Enzymes and the pseudoscience heresy

A previous post of mine spoke about how one could conduct scientific research in the kitchen, with everything from tissue culture to molecular biology. However, one must always remember that these suggestions and comments actually come with a pre-condition of a good knowledge in science and a sensible head on ones shoulders.

One of my favourite phrases, “detox” is one of the most commonly used term among pseudoscience junkies. Somehow, the idea of the body being so full of bad chemicals and harmful elements due to our daily consumption, from the sound of if, probably as dangerous as a Chernobyl, that one needs expensive, “organic” (another 'favourite' pseudoscience term of mine) foodstuff to keep our bodies “clean”. Of course, most of them forget the most basic of their biology classes, the part where our kidneys and liver cleans out all waste products in the body.

However, recent developments in the country has caused me quite some concern on my previous suggestions, especially with the current “enzyme-making” fad and other related pseudoscience claims. Phrases like “natural live enzymatic components”, “enzyme drink for health and well-being”, etc. When none of the claims have any factual basis in science.

Hence, the recent fad of “creating” enzymes in the kitchen, 100% home-made, despite the fact that all recipes provided require you to buy certain overpriced products from direct-selling companies, are just nothing more than a less informed attempt to DIY. Let's all face it, one would not be able to DIY and make an antique-stained, chestnut wood cupboard without knowing how to wield a hammer and saw, despite what certain furniture companies would like you to think. Buying ready-made furniture, and putting them together with an allen key and crowing about how you DIY-ed your kitchen sink is just plain pure misguided.

I shudder to think what is currently brewing in the kitchens of most people “making enzymes”, primarily the literature being provided does not give much prominence to the necessity of sterile conditions. What is being sought out is a monoculture, may end up with a whole rainforest of bacteria, fungi and yeast. Similarly, the literature does not provide explanations on the necessity of various procedures and equipment, but instead just provided a recipe-book manner of instruction. Let's not forget how most home cooks have a tendency to substitute certain items should they find lacking. The whole exercise may be a living, ticking pathogen time bomb!

Hence I cite the example of a family friend who was “making enzymes”. She ended up having the cola bottle exploding in the kitchen coating the ceiling with gunk because no one bothered to inform her in the manual that it is important to allow gas to be expelled during the fermentation process. Instead, generic instructions on the importance of using glass/ceramic bottles/jars were provided without a science-backed explaination.

I am disgusted by how retailers actually prey on the gullibility of the public, and how uninformed the public are, and even more disgusted at consumer associations and related NGOs actually following such fads without a basis in science. I'm interested to see how many more explosions in the kitchen one can have before the public begins to wisen up. 

-KC Liew

Quotes on GM Crops and Technology and Technology - Taking a cue from top scientists and leaders

In this article I would like to share some of the views of eminent personalities and organizations on GM crops and technology. Surely, for the cream of the crop to accept this technology, it cannot be junk science. Let these views erase the horror stories of GM crops created by naysayers. Enjoy reading. 
 

"Research is international. Restrictions here in Germany do not prevent worldwide progress; they just shut German researchers and plant breeders out of the international competition." 

Prof. Christiane Nüsslein-Volhard

Nobel Laureate and Director of the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology, Tübingen.  

 
"It is paradoxical that field trials connected with biosafety research, of all things, are being destroyed and the scientists responsible are being publicly vilified." 
Prof. Mathias Kleiner
President of the DFG (German Research Foundation) 

 
"Shortages on the global markets are foreseeable, so we have a clear responsibility to use progress and innovation, and to promote research. Plant breeders rely on the whole range of tools, from classic breeding to crop biotechnology." 
Carl-Albrecht Bartmer
President of the DLG (German Agricultural Society) 

 
"Crop biotechnology is a complex science and the background cannot easily be explained to a broad public. In the public debate, objective, rational arguments are frequently countered with statements that are charged with emotions and designed to fuel fears."
Dr Arend Oetker
President of Stifterverband für die Deutsche Wissenschaft, Germany's science innovation agency 
 

"Refusing GM technology will hold back efforts to alleviate poverty and hunger, to save biodiversity and protect the environment."
Baron Marc Van Montagu
President of the European Federation of Biotechnology 

“The anti-GMO movement is an imperialism of rich tastes imposed on the poor." 
Robert Paarlberg
Wellesley College 
 

“The debate should not be whether to adopt biotechnology, but how to adopt it. African countries need to discuss issues of biosafety and intellectual property rights, which are the main points of contention”.
Margaret Karembu, Director of ISAAA AfriCentre 

“To solve the food problem, we have to rely on big science and technology measures, rely on biotechnology, rely on GM”

Premier Wen Jiabao
Chairman of the State Council/Cabinet of China 

“Using GM rice is the only way to meet the growing food demand”.

Dr. Dafang Huang
Former Director of the Biotechnology Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS) 

“It is important to apply biotechnology in agriculture. What has been done in Bt cotton must be done with food grains”.

Dr. P. Chidambaram
India’s former Finance Minister 

“Accelerate research and development and increase access to new agricultural technologies to boost agriculture production; we will promote science-based risk analysis, including on the contribution of seed varieties developed through biotechnology”.

G8 members meeting in Hokkaido in July 2008 

“GM crops can play an important role in mitigating the effects of the food crisis”.

The European Commission 

The World Health Organization (WHO), has emphasised the importance of GM crops because of their potential to benefit the public health sector by providing more nutritious food, decreasing its allergenic potential and also improving the efficiency of production systems. 
 

By Mahaletchumy Arujanan

The Art of Gene Silencing

In this post, I thought of discussing something a little technical but in simple, layman terms. I hope this will be informational and enhance the understanding of biotech for those who are not in this field.

We all know DNA is the hereditary material that makes the protein and gives the individualistic traits to all living organisms. Most traits are wanted and useful, but there are traits that are undesirable and create problems. For example, it would be good to have edible oils with higher ratio of good fatty acids to bad fatty acids. How about eliminating the genes that cause cancer and other deadly diseases? And how about timber trees that don’t flower early, instead grow bigger girth and produce better timber? These are possible if we can knock-out or silence the unwanted genes to prevent them from expressing themselves and producing the unwanted proteins and traits. This is what is known as gene silencing.

Gene silencing is part of genetic modification and is a very useful technique in developing new crop varieties, and has tremendous potential in controlling diseases in humans and animals. Gene silencing simply means switching off or turning down the activity of any undesired gene. Just like DNA, RNA is also made of nucleic acids and is like a courier that delivers the gene’s instruction to make a protein. To silence or turn off a gene’s activity, a mechanism is activated to interfere with the RNA, so the gene’s instruction is never transmitted and the protein is never made. Thus, the gene has been silenced. Because gene silencing involves in the interfering with the RNA activity, it is also known as RNA interference (RNAi).

Scientists are consistently proving that diseases start at gene level and is caused because of malfunctioning of gene expression. With gene silencing, it is possible to shut down a gene and make mutant genes to behave normally. So, turning off the gene that causes cancer is a possibility. Gene silencing too offers tremendous help in drug development. Since this mechanism switches off the activity of only a targeted gene, it is possible to determine the precise function of that gene. This helps in the identification of a target in human cells and is poised to revolutionize drug development.

In the agriculture sector too, gene silencing is an important step in the quest to develop better plants – plants that are able to resist diseases and pests, and plants with improved nutritional qualities.

By Mahaletchumy Arujanan

Launch of ISAAA’s Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2008 in MARDI

Last week, for the second time MARDI hosted the launch of the ISAAA’s Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops. The first one was in 2007. This time round the publication was launched by the Dato’ Mohd Mokhtar Ismail, the Secretary General of the Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based Industry in the presence of Datuk Dr. Abd. Shukor Abd. Rahman, the DG of MARDI and Dr. Umi Kalsom Abu Bakar, the Director of Biotechnology Research Centre, MARDI. Both MABIC and ISAAA are pleased with the continued support rendered by MARDI towards promoting public awareness on biotechnology.

ISAAA has been tracking the trends of the adoption of GM crops since 1996 and this is one of the most cited literatures in agribiotechnology. The report is entirely funded by two European philanthropic organizations: a philanthropic unit within Ibercaja, one of the largest Spanish banks headquartered in the maize growing region of Spain; and the Bussolera-Branca Foundation from Italy, which supports the open-sharing of knowledge on biotech crops to aid decision-making by global society.

In 2008, ISAAA found that 13.3 million farmers in 25 countries were able to experience the benefits associated with biotech crops. Additionally, total planted area grew 10.7 million hectares. Most notably, in 2008 biotech farming began in the African nations of Egypt and Burkina Faso. Africa is considered the “final frontier” for biotech crops as it has perhaps the greatest need and most to gain. In 2008, Egypt planted 700 hectares of Bt maize and Burkina Faso planted 8,500 hectares of Bt cotton. They join South Africa, which since 1998 has benefited from biotech cotton, maize and soybean.

Political leaders globally are increasingly viewing biotech enhanced crops as a key part of the solution to critical social issues of food security and sustainability. For example, G-8 leaders in 2008 for the first time recognized the significance of biotech crops and called to “accelerate research and development and increase access to new agricultural technologies to boost agriculture production; we will promote science-based risk analysis, including on the contribution of seed varieties developed through biotechnology.”

The European Union also has acknowledged that biotech crops “can play an important role in mitigating the effects of the food crises.” In China, Premier Wen Jiabao has said “to solve the food problem, we have to rely on big science and technology measures, rely on biotechnology, rely on GM.” As a result, China has committed an additional US $3.5 billion over 12 years for continued research and development. Biotech rice alone, already developed and field tested in China, has the potential to increase food availability and net income by about US$100 per hectare for approximately 440 million people in the country.

“Biotech crops make two important contributions to global food security,” Dr. Clive James, the author of the report said. “First, they increase yields, which increase food availability and supply. Second, they reduce production costs, which will also ultimately help reduce food prices. With 9.2 billion people to be fed by 2050, biotechnology plays a crucial role in helping satisfy the growing demand.”

Further, biotechnology is beginning to identify solutions to the growing challenges with drought being seen in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. Drought is the single largest constraint to increased productivity. For example, Argentina currently faces a drought so severe that farmers have made a loss on their wheat crop. Drought-tolerant crops, maize in particular, are an emerging reality with seeds expected to be commercialized in the United States by 2012 or sooner and by 2017 for Africa.

In his speech during the launch, Datuk Dr. Shukor highlighted the various GM researches that are ongoing at MARDI and his hope to commercialize them. Whereas, the Secretary General stressed the importance of GM crops and their positive impact on the environment. He further envisaged its potential to the rural communities. He also urged all government agencies involved in agriculture to embrace this technology or face the reality of lagging behind countries like India, China, Philippines, Brazil and Argentina.


By Mahaletchumy Arujanan

No Two Patents Are The Same (Part 2)

Example 2

Say a researcher has been conducting research on palm oil. Yet similar results can be obtained using other vegetable oils, say corn oil, coconut oil, canola oil etc. Unless there is support for the use of the other vegetable oils, it is very likely the patent examiner will object to a set of broad claims covering all vegetable oils. Therefore to claim full benefit of the invention, the researcher may have to repeat the research on other vegetable oils.

Similar analytical approach must be adopted in all other fields of technology. Unless such a detailed analysis is undertaken in drafting patent specification and claims, the effort and expenses in obtaining a patent may be wasted. The patent draftsman must have substantial knowledge in the field of technology to pose the right questions or issues to the researcher / or inventor. For example, if the invention is in the filed of chemistry, then naturally the patent draftsman must have at least a degree in Chemistry. If the invention is in the field of electronics, then the draftsman must have at least a degree in Electronics. That is why it is common to find patent draftsman with double degree in a scientific field and in law, in industrialised countries.

In addition to conducting an analysis of the various parameters and set members, it is also prudent to carry out a search what published information on the claimed features of the invention is “out there”. Typically, at least a detailed search on patent database and indexed non-patent literature should be conducted. This exercise will incur additional costs. But costs expended will have the same potential costs during the patent examination stage. A strong patent application which has considered almost all prior art technology will be difficult to invalidate for lack of novelty or inventiveness. Thus one would be confident that a granted patent cannot be easily invalidated. A comprehensive search report also enables the patentee to negotiate higher royalty or licensing fees, or assignment values.

Many say getting a patent is the easiest. To defend a patent when attacked for validity or have a patent with broad claims to prevent others taking advantage of the inventive concept are challenging tasks even for an experienced patent draftsman. No two patents are the same – can aim for a simple “paper patent” or a patent with real value. Researchers and inventors need to know the objective of obtaining patent.

Article by P. Kandiah (B.Sc (Hons)) (LLB (Hons))
Member of Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys U.K (CIPA)

Distinguished fellow of MABIC
KASS International Sdn Bhd
E-mail: ipr@kass.com.my
Website: www.kass.com.my
© 2009 All rights reserved

Any feedback on this article is welcomed and appreciated.
Comments: ipr@kass.com.my

(Apart from the issues discussed, there are other issues to be considered in the drafting of a good patent specification).

Giving True Meaning to “Malaysia Boleh”

I attended an MoU signing ceremony between a private research organization and an European based multinational company recently. It was an honour for me to act as a witness for the signing of this MoU, as well as present a talk at that event.  Since the launch of the National Biotechnology Policy in 2005, we see a mushrooming of ‘biotech’ companies in Malaysia where many label their business as ‘biotech’. This is due to the enormous support provided by the government in terms of funds, financial schemes, tax incentives and special status of deserving biotech companies. Thus, there is a rush to share the ‘biotech’ pie. Sometimes, I feel we need to redefine ‘biotechnology’ to be able include all these companies and cluster them under the biotech industry. We often see wide spectrum of companies ranging from manufacturers of herbal concoctions to the ones producing ‘real biotech’ stuff. However, what I saw during this event gave new hope to the biotech industry in Malaysia. It was a testament that the industry is poised to grow and flourish on Malaysian soil.  
What brought a Belgium based company with a marketing network reaching to 70 nations in the field of animal healthcare, and employing over 700 staff who speak 20 different languages to Malaysia? The pull factor here is a private entity based in Tawau, Sabah which has created its footprint in aquaculture products and research. INVE, the Belgium based company saw great potential in an antiviral drug called RetroMAD1 produced by BioSatria Sdn Bhd for use in aquaculture and livestock industry. BioSatria is a spin-off company of Global Satria Group. The product developed by this company is no ordinary anti-viral. It involves genetic transformation which incorporates 3 different genes into recombinant bacteria to produce an oral-delivery multifunctional fusion protein that hits viral entry, fusion, integration and replication! Of course, the protein refolding is the difficult bit and this will become BioSatria’s drug pipeline platform producing ChAMPs or Chimeric AntiMicrobial Peptides. 

One can only imagine the amount of time, funds, and effort BioSatria spent to be able to develop this anti-viral to its ‘Proof of Concept’ phase…. I understand that more research is being carried out on RetroMAD1 to study its efficacy, safety, and other aspects. A number of trials will be carried out on different animal models to prove viral elimination in mammals as well as poultry. Research is also being carried out to upscale its production in bigger bioreactors. BioSatria’s sister company Defensia S/B will be studying human applications for these new drugs with the University of Malaya. 

RetroMAD1 is a product of a paradigm shift - I would say. It has all the elements that I always preach – research in priority area; private-public collaboration; long-term vision and continuity; market-driven research; and strong fundamental research. RetroMAD1 would not have been a reality if not for all these elements. What is more heartening is that such high-tech product and quality coming from a private laboratory. BioSatria has clearly understood the need of the market and the growing aquaculture industry and its challenges and has stepped into the right direction. Its innovation will not only be available to the Malaysian market but also globally which will be made possible by INVE’s global market reach. BioSatria is now planning to set up a pilot-manufacturing plant in Peninsula Malaysia to produce this oral vaccine. This is certainly a new dawn for the Malaysian biotechnology sector. BioSatria will have its share of contribution towards achieving our national biotechnology agenda in terms of creating more jobs for aspiring biotechnologists and increasing the percentage of GDP from the biotech sector. 

Thumbs up to BioSatria and hope its success, innovation and spirit will be emulated by other biotechnology companies. 

By Mahaletchumy Arujanan

April Fools

How many of you were actually fooled on April 1st? What is the nature of the prank? April Fools is a day whereby pranks and jokes are played on the gullible to varying degrees. Elaborate and well-known pranks include BBC's spaghetti trees documentary in 1957, the changing of Big Ben to analogue, BMW yearly pranks etc.

This sounds odd for a topic on a biotechnology website, but then I would like to focus on a prank I pulled on that particular day on many people in an online forum I regularly haunt. Behind the frivolity of the prank, there is a more serious underlying issue at stake whereby it would be important for us as thinking human beings to look at. Look at the following:

Dihydrogen monoxide:
* is called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is the major component of acid rain.
* contributes to the "greenhouse effect".
* may cause severe burns.
* contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
* accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
* may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* has been found in excised tumor

Yes, I pulled a fast one with dihydrogen monoxide, aka water. It was very amusing to look at how people who actually supported a blanket ban on the substance without further research in the first place. Similarly, the wording that was shown above, being used in the online poll I set up, was sufficiently alarmist but yet not untrue about water. Looking at the statements, from your knowledge about water, how can one say the above as being untrue? However, despite so, it would also be ludicrous to suppose that water is a dangerous substance that needs to be banned, on the contrary to what is being assumed, water is a life-giving substance which is important to every living being.

It is important to note that there are organisations out there who are thriving on such inherent alarmist tactics to create fear and generate revenue in turn. These are organisation breeding on the inherent good intentions of people who yet are gullible and able to believe things without further verification. Especially with current media trends, where people are being bombarded by information which may or may not be biased, it would be very hard to verify on a first glance. If DHMO.org was an organisation, with the level of support for the bans, I would think that the human race would have to move to a desert planet.

The prank which was perpetrated by Eric Lechner, Lars Norpchen and Matthew Kaufman of UC Santa Cruz in 1989 signifying a greater issue at stake, where science facts are being overlooked and replaced by alarmist accounts which are probably true but worded in a way to give a false negative. As such as the above box. Referring to the Wikipedia article on the subject, the hoax is still alive and well, with people from all walks of life, including MPs being duped.

My contention is this. Google! Anyone with a computer can Google up DHMO or dihydrogen monoxide and find out it was a prank. But how many actually did take the effort to verify that the cause was worthy? How many actually would take the time to check whether petitions are for a worthy cause, instead of something frivolous, or worse, simply pure alarmist? All I am trying to convey right now is the importance of verification and understanding both sides of the debates, and that information being provided for consideration on issues should be factual and science-based. Probably only then will the DHMO issue be able to lay to rest, and my cup of water is not being threatened by organisations with vested interests.