Genetically Modified Humans and Viruses Investigated – The Eugenics Investigation – Part 2

———-


———-


Chapter 7: Genome mining & editing


———–


———–



 Genome mining effort discovers 19 new natural products in four years


September 8, 2015

  It took two postdoctoral researchers, a lab technician, four undergraduates and their faculty advisors only four years – a blink of an eye in pharmaceutical terms – to scour a collection of 10,000 bacterial strains and isolate the genes responsible for making 19 unique, previously unknown phosphonate natural products, researchers report. Each of these products is a potential new drug. One of them has already been identified as an antibiotic.


Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-09-genome-effort-natural-products-years.html#jCp


——————————————————————–


Scientists discover new system for human genome editing


September 25, 2015


A team including the scientist who first harnessed the revolutionary CRISPR-Cas9 system for mammalian genome editing has now identified a different CRISPR system with the potential for even simpler and more precise genome engineering.

In a study published today in Cell, Feng Zhang and his colleagues at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at MIT, with co-authors Eugene Koonin at the National Institutes of Health, Aviv Regev of the Broad Institute and the MIT Department of Biology, and John van der Oost at Wageningen University, describe the unexpected biological features of this new system and demonstrate that it can be engineered to edit the genomes of human cells.

http://phys.org/news/2015-09-scientists-human-genome.html#jCp


—————-

First results of CRISPR gene editing of normal embryos released


9 March 2017

A team in China has corrected genetic mutations in at least some of the cells in three normal human embryos using the CRISPR genome editing technique. The latest study is the first to describe the results of using CRISPR in viable human embryos, New Scientist can reveal.

 https://www.newscientist.com/article/2123973-first-results-of-crispr-gene-editing-of-normal-embryos-released/

——–

Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos

April 22, 2015


In a world first, Chinese scientists have reported editing the genomes of human embryos. The results are published1 in the online journal Protein & Cell and confirm widespread rumours that such experiments had been conducted — rumours that sparked a high-profile debate last month2, 3 about the ethical implications of such work.


http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-1.17378


————


The First Human-Pig Hybrid Embryo Has Been Created in The Lab

A big step towards lab-grown organs.


 Jan. 26, 2017


http://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-alive-the-first-human-pig-hybrid-has-been-created-in-the-lab


——


Human-Pig Hybrid Created in the Lab—Here Are the Facts

January 26, 2017

Scientists hope the chimera embryos represent key steps toward life-saving lab-grown organs.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/human-pig-hybrid-embryo-chimera-organs-health-science/


—————-


Human-animal hybrid embryos

Bioethics: Human-animal hybrid embryos


In May 2008 a cross-party attempt to ban hybrid human animal embryos was defeated on a free vote in the House of Commons, by 336 to 176. MPs had been debating the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which would allow regulated research using hybrid or ‘admix’ embryos, where the nuclei of human cells are inserted into animal eggs. The resulting embryos would be kept for up to 14 days to harvest stem cells.

In the present state of science, hybrid embryos are produced as research tools, and only kept alive for 14 days or fewer. The article below only deals with the ethical issues of this case, and not with the ethics of producing new creatures that are a combination of animal and human.

Possible types of animal/human hybrid embryos

    Cytoplasmic hybrid embryos: embryos created through cell nuclear replacement using animal eggs
    Hybrid embryos: embryos created by mixing human sperm and animal eggs or human eggs and animal sperm
    Human chimera embryos: human embryos which have animal cells added to them during early development
    Animal chimera embryos: animal embryos which have human cells added to them during early development
    Transgenic human embryos: human embryos which have animal genes inserted into them during early development

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/animals/using/hybridembryos_1.shtml


————–


Mouse egg cells made entirely in the lab give rise to healthy offspring

 Oct. 17, 2016


In work that raises the prospect of new infertility treatments and designer babies, researchers have used stem cells to grow fertile mouse egg cells for the first time entirely in a lab dish. The eggs gave rise to pups after being fertilized and implanted into rodent foster mothers. The method—which sometimes produced defective eggs and had a success rate of less than 1%—won’t be producing human egg cells any time soon, but the technique could help researchers identify key genes involved in egg development and maturation.


http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/10/mouse-egg-cells-made-entirely-lab-give-rise-healthy-offspring


—————–


FDA approves genetically modified chicken — but not as food
Gathering a drug from chicken egg whites

Dec 9, 2015,


This isn’t the first time that the FDA has approved a transgenic animal for drug production. Six years ago, the US government approved genetically modified goats that can make a drug in their milk that prevents blood clots. And in 2014, the FDA approved Ruconest — a drug that’s collected from rabbit milk.

But yesterday’s approval doesn’t rely on milk production. To collect the active protein, researchers have to purify it from the whites of the chicken’s eggs. Kanuma works by replacing a malfunctioning enzyme in people with lysosomal acid lipase deficiency.

As part of the approval process for the drug, the government officials looked at whether the alterations made to the chicken’s genetic material would cause it harm. They also examined whether these changes are stable enough to be passed on to future generations.


https://www.theverge.com/2015/12/9/9879678/gmo-chicken-transgenic-fda-approved-kanuma-drug-eggs


—————–

Brit scientists create genetically modified chickens that can lay eggs from different breeds

18 Feb 2017

The aim is to preserve rare chicken breeds that may be resistant to global infections like bird flu in the future or have highly desirable features such as excellent meat quality


http://www.mirror.co.uk/science/brit-scientists-create-genetically-modified-9842348


——————


                    Genetically Modified Birds


IOSR Journal of Pharmacy and Biological Sciences

http://iosrjournals.org/iosr-jpbs/papers/Vol9-issue6/Version-3/D09631629.pdf


——–

Researchers Engineer Hens that Make Drugs in Eggs


 January 19, 2007


 Scientists at the Roslin Institute, which produced Dolly the cloned sheep, have genetically engineered chickens to produce drugs in their egg whites. Helen Sang, the lead scientist at the Roslin Institute in Midlothian, Scotland, talks about the findings.


For instance, they have tweaked cows to produce drugs in their milk so every time the cows give milk, they also give a fresh supply of drugs. But in a twist on this approach, scientists at the Roslin Institute – that’s the institute that created Dolly, the cloned sheep – well scientists at Roslin have genetically engineered chickens now to produce drugs in their egg whites. Some of them – some of these drugs that are used to fight cancer.

With every batch of eggs comes a fresh supply of drugs. Unfortunately, getting the drugs isn’t as easy as scrambling up an omelet. The researchers report on their research in the current issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and the leader of the team joins us now to talk about their work and its potential to change the way drugs are made.


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6921969


———

Targeted mutagenesis in chicken using CRISPR/Cas9 system

 23 October 2015

 The CRISPR/Cas9 system is a simple and powerful tool for genome editing in various organisms including livestock animals. However, the system has not been applied to poultry because of the difficulty in accessing their zygotes. Here we report the implementation of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene targeting in chickens. Two egg white genes, ovalbumin and ovomucoid, were efficiently (>90%) mutagenized in cultured chicken primordial germ cells (PGCs) by transfection of circular plasmids encoding Cas9, a single guide RNA, and a gene encoding drug resistance, followed by transient antibiotic selection. We transplanted CRISPR-induced mutant-ovomucoid PGCs into recipient chicken embryos and established three germline chimeric roosters (G0). All of the roosters had donor-derived mutant-ovomucoid spermatozoa, and the two with a high transmission rate of donor-derived gametes produced heterozygous mutant ovomucoid chickens as about half of their donor-derived offspring in the next generation (G1). Furthermore, we generated ovomucoid homozygous mutant offspring (G2) by crossing the G1 mutant chickens. Taken together, these results demonstrate that the CRISPR/Cas9 system is a simple and effective gene-targeting method in chickens.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep23980

————-


Genetic modification of chicken germ cells

 Oct, 2012


 Over the past two decades numerous reports have demonstrated that the genetic modification of poultry genomes has great potential for improving poultry production; moreover, it may be used as a powerful tool for the production of industrial proteins. To date, transgenic techniques have been established for generating transgenic birds that express recombinant human proteins in hen eggs, as well as tissue-specific genes as an animal model. The production of transgenic birds is a promising approach that could have practical applications in agriculture and biopharmacology, in addition to advancing our understanding of avian biology. Finally, germ cell–mediated transgenesis could provide a more efficient strategy for creating gene-targeted insertions and deletions in avian species.


 Recently, van de Lavoir et al.21 genetically modified chicken PGCs by the electroporation of a nonviral expression vector to produce transgenic offspring through germline transmission. However, the frequency of transgene integration into the genome as well as the rate of gene transfer into germ cells remain insufficient for generating transgenic birds using virus-independent conventional methods. For efficient transgene integration into the genome of chicken PGCs, Leighton et al.22 used phiC31 integrase and specific elements. phiC31 integrase catalyzes site-specific recombination between an attB site and an attP site; thus, the co-transfection of an integrase and attB-containing plasmid could improve genomic insertion into chicken PGCs. They showed increased frequencies of transgene integration into endogenous pseudo attP sites in the chicken PGC genome when phiC31 integrase was co-introduced; however, there is no report of the production of transgenic chickens using phiC31 integrase and an attB element. In addition, the in vitro and in vivo silencing of transgene expression following nonviral transfection has hampered the stable expression of antibiotic genes for selection and specific expression in target tissues.21–23 Leighton et al.22 demonstrated that the usage of phiC31 integrase and an attB element could be an efficient tool for genomic insertion; however, they also reported the transcriptional silencing of a transgene in chicken PGCs even after the co-transfection of phiC31 integrase and attB sequences. We previously showed that the methylation of a transgenic promoter in the transgenic chicken could lead to transgene transcriptional silencing in a tissue-specific manner in vivo, although little is known about the control of gene expression in avian species via DNA methylation.23 To overcome this transcriptional repression, HS4 insulator, which is the first insulator identified in vertebrates, derived from the 5′ end of the chicken ß-globin locus, has been used in chicken PGCs.


 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3499655/



———–


———–


 Chapter 8: Bioweapons


————-


————–


US Intelligence Director Says Genome Editing is a WMD

Gene Editing with CRISPR/Cas-9 Can Heal or Kill

Genetic modification using new technologies like CRISPR has been called a “weapon of mass destruction and proliferation” by James Clapper, U.S. Director of National Intelligence, in his annual Worldwide Threat Assessment report.

Gene editing is the latest brainchild of the biotechnology industry. It has been touted as entirely different from gene insertion, the genetic modification technique used over the past several decades to create GM crops and GM animals. Gene editing technology alters the DNA inside living cells. The biotech industry says it is an easy and cheap way to mess with Mother Nature – but, as with other GM technology, the outcomes can’t be precisely controlled.


http://naturalsociety.com/us-director-national-intelligence-genome-editing-wmd-67384/


————–

Biological weapons and designer babies: 15 years of decoding humanity’s DNA

On 26th June 2000, the Human Genome Project announced that they had a sequence of the human genome. Here’s how our understanding of DNA has changed the world since
Build-a-baby

If you’ve always dreamed of a baby with green eyes and curly brown hair, then the link between our DNA and appearance could make designer babies a disconcerting reality. Dr Claes says he’s received emails from fertility clinics who want to use his technology to help future parents build their perfect baby.

Biological weapons

The science that allows us to create DNA-based personalised medicine can also be used for a far more sinister flipside: biological weapons. Battles have been fought using biological toxins or viruses for hundreds of years..


 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11700454/Biological-weapons-and-designer-babies-15-years-of-decoding-humanitys-DNA.html



—————–


Genetically Engineered Bioweapons: A New Breed of Weapons for Modern Warfare

March 10, 2013

 http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/applied_sciences/genetically-engineered-bioweapons-a-new-breed-of-weapons-for-modern-warfare#.VXU2dEa-2zk

Genome sequencing has given rise to a new generation of genetically engineered bioweapons carrying the potential to change the nature of modern warfare and defense.

Introduction

Biological weapons are designed to spread disease among people, plants, and animals through the introduction of toxins and microorganisms such as viruses and bacteria. The method through which a biological weapon is deployed depends on the agent itself, its preparation, its durability, and the route of infection. Attackers may disperse these agents through aerosols or food and water supplies.

Although bioweapons have been used in war for many centuries, a recent surge in genetic understanding, as well as a rapid growth in computational power, has allowed genetic engineering to play a larger role in the development of new bioweapons. In the bioweapon industry, genetic engineering can be used to manipulate genes to create new pathogenic characteristics aimed at enhancing the efficacy of the weapon through increased survivability, infectivity, virulence, and drug resistance. While the positive societal implications of improved biotechnology are apparent, the “black biology” of bioweapon development may be “one of the gravest threats we will face”

Limits of Past Bioweapons

Prior to recent advances in genetic engineering, bioweapons were exclusively natural pathogens. Agents must fulfill numerous prerequisites to be considered effective military bioweapons, and most naturally occurring pathogens are ill suited for this purpose. First, bioweapons must be produced in large quantities. A pathogen can be obtained from the natural environment if enough can be collected to allow purification and testing of its properties. Otherwise, pathogens could be produced in a microbiology laboratory or bank, a process which is limited by pathogen accessibility and the safety with which the pathogens can be handled in facilities. To replicate viruses and some bacteria, living cells are required. The growth of large quantities of an agent can be limited by equipment, space, and the health risks associated with the handling of hazardous germs. In addition to large-scale production, effective bioweapons must act quickly, be environmentally robust, and their effects must be treatable for those who are implementing the bioweapon.

Recent Advances

As researchers continue to transition from the era of DNA sequencing into the era of DNA synthesis, it may soon become feasible to synthesize any virus whose DNA sequence is known (4). This was first demonstrated in 2001 when Dr. Eckard Wimmer re-created the poliovirus and again in 2005 when Dr. Jeffrey Taubenberger and Terrence Tumpey re-created the 1918 influenza virus (1). The progress of DNA synthesis technology will also allow for the creation of novel pathogens. According to biological warfare expert Dr. Steven Block, genetically engineered pathogens “could be made safer to handle, easier to distribute, capable of ethnic specificity, or be made to cause higher mortality rates.”

The growing accessibility of DNA synthesis capabilities, computational power, and information means that a growing number of people will have the capacity to produce bioweapons. Scientists have been able to transform the four letters of DNA—A (adenine), C (cytosine), G (guanine), and T (thymine)—into the ones and zeroes of binary code. This transformation makes genetic engineering a matter of electronic manipulation, which decreases the cost of the technique (4). According to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “the emerging gene synthesis industry is making genetic material more widely available […] A crude but effective terrorist weapon can be made using a small sample of any number of widely available pathogens, inexpensive equipment, and college-level chemistry and biology.”



—————————



Genetic engineering and biological weapons


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1326447/



Indeed, the insights into the nature of infectious diseases gained by Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch in the nineteenth century did not actually represent a great breakthrough in the use of infectious organisms as biological weapons. Similarly, the development of a bioweapon does not necessarily require genetic engineering—smallpox, plague and anthrax are deadly enough in their natural states. But the revolution in biotechnology, namely the new tools for analysing and specifically changing an organism’s genetic material, has led to an increased risk of biowarfare due to several factors. First, the expansion of modern biotechnology in medical and pharmaceutical research and production has led to a worldwide availability of knowledge and facilities. Many countries and regions, where 30 years ago biotechnology merely meant brewing beer and baking bread, have established high-tech facilities for vaccine or single-cell-protein production that could be subverted for the production of biological weapons. Today, nearly all countries have the technological potential to produce large amounts of pathogenic microorganisms safely (Fig. 1). Second, classical biowarfare agents can be made much more efficiently than their natural counterparts, with even the simplest genetic techniques. Third, with modern biotechnology it becomes possible to create completely new biological weapons. And for technical and/or moral reasons, they might be more likely to be used than classical biowarfare agents. These possibilities have generated new military desires around the world, including within those countries that have publicly renounced biological weapons in the past. This paper deals predominantly with the last two factors, and with the use of real-life examples, we shall discuss the possibilities for such military abuse of biotechnology.


————–


Is Monsanto doing secret biowar research on Maui?


by Jon Rappoport

April 4, 2015


 “According to the Sunshine Project, a nonprofit arms control watchdog operating out of Austin, Texas, among corporations holding back information about their [biowarfare research] activities are:

“Abbott Laboratories, BASF Plant Science, Bristol-Myers Squibb, DuPont Central Research and Development, Eli Lilly Corp., Embrex, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffman-LaRoche, Merck & Co., Monsanto, Pfizer Inc., Schering-Plough Research Institute, and Syngenta Corp. of Switzerland.

“In case you didn’t know it, the White House since 9/11 has called for spending $44-billion on biological warfare research, a sum unprecedented in world history, and an obliging Congress has authorized it.”

Notice that the above list of corporations includes some of the biggest names in biotech: BASF, DuPont, Syngenta, and, of course, Monsanto, who manufactured the highly toxic Agent Orange sprayed in Vietnam.

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2015/04/04/is-monsanto-doing-secret-biowarfare-research-on-maui/


——————

We can see why some governments want to ban experiments with GMO’s in homes and in private labs.


—————————-



GENETIC DISCRIMINATION

A Position Paper Presented by the Council for Responsible Genetics


*GENETIC TESTS CAN BE USED TO HELP . . . AND TO HARM


*THE EXPANSION OF GENETIC TESTS MEANS THAT THE DISCRIMINATION WILL LIKELY INCREASE.


*THE SOCIAL COSTS OF GENETIC DISCRIMINATION


*INSURANCE DISCRIMINATION


http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/ViewPage.aspx?pageId=85


—————————–


Genetic Engineering and Its Dangers


TENTH ANNIVERSARY YEAR
SITE FOUNDED IN 1996

 
ESSAYS ABOUT GENETIC ENGINEERING GENETICALLY ENGINEERING 
HUMAN BEINGS GENETICALLY ENGINEERED 
PLANTS AND FOOD INTERNET LINKS GENETIC ENGINEERING AND BIOWARFARE BOOKS ON THE DANGERS OF GENETIC ENGINEERING ESSAYS ABOUT GENETIC ENGINEERING     General Information     Ethical and Religious Questions     Technical Information General Information

“What is Genetic Engineering?” by Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher
“The Rest Of The Story Behind Genetic Engineering: An Interview with Brian Tokar” by Mark Oshinskie

“The Biotech Century: Playing Ecological Roulette with Mother Nature’s Designs” by Jeremy Rifkin “The Biotech Century – A Second Opinion : The Marriage of the Genetic Sciences and the Technologies Reshaping Our World” by Jeremy Rifkin “PR for the ‘Book of Life'” by Jackie Stevens
“Synthetic Life” by W. Wayt Gibbs
“Unraveling the DNA Myth: The Spurious Foundation of Genetic Engineering” by Barry Commoner

“Data Stored in Multiplying Bacteria” by Natasha McDowell
“Genetic Copy of Cat Not a Copycat after All” by Kristen Hays
GM Microbes Invade North America
“Mice ‘make human proteins in semen'” by Dr David Whitehouse
“Mice produce sperm from monkeys” by Dr David Whitehouse
“Killer virus: An engineered mouse virus leaves us one step away from the ultimate bioweapon” by Rachel Nowak
“Rebellious Bodies Dim the Glow of `Natural’ Biotech Drugs” by Andrew Pollack
“Klebsiella planticola–The Gene-Altered Monster That Almost Got Away” by Elaine Ingham
“Biohazards: The Next Generation?” by Brian Tokar
“Biotech at 25–Too Soon to Celebrate”
“GM Pigs are Both Meat and Veg” by Emma Young “In Experiment, Mammal Cells Produce Silk Like a Spider’s” by Kenneth Chang “Xenotransplantation: How Bad Science and Big Business Put the World at Risk
from Viral Pandemics” by Mae-Wan Ho and Joe Cummins Frontline: Organ Farm “Scientists Are Starting to Add Letters to Life’s Alphabet”by Andrew Pollack “Splicing the Sting Out of Bugs” by Aaron Zitner
“Go-ahead for GM insect release” by Helen Briggs. “GM Trees Threaten the Global Environment” “BODY AND SOUL: The Price of Biotech (Part One)” by Philip L. Bereano “Patent Pending: THE RACE TO OWN DNA (Part Two)” by Philip L. Bereano “Bioprospecting or Biopiracy? The Hunt for Genetic Riches in the Developing World” Utne Reader “Transplantation Through a Glass Darkly” by James Lindemann Nelson “The Selfish Commercial Gene” by L R B Mann Ethical and Religious Questions “Pope Expresses Opposition to GMOs, Cites Need for ‘the Respect of Nature'” “Stem Cell Mixing May Form a Human-Mouse Hybrid” by Nicholas Wade

“Synthetic life: Genome team faces ethical questions in its quest to use $3 million grant from Energy Department to create microbe” by Keay Davidson “Patented Genes: An Ethical Appraisal” by Mark Sagoff “Religion and Measure H” by Ron Epstein “Some Common Sense about Measure H” by Ron Epstein “Buddhism and Measure H: Banning the Growing and Raising of Genetically Modified Organisms in Mendocino County.” by Ron Epstein

“Redesigning the World: Ethical Questions about Genetic Engineering” by Ron Epstein “Genetic Engineering: A Buddhist Assessment” by Ron Epstein “Ethical Dangers of Genetic Engineering.” by Ron Epstein “Ethical and Spiritual Issues in Genetic Engineering” by Ron Epstein “Buddhism and Biotechnology” by Ron Epstein “Bioethics -A Third World Issue” by Dr Vandana Shiva “Genetic Trespassing and Environmental Ethics” by Dr. Mira Fong “On Genetic Engineering” by Yifei Zhu, Ph.D.
Technical Information “Horizontal Gene Transfer – The Hidden Hazards of Genetic Engineering” by Mae-Wan Ho, Ph.D.  “Horizontal Gene Transfer – New Evidence” by Mae Wan Ho, Ph.D. “The Unholy Alliance” by Mae-Wan Ho, Ph.D. “Transgenic Transgression of Species Integrity and Species Boundaries” by Mae-Wan Ho, Ph.D. “The Genetic Engineering Debate” (v0.32) compiled by Roberto Verzola GENETICALLY ENGINEERED PLANTS AND FOOD     General Information     Technical Information General Information

True Food Shopping List: How to Avoid Genetically Engineered Food

5 reasons to keep Britain [and the rest of the world] GM-free
“WHY CONCERNS ABOUT HEALTH RISKS OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOOD ARE SCIENTIFICALLY JUSTIFIED” by Steven M. Druker “A GE BACTERIUM THAT COULD HAVE KILLED ALL PLANTS: Dr. Elaine Ingham’s Testimony” Genetically engineered trees quietly sprouting

New life for redwood harvesting [GMO Redwoods] A BRIGHT FUTURE FOR CROPS CONVERTED INTO PLASTIC? FAO report reveals GM crops not needed to feed the world “No Foolproof Way Is Seen to Contain Altered Genes” by Andrew Pollack “Super Organics” by Richard Manning “GM TRIALS TO FIND MEDICINE RAISE NEW ETHICAL FEARS; HUMAN GENE CROP FURY” by JOHN INGHAM AND TOBY MOORE
“GOLDEN GENES AND WORLD HUNGER: LET THEM EAT TRANSGENIC RICE?” by Craig Holdrege and Steve Talbott “As Biotech Crops Multiply, Consumers Get Little Choice” by David Barboza “Scientists Admit Frankencrops Pollution is Inevitable” by Brian Tokar “Genetically-Modified Superweeds ‘Not Uncommon'” by James Randerson “Pharm Crops – A Food Accident Waiting to Happen” “GM Potatoes Deter One Pest But Attract Another” “Sterile Harvest: New Crop of Terminator Patents Threatens Food Sovereignty” “Biotechnology in Crops: Issues for the Developing World” compiled by Laura Spinney “GM Crop DNA Found in Human Gut Bugs” by Andy Coghlin “Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health?” By Arpad Pusztai, Ph.D.
“Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico” by David Quist and Ignacio H. Chapela

“Thousands of Field Tests of GE Crops Across the U.S.” “Crop pollen spreads further than expected” “50 Harmful Effects of Genetically Modified Foods” by Nathan Batalion Worldwide Initiatives Against GMOs
“Biotech–The Basics” by Rachel Massey “Bad Bad seeds in court: when genetically modified plants contaminate their crops, organic farmers fight big biotech” by Thomas Hayden
“GM corn set to stop man spreading his seed” by Robin McKie “GM Trials to Find Medicine Raise New Ethical Fears; Human Gene Crop Fury” by John Ingham and Toby Moore
“THE ‘GOLDEN RICE’ HOAX  -When Public Relations replaces Science” by Dr. Vandana Shiva “NASA’s Earth plants could invade Mars” by David Perlman
USDA Says Yes to Terminator
“How the Terminator terminates: an explanation for the non-scientist of a remarkable patent for killing second generation seeds of crop plants” by Martha Crouch, Ph.D. “Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods and Crops: Why We Need A Global Moratorium” by Ronnie Cummins “Tree of Life: Gene-altered Rubber Plants are Putting Human Proteins on Tap” “A Bright Future for Crops Converted into Plastic?” “FAO Report Reveals GM Crops Not Needed to Feed the World” “GM Genes ‘Can Spread to People and Animals'” by Geoffrey Lean, Volker Angres and Louise Jury “Gene-Altered Catfish Raise Environmental, Legal Issues” by Aaron Zitner “Mutant Food” by Kristi Coale “FDA Documents Show They Ignored GMO Safety Warnings From Their Own Scientists” “World Scientists’ Statement Calling for a Moratorium on GM Crops and Ban on Patents” “Calling for a Moratorium on GM Crops and Ban on Patents” “Cow’s Milk to Be Made More Human with New Zealand DNA Engineering” “Playing God in the Garden” by Michael Pollan “Genetically Engineered Soya; Contaminating the Great Treasure” by Marc Lappe and Britt Bailey “Genetically Engineered Food–A Serious Health Risk” by John B. Fagan, Ph.D. “Recipe for Disaster” by Joel Bleifuss “Genetic Engineering of Food Can Spread Serious Allergies” (New York Times, March 14, 1996 ) “Ralph Nader on Genetically Engineered Food” David Frost Special (PBS ) “Why You Should Be Concerned About Genetically Engineered Food” by Ron Epstein, Ph.D. “Why Genetically Engineered Food Should Be Labeled” by Ron Epstein, Ph.D “Genetic Engineering: A Major Threat to Vegetarians” by Ronald Epstein, Ph.D.
Technical Information Death by DNA Shuffling Ag BioTech InfoNet “The Failings of the Principle of Substantial Equivalence” by John Fagan, Ph.D. “A Science-Based, Precautionary Approach to the Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods” by John B. Fagan, Ph.D. “Genetic engineering and the production of food stuffs: Biosafety Aspects” by Beatrix Tappeser “The differences between conventional Bacillus thuringiensis strains and transgenic insect resistant plants: Possible reasons for rapid resistance development and susceptibility of non­target organisms” by Beatrix Tappeser “Survival, Persistence, Transfer – An Update on Current Knowledge on GMOs and the Fate of their Recombinant DNA” by Beatrix Tappeser, Manuela Jäger, and Claudia Eckelkamp “The Danger of Virus-Resistant Crops” by Joe Cummins, Ph.D.
GENETIC ENGINEERING AND BIOWARFARE

Bioterror Researchers Build a More Lethal Mousepox
“Now for GM weapons: It’s time to get tough with the biotech firms over germ warfare” by Jeremy Rifkin
Bioterrorism issue of Emerging Infectious Diseases (July/August, 1999, v5n4)
“The Demon in the Freezer” by Richard Preston
“Ebola Virus Could Be Synthesised” by Sylvia Pagàn Westphal
“Scientists Create a Live Polio Virus” by Andrew Pollack
“Bioterror And Biosafety” by Vandana Shiva
“US Non-lethal Weapon Reports Suppressed” by Debora MacKenzie
“Single Gene Leap Led to Flea-Borne Transmission of Plague Bacterium” by Laurie K. Doepel
“A Terrifying Power” by Philip Cohen
“Prepare for the Worst” By Rachel Nowak
“With Biotechnology, a Potential to Harm” by Andrew Pollack
“Scientists Fear Miracle of Biotech Could Also Breed a Monster” “Now for GM weapons: It’s time to get tough with the biotech firms over germ warfare” by Jeremy Rifkin Project Censored: Human Genome Project Opens the Door to Ethnically Specific Bioweapons
“U.S. Germ Warfare Research Pushes Treaty Limits” by Judith Miller, Stephen Engelberg and William J. Broad “Secret U.S. Germ Tests Threat to Treaty” by Roland Watson
“Battlefield uses of biotech proposed in report to Army” by Carl T. Hall “Deadly Viruses Mishandled, Report Finds: Federal weapons labs may have endangered workers, public” by David Perlman. “Killer virus: An engineered mouse virus leaves us one step away from the ultimate bioweapon” by Rachel Nowak “Agricultural Biowarfare and Bioterrorism” by Dr. Mark Wheelis. “In Gamble, U.S. Supports Russian Germ Warfare Scientists” by Judith Miller. “Germ War: The US Record” “Annals of Warfare: the Bioweaponeers” by Richard Preston The Dangers of Genetically Engineered Bioweapons Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering: Implications for the Development of New Warfare Agents “Iranians, Bioweapons in Mind, Lure Ex-Soviet Scientists” by Judith Miller and William J. Broad. “Germ Weapons: In Soviet Past or in the New Russia’s Future” by Judith Miller and William J. Broad. “Doctors play out bioterrorism scenario.” “Defector Tells of Soviet and Chinese Germ Weapons.” Frontline: “Plague War” GENETICALLY ENGINEERING HUMAN BEINGS “Engineering Humans” by Rachel Massey
“The New Eugenics: The Case Against Genetically Modified Humans” by Marcy Darnovsky
“Scientists Raise Spectre of Gene-Modified Athletes” by James Randerson
“Gods and Monsters: Talking apes, flying pigs, superhumans with armadillo attributes, and other strange considerations of Dr. Stuart Newman’s fight to patent a human/animal chimera” by Mark Dowie
FRONTLINE “Organ Farm: The Risks of Xenotransplantation”
“The Threshold Challenge of the New Human Genetic Technologies”
“Governing the Genome” by Ralph Brave
“The Human Genome Map: The Death of Genetic Determinism and Beyond” by Mae-Wan Ho
Boy’s DNA implanted in rabbit eggs” By Roger Highfield “Genetically Altered Babies Born” by Dr. David Whitehouse
“Researchers Claim to Create Genetically Modified Children” “(You)2” by Brian Alexander “Italian, U.S. Scientists Unveil Human Cloning Effort” by Andrew Stern “‘Genie Out of the Bottle’ on Human Cloning” “Designer People: The Human Genetic Blueprint Has Been Drafted, Offering Both Perils and Opportunities for the Environment. The Big Question: Are We Changing the Nature of Nature?” by Sally Deneen “Clone scientists can grow sperm in laboratory” by Cherry Norton and Lois Rogers “In The Pipeline: Genetically Modified Humans?”  by Richard Hayes “The Politics of Genetically Engineered Humans” by Richard Hayes National Information Resource on Ethics and Human Genetics “Who Owns Your Genes?” by Gina Kolata “Cal. Researchers Make ‘Bionic Chip'” “Phase II for Human Genome Research: Human Genetic Diversity Enters the Commercial Mainstream.” RAFI Communique “Who owns your DNA?”  by Arthur Allen Human Genome Project Information Engineering the Human Germline Symposium Report

http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/GEessays/gedanger.htm


—————


Ethnic bioweapon

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_bioweapon


An ethnic bioweapon (biogenetic weapon) is a type of weapon that aims to harm only or primarily people of specific ethnicities or genotypes.
Genetic weapons

In 1997, U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen referred to the concept of an ethnic bioweapon as a possible risk. In 1998 some biological weapon experts considered such a “genetic weapon” a plausible possibility, and believed the former Soviet Union had undertaken some research on the influence of various substances on human genes.


In 2004, The Guardian reported that the British Medical Association (BMA) considered bioweapons designed to target certain ethnic groups as a possibility, and highlighted problems that advances in science for such things as “treatment to Alzheimer’s and other debilitating diseases could also be used for malign purposes”.

In 2005, the official view of the International Committee of the Red Cross was “The potential to target a particular ethnic group with a biological agent is probably not far off. These scenarios are not the product of the ICRC’s imagination but have either occurred or been identified by countless independent and governmental experts.”

In 2012, The Atlantic wrote that a specific virus that targets individuals with a specific DNA sequence is within possibility in the near future. The magazine put forward a hypothetical scenario of a virus which caused mild flu to the general population but deadly symptoms to the President of the United States. They cite advances in personalized gene therapy as evidence.

In 2016, Foreign Policy magazine suggested the possibility of a virus used as an ethnic bioweapon that could sterilize a “genetically-related ethnic population.

Israeli “ethno-bomb” controversy

In November 1998, The Sunday Times reported that Israel was attempting to build an “ethno-bomb” containing a biological agent that could specifically target genetic traits present amongst Arab populations. Wired News also reported the story, as did Foreign Report.

Microbiologists and geneticists were skeptical towards the scientific plausibility of such a biological agent. The New York Post, describing the claims as “blood libel”, reported that the likely source for the story was a work of science fiction by Israeli academic Doron Stanitsky. Stanitsky had sent his completely fictional work about such a weapon to Israeli newspapers two years before. The article also noted the views of genetic researchers who claimed the idea as “wholly fantastical”, with others claiming that the weapon was theoretically possible.


Russian ban on export of biological samples

In May 2007, a Russian newspaper Kommersant reported that the Russian government banned all exports of human biosamples. The report claims that the reason for the ban was a secret FSB report about on-going development of “genetic bioweapons” targeting Russian population by Western institutions. The report mentions the Harvard School of Public Health, American International Health Alliance, Department of Medical Biotechnology of Jagiellonian University, United States Department of Justice Environment and Natural Resources Division, Institute of Genetics and Biotechnology Warsaw University, and United States Agency for International Development.


—————



Israel is Developing ‘Ethnic Bomb’ for Growing Biological Weapons Arsenal


http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n6p24_weber.html


—————

Clinton warns of bioweapon threat from gene tech

December 7, 2011

 (AP) — New gene assembly technology that offers great benefits for scientific research could also be used by terrorists to create biological weapons, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned Wednesday.

 https://phys.org/news/2011-12-clinton-bioweapon-threat-gene-tech.html


————-

Bill Gates Warns Of Virus Worse Than Ebola: “We Are Simply Not Prepared To Deal With A Global Epidemic”

March 20th, 2015


http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/bill-gates-warns-of-virus-worse-than-ebola-we-are-simply-not-prepared-to-deal-with-a-global-epidemic_03202015


——————-


Infectious diseases and bioweapons

2003 Jun


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1326435/

———————


Genetically Engineered Bioweapons: A New Breed of Weapons for Modern Warfare

 March 10, 2013

The growing accessibility of DNA synthesis capabilities, computational power, and information means that a growing number of people will have the capacity to produce bioweapons. Scientists have been able to transform the four letters of DNA—A (adenine), C (cytosine), G (guanine), and T (thymine)—into the ones and zeroes of binary code. This transformation makes genetic engineering a matter of electronic manipulation, which decreases the cost of the technique (4). According to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “the emerging gene synthesis industry is making genetic material more widely available […] A crude but effective terrorist weapon can be made using a small sample of any number of widely available pathogens, inexpensive equipment, and college-level chemistry and biology.”

Techniques to Enhance Efficacy of Bioweapons

Scientists and genetic engineers are considering several techniques to increase the efficacy of pathogens in warfare.

1. Binary Biological Weapons

This technique involves inserting plasmids, small bacterial DNA fragments, into the DNA of other bacteria in order to increase virulence or other pathogenic properties within the host bacteria (2).

2. Designer Genes

According to the European Bioinformatics Institute, as of December 2012, scientists had sequenced the genomes of 3139 viruses, 1016 plasmids, and 2167 bacteria, some of which are published on the internet and are therefore accessible to the public (6). With complete genomes available and the aforementioned advances in gene synthesis, scientists will soon be able to design pathogens by creating synthetic genes, synthetic viruses, and possibly entirely new organisms (2).

3. Gene Therapy

Gene therapy involves repairing or replacing a gene of an organism, permanently changing its genetic composition. By replacing existing genes with harmful genes, this technique can be used to manufacture bioweapons (2).

4. Stealth Viruses

Stealth viruses are viral infections that enter cells and remain dormant for an extended amount of time until triggered externally to cause disease. In the context of warfare, these viruses could be spread to a large population, and activation could either be delayed or used as a threat for blackmail (2).

5. Host-Swapping Diseases

Much like the naturally occurring West Nile and Ebola viruses, animal viruses could potentially be genetically modified and developed to infect humans as a potent biowarfare tactic (2).

6. Designer Diseases

Biotechnology may be used to manipulate cellular mechanisms to cause disease. For example, an agent could be designed to induce cells to multiply uncontrollably, as in cancer, or to initiate apoptosis, programmed cell death (2).

7. Personalized Bioweapons

In coming years it may be conceivable to design a pathogen that targets a specific person’s genome. This agent may spread through populations showing minimal or no symptoms, yet it would be fatal to the intended target (4).

Biodefense

In addition to creating bioweapons, the emerging tools of genetic knowledge and biological technology may be used as a means of defense against these weapons.

1. Human Genome Literacy

As scientific research continues to reveal the functions of specific genes and how genetic components affect disease in humans, vaccines and drugs can be designed to combat particular pathogens based on analysis of their particular molecular effect on the human cell (2).

2. Immune System Enhancement

In addition to enabling more effective drug development, human genome literacy allows for a better understanding of the immune system. Thus, genetic engineering can be used to enhance human immune response to pathogens. As an example, Dr. Ken Alibek is conducting cellular research in pursuit of protection against the bioweapon anthrax (2).

3. Viral and Bacterial Genome Literacy

Decoding the genomes of viruses and bacteria will lead to molecular explanations behind virulence and drug resistance. With this information, bacteria can be engineered to produce bioregulators against pathogens. For example, Xoma Corporation has patented a bactericidal/permeability-increasing (BPI) protein, made from genes inserted into bacterial DNA, which reverses the resistance characteristic of particular bacteria against some popular antibiotics (2).

4. Efficient Bio-Agent Detection and Identification Equipment

Because the capability of comparing genomes using DNA assays has already been acquired, such technology may be developed to identify pathogens using information from bacterial and viral genomes. Such a detector could be used to identify the composition of bioweapons based on their genomes, reducing present-day delays in resultant treatment and/or preventive measures (2).

5. New Vaccines

Current scientific research projects involve genetic manipulation of viruses to create vaccines that provide immunity against multiple diseases with a single treatment (2).

6. New Antibiotics and Antiviral Drugs

Currently, antibiotic drugs target DNA synthesis, protein synthesis, and cell-wall synthesis processes in bacterial cells. With an increased understanding of microbial genomes, other proteins essential to bacterial viability can be targeted to create new classes of antibiotics. Eventually, broad-spectrum, rather than protein-specific, anti-microbial drugs may be developed (2).

Future of Warfare

“The revolution in molecular biology and biotechnology can be considered as a potential Revolution of Military Affairs (RMA),” states Colonel Michael Ainscough, MD, MPH (2). According to Andrew Krepinevich, who originally coined the term RMA, “technological advancement, incorporation of this new technology into military systems, military operational advancement, and organizational adaptation in a way that fundamentally alters the character and conduct of conflict” are the four components that make up an RMA. For instance, the Gulf War has been classified as the beginning of the space information warfare RMA. “From the technological advances in biotechnology, biowarfare with genetically engineered pathogens may constitute a future such RMA,” says Ainscough (2).

In addition, the exponential increase in computational power combined with the accessibility of genetic information and biological tools to the general public and lack of governmental regulation raise concerns about the threat of biowarfare arising from outside the military (7). The US government has cited the efforts of terrorist networks, such as al Qaida, to recruit scientists capable of creating bioweapons as a national security concern and “has urged countries to be more open about their efforts to clamp down on the threat of bioweapons”


 http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/2013/03/genetically-engineered-bioweapons-a-new-breed-of-weapons-for-modern-warfare/#.WWvmc-llDIV



—————



10 Scariest Bioweapons

Smallpox

Anthrax

Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever

Plague

Tularemia

Botulinum Toxin

Rice Blast

Rinderpest

Nipah Virus

Chimera Viruses


http://www.stufftoblowyourmind.com/blogs/10-scariest-bioweapons.htm


————-


Virions at the Gates: Receptors and the Host–Virus Arms Race

 May 28, 2013

Abstract

All viruses need to bind to specific receptor molecules on the surface of target cells to initiate infection. Virus–receptor binding is highly specific, and this specificity determines both the species and the cell type that can be infected by a given virus. In some well-studied cases, the virus-binding region on the receptor has been found to be unrelated to the receptor’s normal cellular function. Resistance to virus infection can thus evolve by selection of mutations that alter amino acids in the binding region with minimal effect on normal function. This sort of positive selection can be used to infer the history of the host–virus “arms race” during their coevolution. In a new study, Demogines et al. use a combination of phylogenetic, structural, and virological analysis to infer the history and significance of positive selection on the transferrin receptor TfR1, a housekeeping protein required for iron uptake and the cell surface receptor for at least three different types of virus. The authors show that only two parts of the rodent TfR1 molecule have been subject to positive selection and that these correspond to the binding sites for two of these viruses—the mouse mammary tumor virus (a retrovirus) and Machupo virus (an arenavirus). They confirmed this result by introducing the inferred binding site mutations into the wild-type protein and testing for receptor function. Related arenaviruses are beginning to spread in human populations in South America as the cause of often fatal hemorrhagic fevers, and, although Demogines et al. could find no evidence of TfR1 mutations in this region that might have been selected as a consequence of human infection, the authors identified one such mutation in Asian populations that affects infection with these viruses.


 http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001574


————-


Next Generation Bioweapons: Genetic Engineering and BW


 http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/biostorm/ainscough.pdf

————-


Is All Fair in Biological Warfare? The Controversy over Genetically Engineered Biological Weapons

J. M. Appel

Journal of Medical Ethics

Vol. 35, No. 7 (Jul., 2009), pp. 429-432

http://www.jstor.org/stable/27720364?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents


———————————-

Bioweapons, Biodiversity, and Ecocide: Potential Effects of Biological Weapons on Biological Diversity: Bioweapon disease outbreaks could cause the extinction of endangered wildlife species, the erosion of genetic diversity in domesticated plants and animals, the destruction of traditional human livelihoods, and the extirpation of indigenous cultures

July, 2002

/> https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/52/7/583/247983/Bioweapons-Biodiversity-and-Ecocide-Potential

Government-sponsored scientific research into the development of technologically sophisticated applications of biological weapons for use against humans, livestock, and crops began during the early decades of the 20th century. Most government bioweapons programs included research on the culture and testing of disease agents intended specifically for use against livestock and food crops (Ban 2000). During World War I, Germany investigated techniques for using anthrax, glanders, cholera, and fungal diseases of wheat as biological weapons. German espionage agents attempted to create outbreaks of anthrax among livestock in Romania and Argentina and spread glanders among horses and mules—then still critically important as cavalry mounts and draft animals for the transport of artillery, ordnance, and supplies—in Mesopotamia, France, Argentina, and the United States. Germany was also implicated in an attempt to precipitate an epidemic of plague among humans in St. Petersburg, Russia (Dire and McGovern 2002). Japan developed and used biological weapons against human and animal populations in Asia during the period 1932–1945 (Kortepeter et al. 2001). Plague-infected fleas were reportedly used by the Japanese to precipitate plague epidemics in China during World War II, and it has been estimated that some 10,000 human subjects were used for bioweapon experiments in China involving anthrax, plague, tularemia, and smallpox (Christopher et al. 1997).

During the 1980s and 1990s, Soviet scientists used newly developed genetic engineering techniques to create antibiotic-resistant and vaccine-subverting strains of smallpox, anthrax, plague, and tularemia for bioweapon applications (Alibek and Handelman 2000). Genetically modified zoonotic and epizootic diseases of humans and animals (plague, tularemia, anthrax) and virulent cultivated or wild strains of natural livestock diseases (e.g., foot and mouth disease [FMD], rinderpest, brucellosis) represent potentially serious threats to livestock, wildlife, and endangered species populations. Plant diseases developed for bioweapons applications against food crops, opium poppies, and coca plants may, however, infect nontarget species of wild plants and become established locally subsequent to their introduction to new environments (Madden and van den Bosch 2002).

Bioterrorist uses of enzootic livestock diseases and emerging zoonotic diseases (diseases that can be transmitted between animal and human populations) represent a potentially serious threat to livestock and wildlife populations never previously exposed to these diseases. This risk holds true even, and perhaps especially in some instances, for wildlife species that may become infected by serious livestock diseases without exhibiting overt clinical signs of infection. Many formerly ubiquitous diseases that have been eradicated from livestock populations in the United States and Western Europe over the past century are still common elsewhere and readily accessible to individuals and terrorist organizations. Vaccines for many animal diseases still common in developing countries have been phased out in Europe and North America, and these vaccines, along with drugs for routine treatment, may not be readily available in sufficient quantities to suppress large-scale disease outbreaks among animals and livestock.


Biological warfare and bioterrorism

Zoonotic and epizootic disease organisms known to have been cultivated and tested in bioweapon research programs include Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), Yersinia pestis (plague), Brucella abortus (brucellosis), Clostridium botulinum, Apthovirus (FMD), Burkholderia mallei (glanders), morbilliviruses (measles, canine distemper, rinderpest), Staphylococcus, Francisella tularensis (tularemia), rabies virus, Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis virus, and several virulent hemorrhagic fever viruses (Ebola, Marburg, Lassa fever, Rift Valley fever) (OTA 1993, Kortepeter et al. 2001, CNS 2002). Plant bioweapons cultured and tested for disrupting agriculture and food production have included fungal diseases (Fusarium spp., Tilletia spp.), viral diseases, and even insect pests (e.g., Colorado potato beetle, Leptinotarsa decemlineata).

The former USSR sponsored extensive research on possible bioweapons applications of a variety of fungal diseases of important food crops (wheat stem rust, rice blast), viral and bacterial diseases of domesticated livestock (e.g., anthrax, tularemia, malignant catarrhal fever), and insect disease vectors (mosquitoes, ticks, fleas) (Bozheyeva et al. 1999). The Soviet bioweapons program tested plant and livestock bioweapon diseases for potential deployment, with the goal of disrupting food production and food processing infrastructures and damaging the agricultural sector of national economies (Alibek and Handelman 2000). Soviet scientists reportedly used newly developed genetic engineering techniques to create vaccine-subverting and antibiotic-resistant strains of anthrax, plague, tularemia, and smallpox for attacks against military forces and civilian populations (Bozheyeva et al. 1999, Alibek and Handelman 2000). Most, perhaps even all, of the cultivated and potentially weaponized diseases identified by the Office International des Epizooties as possible major threats to livestock and wildlife species (FMD, rinderpest, Newcastle disease, African swine fever, sheep pox, and Rift Valley fever; OIE 2001) were experimentally tested for bioweapons applications under the Soviet bioweapons research and development program (Bozheyeva et al. 1999, Kortepeter et al. 2001)

Countries believed to have active biowarfare research programs during recent years include some former USSR states (i.e., Russia, Kazakstan), Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Israel, Egypt, Taiwan, China, South Africa, Libya, Cuba, Romania, Bulgaria, Pakistan, India, United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United States (Leitenberg 2000). Several major international terrorist organizations, including but not restricted to the Al Qaeda network, are believed to have the financial resources and political contacts needed to access state-of-the-art bioweapon disease cultures and production technologies. Aum Shinrikyo, a Japanese terrorist group that used sarin gas for a terrorist attack on the Tokyo subway system, was also involved in developing terrorist bioweapons employing anthrax spores, botulism toxin, Q fever, and Ebola virus (Christopher et al. 1997).

Recent advances in molecular biology and genetic engineering have opened the way for a potential Pandora’s box scenario, in which the unforeseen proliferation of a bioweapon organism could severely affect human and animal populations at regional, continental, or even global levels. Recent gene-transfer experiments with viral interleukin4 and viral diseases of the house mouse (Mus musculus) have demonstrated that even carefully controlled and monitored genetic engineering experiments may produce entirely unanticipated results, generating viruses or organisms with unwanted, deleterious, and sometimes extremely dangerous properties (Jackson et al. 2001).


————————————-


Iranians, Bioweapons in Mind, Lure Needy Ex-Soviet Scientists


Dec, 1998


Iran is scouring the former Soviet Union to hire scientists who once worked in
             laboratories tied to Moscow’s vast germ warfare program and has succeeded in recruiting some of
        them to take jobs in Teheran, according to Russian scientists and American officials.


http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/GEessays/Iranians%20Bioweapons%20ExSoviet%20Scientists.htm

——————


British scientists granted permission to genetically modify human embryos

1 February 2016


British scientists have been granted permission to genetically modify human embryos by the fertility regulator.

The Francis Crick Institute could begin the controversial experiments as early as March after the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) gave the green light this morning.

The scientists want to deactivate genes in leftover embryos from IVF clinics to see if it hinders development.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/british-scientists-granted-permission-to-genetically-modify-huma/


—————–

Genetic Engineering Now Allows Parents to Select the Gender and Eye Color of Their Children

 Feb 25, 2015

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a19313/genetic-engineering-allow-parents-select-gender-eye-color-children/


—————

First Genetically Engineered Salmon Sold in Canada

Aug 7, 2017

US firm AquaBounty Technologies says that its transgenic fish has hit the market after a 25-year wait

https://www.infowars.com/first-genetically-engineered-salmon-sold-in-canada/

—————


‘Stop GMOs’: Russian scientists urge 10-year ban on genetically modified products

 16 Dec, 2013


 https://www.rt.com/news/gmo-ban-russian-scientists-293/


———-


Scientists Argue the US Ban on Human Gene Editing Will Leave It Behind


 Aug 4 2016


After a ban on germline editing, researchers say the US ‘is ceding its leadership in this arena to other nations.’

As the biotech revolution accelerates globally, the US could be getting left behind on key technological advances: namely, human genetic modification.

A Congressional ban on human germline modification has “drawn new lines in the sand” on gene editing legislation, argues a paper published today in Science by Harvard law and bioethics professor I. Glenn Cohen and leading biologist Eli Adashi of Brown University. They say that without a course correction, “the United States is ceding its leadership in this arena to other nations.”


https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/nz7dp8/scientists-argue-the-us-ban-on-human-gene-editing-will-leave-it-behind


—————–

Is Gene Editing the New Name for Eugenics?

June 24, 2018

https://www.globalresearch.ca/is-gene-editing-the-new-name-for-eugenics/5645101

—————–

[Many have stated that we should have an international moratorium on the use of Genetically modified organisms in food, chemicals, including genetically modified animals and humans.]


—————–

UNESCO panel of experts calls for ban on “editing” of human DNA to avoid unethical tampering with hereditary traits

 A UNESCO panel of scientists, philosophers, lawyers and government ministers has called for a temporary ban on genetic “editing” of the human germline, calling for a wide public debate on genetic modification of human DNA.

http://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-panel-experts-calls-ban-editing-human-dna-avoid-unethical-tampering-hereditary-traits

———


Are We Violating Biological Weapons Bans?

 August 21, 2016


https://www.laprogressive.com/biological-weapons-attack-plan/


——–


Biological Weapons Convention

 The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (usually referred to as the Biological Weapons Convention, abbreviation: BWC, or Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, abbreviation: BTWC) was the first multilateral disarmament treaty banning the production of an entire category of weapons.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_Weapons_Convention


—————-

Putin’s Influential Top Advisor Warns of Plan to Destroy Humanity

AI leads to tecehnotronic takeover

Infowars.com – August 5, 2017

https://www.infowars.com/putins-top-advisor-warns-world-of-globalist-satanic-ai-takeover-plan/

———-


Is genetic engineering (crispr, gene drive, etc.) advanced enough to kill or save billions of people?

If not, how long until a bad actor could design a killer virus with the contagion of measles and the lethality of Ebola?  Or a positive actor end Malaria?  Could George Church (or another genetic scientist) single handedly kill tens of millions of people?

Millions of gamers across the world enjoy playing Plague Inc: Evolved (PC). The object of the game is to eradicate the human species by evolving pathogens via a complex set of variables to simulate the severity and spread of the plague. Tomorrow’s CRISPR-based “gene drives” (cf. Gene Drive FAQ – Sculpting Evolution) have the capacity to kill billions of sentient beings or make the world a radically better place.

https://www.quora.com/Is-genetic-engineering-crispr-gene-drive-etc-advanced-enough-to-kill-or-save-billions-of-people

—————-

Could you make a genetically targeted weapon?

 Oct, 2004

– The BMA, which dismissed the idea of genetic weapons in a 1999 report (Biotechnology, Weapons and Humanity I), has lifted its new concerns from the work of a German group called the Sunshine Project. It looked at how mutations in our genome called single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) differ between specific ethnic groups and concluded: “Genome data in public databases revealed that hundreds, possibly thousands, of target sequences for ethnic specific weapons do exist. It appears that ethnic specific biological weapons may indeed become possible in the near future.”

Rather than specifically triggering the toxic effects of organisms such as anthrax, the Sunshine project warned that weapons based on a new medical technique called RNA interference could shut down vital genes. If the sequence of the target gene varies between two different populations the technique could be used to interrupt key body functions in one population and not the other. “If as little as 10% or 20% of a target population would be affected, this would wreak havoc among enemy soldiers on a battlefield or in an enemy society as a whole,” the group said.

Others say the concerns are exaggerated. “Trying to find a weapon that affects quite a few of one ethnic group and none of another ethnic group is just not going to happen,” says David Goldstein, who studies population genetics at University College London. “Because all groups are quite similar you will never get something that is highly selective. The best you would probably do is something that kills 20% of one group and 28% of another.”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2004/oct/28/thisweekssciencequestions.weaponstechnology

—————-


Ethnic specific weapons: The real story behind the murder of Dr David Kelly

July 27, 2010


https://www.sott.net/article/212776-Ethnic-specific-weapons-The-real-story-behind-the-murder-of-Dr-David-Kelly


—————-

Many people ask if bioweapons can be used against a specific group of people. We can see that certain groups of people can react differently to certain chemicals and pesticides. These types of chemical, biological and genetically modified experiments with weapons and viruses can cause harm to the environment, including all people, animals, as well as other types of beneficial organisms and bacteria. Others claim that the research on biological and genetically modified viruses could help solve many of the diseases that harm millions of people a year.

We can see the problems with many bioweapons that could be targeted against specific living beings. We are for using medical technology for good, and for promoting life on this planet. With many of the current genetic diseases and disorders, we should concentrate on solving many of these problems, instead of creating them. We now would like to give an example of how humans are all very similar and also very different, with unique genetic traits for scientists to study.


—————-