome, the next few years will be very interesting to
follow.
Thanks for reading and commenting
References:
Federal Act of 21 March 2003 on Non-Human Gene
Technology (Gene Technology Act, GTA), 2004, Federal Office of Environment
Tom Lawrenson, Oluwaseyi Shorinola,
Nicola Stacey, Chengdao Li, Lars Østergaard, Nicola Patron,
Cristobal Uauy, Wendy Harwood, 2015: Induction of targeted, heritable mutations in barley and Brassica
oleracea using RNA-guided Cas9 nuclease
Media release of the Federal Office, Bern, 29.06.2016, found (06.05.2017)
at: https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen.msg-id-62442.html
Article in paper, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, found (06.05.2017) at: https://www.nzz.ch/wissenschaft/gentechnologie-die-eu-erteilt-crispr-patent-an-das-broad-institute-ld.148739
