New episode in the soap around the note of the Scientific Committee (SC) of the High Council of Biotechnology (HCB) on new techniques of genetic modification: HCB has still not published comments Yves Bertheau, who has resigned, on that note handed to the government in early February. A note however rich scientific considerations. Inf’OGM has decided to publish on its website [1] .
Interviewed by the newspaper Le Monde Christine Noiville, President of HCB, explained 12 April 2016 that “ in a gesture of peace, [it] proposed to Yves Bertheau finally publish its views differ, but he refused . ” Yves Bertheau, contacted by Inf’OGM says refusing that his comment be published in January as “ a divergent position ” but he did ask to HCB published as “ review ” an updated note. A shade that can look very formal but that is respectful of the internal regulations to HCB with which the direction of HCB took too much latitude, the researcher believes. Moreover, Yves Bertheau stresses that HCB has offered to publish her text March 30, 2016 when he was no longer a member of the HCB. And meantime, HCB had recognized that the text of the Scientific Committee of the HCB was no longer officially an “opinion” on the repatriation in the “Publications” under the title of Interim Report on NPBT [2] [3] . To date, comments Yves Bertheau have anyway not been published by the HCB …
Inf’OGM publish comments Yves Bertheau himself wishes to make public, so that everyone – including the French government -. can finally access this critical interim report of the CS HCB
Yves Bertheau clear from the outset that his comment could not be a “ comprehensive assessment of the note “CS on new biotechnologies because” the little time that [it] is granted “: the formal request was received March 30, 2016 to a response before April 6. Yves Bertheau has chosen “ to emphasize that [it] seems most criticism: some gaps, and through a priori.” And the picture is the height of fears … First, the working group [who worked from 2013 to 2016] “ only discusses some of the techniques or changes (…) [and] begs some techniques such meganucleases “and reverse the basis of the definition of GMOs by EU legislation which is based on the only method of obtaining and not on the composition of the final product. Then Yves Bertheau considers certain definitions used in the note of CS are “ imprecise and partially incorrect ,” opening the door to fuzzy concepts scientifically. But this vagueness or confusion as Appoints Yves Bertheau, finds “ in the data sheets ” appended to the note of the CS that the resigning researcher had already denounced the end of 2015 [4] .
But more fundamentally, Yves Bertheau believes that this discussion paper raises fundamental issues and scientific legitimacy.
It considers, first, the off-target effects (unwanted changes that may appear elsewhere in the genome) were treated too lightly since addressed “ indirectly through ” technical progress “ current . ” These effects may, however, be generated as by the modification technique itself only by the further steps of the entire process. Intracellular penetration of the reactants, selection of transformed cells and proliferation of cells for regeneration of plants
Second, it points out that techniques such as grafting, agro-infiltration and cisgenesis have not been fully addressed. For the transplant, it disputes the contention that the fruits (of non-transgenic scion) will not carry modification (s) gene (s) or epigenetic (s) induced (s) by the rootstock if it has genetically modified. Indeed, it has been demonstrated that microRNAs circulate between the rootstock and scion and can induce epimutations, says the researcher. Similarly, about the agroinfiltration, the SC would have avoided addressing the risks associated with “ handling errors and [to] escape possibilities in the environment ” saying in his note this technique only concerned the confined environment. Or, said Yves Bertheau, “ operators have provided many applications of agro-infiltration techniques disseminated terms .” Finally, cisgenesis / intragenics, which must “ be examined case by case ,” do not, in fact, “ clear recommendations ” from the CS as the “ under suitable examination ” a complete record of such GMOs should it be provided? Otherwise, that will define for each case that the file should be or not GMO type?
Third critic, Yves Bertheau evokes the thorny issue of detection, traceability and identification of genetic changes . Note CS affirms the impossibility to trace the products of these new techniques and identify the techniques which they originated. But Yves Bertheau is precisely a French specialist on detection issues. And stresses that these traceability issues were however “ already investigated [...] in other areas such as GMOs .” Echoed the work of the European Network of GMO detection laboratories (ENGL) that addresses this issue for many years. Yves Bertheau regrets that the SC working group did not wish to get in touch with this official network of the European Commission. And to suspect that the reason is not scientific but rather the fact of an initial bias that wants the opportunity to detect and trace the changes are ignored: “ if the lack of consideration of sophisticated detection techniques and identification techniques is referred to as “logic” in [CS], we might as well see a bias “
in the end, Yves Bertheau stresses paradox arising from the integration of economic and legal considerations, which is more “ Some incongruous and ” in a scientific grade “ which looks at the techniques applied to the vegetable ” . He concluded his comment by personal opinion: “ ease of use and low cost of some of these techniques should lead to a very strict framework for their use, to prevent their misuse by some ‘biohackeurs “. He also points out that “ is not innocent that a number of these genome editing techniques were recently classified as ” WMD “ US federal services . “
No comments:
Post a Comment