Beesource Beekeeping Forums banner

Transgenic bees

36K views 187 replies 31 participants last post by  tecumseh 
#1 ·
I have been keeping bees for about 10 years now as a hobbyist and can't help but notice how the global economy, for better or for worse, has been directly responsible for the import of honey bee pests. You hear the lament of those that began before the onslaught of plagues that now visit upon most who keep bees. So, I have a question that is sure to cause some amount of debate; how many of you would be willing to use genetically modified honey bees if they were truly resistant or immune to your favorite scourge?
 
#117 ·
Just wanted to throw in that I was enjoying the discussion as well.
Hope nothing I said is taken too hard, I enjoy a debate from time
to time. My comrade students are going to debate the use of
transgenics at some entomology society meetings and I can't
participate due to time constraints, so I guess I'm getting my fill
online.

But again, I feel strongly that the honey bee is not the place to
work with transgenic technologies and can think of many many
reasons why that we have not even discussed yet.
 
#122 ·
Hm. Good point. But as far as I know (and I'm not a crop farmer) the only GM influenced crop in Ohio is corn. If I'm correct on that, then my honey and my pollen are not influenced. -John Gesner
What?!? No soybeans grown around there? (Just to clarify, here, RoundUp-Ready crops are "GM" plants, and more than half of the soybeans grown in the U. S. now are "RR 'beans.")

And, maybe your bees don't, but I believe my bees collect pollen from corn. I work extensively in corn, and I frequently see bees collecting pollen from corn. I also see honey bees fumbling around in dry corn fields long after pollen is available; I'm not sure what they're after, but they seem attracted to the fields. Maybe they find some pollen? Maybe they're just investigating?

And, while we're on the "risks" and "unnatural" aspects of transgenics, how do all of you feel about grafting trees? "Unnatural" and "risky?" Or "acceptable?" All those almond trees that so many bees visit in California are grafted, of course, and many other fruit trees (apples, etc.) are grafted as well.
 
#123 ·
>>Hm. Good point. But as far as I know (and I'm not a crop farmer) the only GM influenced crop in Ohio is corn. If I'm correct on that, then my honey and my pollen are not influenced.

Oh ya, you have alot of corn if your from Ohio :) And that crop doesnt seem to be rotated to often, as in wheat or canola crops. I am sure you have soybeans there, for at least my ag reps would tell me.

>>All those almond trees that so many bees visit in California are grafted, of course, and many other fruit trees (apples, etc.) are grafted as well.

Isnt that interesting.
I know alot of modern fruiting trees are grafted up here to make wintering possible. Just for interests sake, whats the advantage of grafting an almond tree for use in California?
 
#124 ·
I know alot of modern fruiting trees are grafted up here to make wintering possible. -Ian
Around here, many of the fruit trees are grafted to obtain other characteristics as well, such as physical growth or disease resistance or other traits. For example, certain apple cultivars are grafted onto "dwarf" rootstocks to produce trees that are not as tall (easier picking come harvest). Winter hardiness figures into it, but maybe not as much as some of the other traits. Besides that, grafting is a way of "cloning" plants or trees to produce many with identical traits from a single tree or plant.

Just for interests sake, whats the advantage of grafting an almond tree for use in California? -Ian
I'm not really sure. I believe disease resistance is a big part of it. Many of the almonds are grafted onto rootstocks that are supposed to be resistant to numerous plant diseases. I would venture, too, that "uniformity" in getting high yields and desireable fruit (nuts) from the trees would make cloning (grafting) advantageous. I have read repeatedly that the almond trees in California are almost all grafted.
 
#125 ·
Hi Guys,

Regardless of technology, best intentions and know-how, most times things don't work out as we expect. Sometimes it's better. Sometimes it's worse.

Maybe it's time to bank bees and other kinds of life, much like we're doing with seeds in the arctic.

Regards
Dennis
Thinking a reverse gear is a good thing when traveling over new, uncharted ground.
 
#126 ·
Well written, Dennis.

In regards to transgenic ("GM") organisms, I take it that none of the pure opponents of transgenic organisms has insulin-dependent diabetes, or has a family member who has insulin-dependent diabetes.

While I'm not advocating inserting genes into bees through transgenic events, I don't feel that the knee-jerk reaction against GM is justified, either.
 
#129 ·
> So if transgenic bees were developed and someone had them
> in a nearby beeyard and your queen mated with them, would
> the company that developed them sue you because your bees
> had their patented genes?

'would'? Company decision/choice.

'could'? At this point in time, yes, as per discussion on p2 of this thread.

Patent holders have used the legal system to punish individuals who inadvertently wound up with contamination by transgenic material. Whether this occurred by natural means or theft is irrelevant, you can be sued for making use of the benefits without having licensed them.

The situation may change, there are many who believe the present status is not a sustainable long term legal premise.
 
#130 · (Edited)
>>Patent holders have used the legal system to punish individuals who inadvertently wound up with contamination by transgenic material. Whether this occurred by natural means or theft is irrelevant, you can be sued for making use of the benefits without having licensed them.

They have the right to sue if thier technology and developments are being used without permission. Even the seed breeders out side of GM technology have this right, and have also persued these cases. The fact of the matter, and the bases of Monsantos case along with other cases with seed breeders, is that the technology was taken and used without permission of the company, and in many cases it also extends to profiting on the sale of brown bag seed.
There is much more to Monsantos case than the media leads to believe. They won in a cort of law, and they wouldnt of won if that particular farmers claims held reasonable truth.
As it relates breeding of bees, and to contoling the genes outside of thier breeding program, would be impossible nor would they have the legal ability to pursue that. With in a breeding program, they have the ability to sell thier produce, but outside the program they loose that right. It would follow the same principles as seed breeders follow now.
 
#132 ·
Fascinating forum topic

Hi folks,

I can't spend too much time on this forum topic right now, but I've read a few pages and I want to read more and be a part of this discussion. I just wanted to make a couple points.

Those who are saying that GE crops cause X health or environmental or butterfly-killing problem (or CCD) really need to spend some time looking up the facts on transgenic crops. There's a lot of misinformation out there, and I'll admit, it's really hard to find out reliable information without going directly to the scientific literature.

That being said, it brings up many many good things to talk about, such as who controls what, how do you ensure people's rights while providing an economic incentive for useful traits to be developed in bees? What about swarms and supercedures? These are good questions.

The strongest argument, put forward by HVH, is that if you're really concerned about someone 'controlling' the bees and having lawsuits over backyard swarms, then what you really want is publicly-funded research programs instead of private companies. I find it fascinating that the opposition to transgenic organisms in universities is pushing it more into the hands of private enterprise - exactly the folks that activists are afraid of.

More fascinating, though, is that whenever a discussion of genetic engineering comes up, people start talking about evolution as if it was a benevolent deity. I've noticed this elsewhere, but this sentiment has certainly been echoed here.
Dinor said:
"I don't know why man thinks he can do better than nature."
Honeybees are a partly domesticated species - the combination of nature and human intervention. So there's a dichotomy being drawn where there isn't one. The same thing goes for crops - nature didn't hand down apples and bananas, humans bred them from wild, seedy, and sometimes poisonous species.

buckbee said:
"In the context of evolution and the life of this planet, we are still infants playing with dangerous toys. The sooner we recognize this and put our faith in the processes and cycles of nature, rather than the pet theories of scientists, the sooner we will be able to get on with the real work of creating a new relationship with the natural world, based on respect and appreciation rather than casual disregard and exploitation."
and:
"What do you trust - millions of years of evolution, or a profit-driven agrichemical company?"

Evolution is not benevolent. It happens by tooth and claw and toxin - evolution actually makes far nastier toxins than humans have ever been able to come up with. I would rather be guided by scientific evidence than what is essentially a religious statement.

Genetic Engineering is no more a casual disregard than is breeding - both modify the genetics of an organism, albeit by different methods. It raises philosophical issues, but I would like to caution those who make blanket statements about its usefulness based on a philosophical predisposition rather than the state of the science.

I'm going to keep reading this discussion when I have more time. See y'all in a few days.
 
#133 ·
The strongest argument, put forward by HVH, is that if you're really concerned about someone 'controlling' the bees and having lawsuits over backyard swarms, then what you really want is publicly-funded research programs instead of private companies. I find it fascinating that the opposition to transgenic organisms in universities is pushing it more into the hands of private enterprise - exactly the folks that activists are afraid of.
I would be shocked if the bee industry decided to put time, money, or
even inclination in making a transgenic bee. Monsanto and other such
corps don't have the expertise, nor the monetary motivation. So as long
as the publicly funded institutions stay out of it, we'll probably be pretty
safe from that one.
 
#134 ·
"Safe"?

"So as long as the publicly funded institutions stay out of it, we'll probably be pretty safe from that one."

And we may be stuck on the same downward spiral of diseases and pests...

I'd like to mention that one of the things that genetic engineering does very well is make resistance to viral diseases. Imagine if you could eliminate those from the hive for starters..? The way you use "safe" above is very subjective.
 
#136 ·
"So as long as the publicly funded institutions stay out of it, we'll probably be pretty safe from that one."

And we may be stuck on the same downward spiral of diseases and pests...

I'd like to mention that one of the things that genetic engineering does very well is make resistance to viral diseases. Imagine if you could eliminate those from the hive for starters..? The way you use "safe" above is very subjective.
Sure its subjective, but your making very broad assumptions. Have we had the time to see how viruses respond to genetic engineering? How do viruses respond to that kind of unprecedented selection pressure in species that sexually reproduce? Has genetically engineered viral diseases resistance been successfully used in any species that reproduces comparable to honey bees, or are you talking about plants or other species that are 'cloned' or otherwise not allowed to go through the diverse sexual reproduction that honey bees go through?

About those viruses, when we know the vector is Varroa and we have come so far in breeding and control measures to address Varroa, why create a genetic or other breeding program that concentrates on the virus instead of the vector? Your going to have to address the vector regardless of the viruses because the parasitism alone will kill colonies. And, just think about how many viruses and how much variation probably exists in each one of those viruses. To think that one could genetically engineer out even a significant proportion of those viruses is clearly wishful thinking, from my subjective point of view. AND, until you fully address the vector, any virus you eliminate can be easily replaced by yet another virus.
 
#135 ·
Here's an older paper about transgenic bee research (not biology though).:confused: I wonder what else has been done in the last three years?

Apidologie 36 (2005) 293-299
DOI: 10.1051/apido:2005003
A new method for rearing genetically manipulated honey bee workers

Anne Lene T.O. Aasea, Gro V. Amdama, b, Arne Hagena and Stig W. Omholta

a Centre for Integrative Genetics and Department of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, PO Box 5003, 1432 Aas, Norway
b Department of Entomology, University of California, Davis 95 616, USA

(Received 4 June 2004 - Revised 4 September 2004 - Accepted 17 September 2004; Published online: 1 June 2005)
Abstract - Advanced functional genomic research on the honey bee (Apis mellifera) will require methods that allow researchers to work with bees derived from genetically manipulated embryos. In vitro rearing of honey bees is laborious, and it is often difficult to obtain individuals that span a normal phenotypic range. We present a technique that allows manipulated honey bee eggs to be introduced into hives so the larvae can be reared in a colony setting. Newly laid eggs on removable cell bases were injected with nuclease free H2O, double-stranded RNA (dsRNA), or left untreated. They were inserted into specially designed hives where they hatched. Colonies accepted a satisfactory proportion of eggs from all treatment groups (28-53%). Further, a set of physiological and morphological traits (i.e., total protein in the hemolymph, head width, antennal length, and the length of a compound vein) were compared between workers derived from untreated, incubated eggs, and bees that naturally emerged in the hives. No significant differences were found between the groups. Our method therefore overcomes the challenges associated with in vitro rearing.

http://www.apidologie.org/index.php...129&url=/articles/apido/pdf/2005/03/M4062.pdf
 
#137 ·
We have about 14 pages on this thread with people weighing in with opinions about the good, the bad, and the ugly of transgenic bees, but not very much about what the beekeeping industry and hobbiests will do once they arrive. Some have argued that transgenic bees won't ever become a reality due to a lack of funding or interest (see my previous post). Let's assume for a minute that transgenic bees become a reality within 10-20 years. Will the bottom line dictate to the large commercial beeks whether to use transgenic bees? Once the bees are here, how will it affect the rest of us?
 
#139 ·
Ian,

I understand your point but the costs in my field continue to drop. There is a collision course between lowering costs of genetic engineering and the transgenic bee. One of the stated goals in the genomics industry is to reduce the cost of sequencing a patient's entire genome to $1000.00. A lot of people are starting careers in bioinformatics because there is a lot of power in data mining through genomes. We don't need to know everything about a honey bee if we can steal the information from Drosophila. Of course it will take some effort, but perhaps less than one might think.
 
#141 ·
Much Ado.....

Transgenics is a research tool and little more, not a threat or a salvation. I trained at the school that invented the transgenic mouse back in the *70's*. Genes hunt in packs. Changing one gene amounts to little more than the death of an individual in a society of millions. For instance, the death of MLK was important because he was a great man, but it did not stop the civil rights movement. Likewise, a few genes altered, even very oddly, has limited potential for changing an organism. Maybe creating entire chromosomes *might* do something exceptional, but it is reductionistic drivel to say that altering anything less than a ecosystem is significant beyond the next generation. Save it for church or the R01 (depending on your bent).
 
#142 ·
Transgenics is a research tool and little more, not a threat or a salvation. I trained at the school that invented the transgenic mouse back in the *70's*. Genes hunt in packs. Changing one gene amounts to little more than the death of an individual in a society of millions. For instance, the death of MLK was important because he was a great man, but it did not stop the civil rights movement. Likewise, a few genes altered, even very oddly, has limited potential for changing an organism. Maybe creating entire chromosomes *might* do something exceptional, but it is reductionistic drivel to say that altering anything less than a ecosystem is significant beyond the next generation. Save it for church or the R01 (depending on your bent).
You sound like one of the few on this thread that might even purchase a trangenic bee some day in the future.

If the people in the USA and Europe are refractive, will the Chinese be glad to step in and make transgenic bees? Will we be less competitive if they do?
 
#144 · (Edited)
What I keep wondering is if/do beekeepers question or investigate the breeding techniques of the "races" or hybrids of bees that they purchase now? How would you know, for example, that "Futzenreuter-Dunkelkopf Super Survivor Honey Bees*" are not transgenic?

*Any similarity to any available bees from any breeding program(s) is purely coincidental.
 
#145 ·
Kieck,

Interesting point. I guess that I have always imagined a full disclosure (probably the law) and then the predictable "Flavor Saver Tomato" outcry. China, on the other hand, probably would follow the stealth approach. It would be ironic if honey from China one day had less chemical residues because they used transbees.
 
#146 ·
Below is a link to another paper indicating that there is an academic interest in transgenic bees. Some on this thread have indicated a disbelief that we are anywhere near having the technology to make transgenic bees while others have indicated that there is no interest. This is the second paper I have referenced on this thread that supports the notion that there is an interest and that the technology is unfolding as we breath.
In the tailgater section another heated thread about technology and transgenics in particular (more crop oriented) is being volleyed about under the title "Why".

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1434730

BMC Developmental Biology
Methodology article Open Access
Long-term maintenance of in vitro cultured honeybee (Apis
mellifera) embryonic cells
Monica Bergem*, Kari Norberg and Randi M Aamodt


A quote from the paper above.
"Another application of cells in culture is as donors in cell
transplantations for cell-mediated gene transfer and production
of chimeras. Our group has recently successfully
produced chimeras by transplantation of cells between
embryos."
 
#152 ·
Looks like we have an important controversy going on here. And since I have difficulty walking by silently on such a controversy, I'll put my 2 cents in even though I'm certainly not a microbiologist.

It seems we have two alternatives. First, is the old way of breeding many, many generations of an organism until we "engineer" the result we want. And this result will certainly have different genes that our original organisms. Over many, many generations, there would be a high probability of accidentally creating organisms that have very detrimental consequences. A prime example of this is the AHB breeding attempt in Brazil in 1957. But, I'm sure there are many other examples. When two organisms breed, man has very little control over the genetic roulette wheel.

The second alternative is modern genetic engineering. Here a skilled technician has a much higher probability of creating a beneficial organism and at much less cost than doing it by the traditional "genetic engineering" approach (selective breeding).

We should use every tool we have in our tool kit to make beneficial improvements in the organisms that we depend on. I believe to not use such tools is the same as advocating that no one should fly because aircraft accidents do happen.

So, I have no doubt that HVH is correct. Thankfully, it is impossible, in the long run, to stop progress.
 
#149 · (Edited)
Hi Peggjam,

I can't believe I pulled you away from Kieck:). It really isn't a laughing matter, but I don't feel as passionately as either of you do. I came home for lunch and figured while I was here I may as well take some drones to work with me and see if I can clone a gene that is likely to be highly expressed in sperm. It usually takes me about two days to clone a gene (took months back in the 80's). I think handling TNT would make me nervous at first, but once I carried it around for awhile and got comfortable with it, I would know its limitations. Of course, I might get careless and blow myself and everyone else around me up in a ball of flames. Either way, you can't stop the train. I would suggest that you read-up on the technology so you can be more focused on the best areas to be scared sh..less. Bioweapons (bad GMO's) scare me much more than good GMO's. One day something stupid will be done and there will be intended/unintended consequences. The question I will have at that time, if I am still around is - did the benefits outweigh the costs. We have paid a cost for the invention of antibiotics, but I think we are better off (for now).
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top