To GM or not to GM?

Economic solutions to an economic problem T he current system of antibiotic development and distribution needs changing, to align commercial incentives with public needs. Accord‐ing to the Review of Antimicrobial Resistance led by O’Neill, the heart of the problem is that the current system predicates drug profitability on their price and quantity sold. Therefore, it is critical to shift to a system that rewards innovation instead, based on its value to society. The review goes on to state that this could be achieved with a global ‘market entry reward’ system for antibiotics and alternative therapies. Companies that are successful in devel‐oping a much-needed drug will be rewarded with a lump sum of 1.3 billion USD, effectively reim‐bursing them for the high costs of drug develop‐ment.

Of course, the funding must come from some‐where. The Review argues that since effective an‐tibiotics are widely required in the field, the whole industry should be involved in developing new antibiotics. This has led to the suggestion of an ‘Antibiotic investment charge’, where pharma

companies not doing AMR-based research would be levied depending on their sales, while those in‐vesting an equivalent amount or more would be spared - a ‘pay-or-play’ system. Those that are not doing AMR-related research would be levied de‐pending on their sales, while companies that are investing an equivalent or greater amount will be spared. This would provide funding, and also but encourage AMR-related research to benefit the in‐dustry as a whole.

We must slow down resistance, reduce unne‐cessary antibiotic demand, and boost new drug de‐velopment. We can outrace resistance if we act now—and it starts with recognising resistance as a global threat to humanity. “it is critical to shift to a system that rewards innovation instead, based on its value to society”

Cynthia Hou is a Biochemistry undergraduate at Magdalen College. To GM or not to GM? It’s not about the science. I n 1983, a gene from Agrobacterium (a plant-in‐fecting bacterium) was successfully inserted into a plant cell, marking a 'coming-of-age' moment for plant genetic engineering. The result‐ing possibilities seemed endless; pest-resistant, selffertilising and nutritionally-fortified crop varieties. But relatively little of this technology has been im‐plemented on a global scale.

Casual viewers might think the technology is not safe, which is understandable given the ‘frankenfood’ labels given to the new GM crops. But this is a misconception as there is scientific consensus on their safety. The American Associ‐ation for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) stated in 2012 that the ‘science is quite clear’ re‐garding the safety of biotechnology for crop im‐provement. Demand for GM crops T he failure to integrate GM crops into main‐stream agriculture is not due to lack of de‐mand. In Tanzania, the loss of cassava crops due to virus outbreaks contributes to malnutrition and a shockingly high infant mortality rate. Tanzanian scientists have developed disease-resistant cassava strains that produce much greater yields than nat‐ive varieties.

Despite this, Tanzania is one of many African countries that has a ‘strict liability’ stance against GM crops. Even when the crops were tested in fields, ‘biosafety’ rules saw their destruction fol‐lowing harvest—mere miles away from starving families.

Why did GM fail? T he science says that genetically modified (GM) crops are safe, so why doesn’t the pub‐lic believe this? First impressions stick, and the en‐trance of GM crops into the industry has shaped the public perception of them ever since.

The herbicide Roundup™, originally manu‐factured by Monsanto, is one notable example. The first GM product launched was Roundup Ready soy in 1996; this allowed soy farmers to

spray their fields indiscriminately without killing the soy plants. This caused outrage over the effect of rampant herbicide use on the environment, and fears of the technology being monopolised by large corporations.

The company could instead have developed a crop variety that produces a natural pesticide, which would have reduced the need for spraying. Had this been the case, today’s public perception of GM might have been different.

Monsanto’s insensitive move, followed by fear-mongering from environmental activists, overshadowed other successful applications of GM in agriculture. These include Bt cotton, which is genetically engineered to produce a natural insect‐icide usually produced by soil bacteria. Although the promised increase in crop yields has not been attained, partly due to disregard for practices to slow down the evolution of resistance, the figures for Bt cotton in India are not as low as activists have claimed.

In spite of such advances, public pressure has led governments to adopt anti-GM policies, such as the EU’s effective moratorium on approvals of GM crops; the process for evaluating new GM crops is so slow that economic viability is limited. Yet these same countries import GM corn for an‐imal feed, revealing a disparity between the goals of campaigners and the actions of governments. Nonetheless, the use of GM crops has rapidly expanded in developing countries, where potential benefits to farmers are most acute. Additionally, the potential of the bacterial viral defense mechan‐ism CRISPR-Cas9 to edit genes was realised in 2012, accelerating the creation of new GM products.

Researchers at the University of Oxford are part of a team using this technology to engineer rice with C4 photosynthesis, where carbon dioxide entering the leaf takes a more efficient route at high temperatures and in arid environments. This has the potential to increase yields by up to 50%. The future of food G M is here to stay. But will it become the fu‐ture of food? Proponents of GM draw paral‐lels between the processes of selective breeding and genetic modification: both artificially alter an or‐ganism’s genetic makeup to confer an advantage‐ous trait. They argue that the differences between today's staple crops and their wild ancestors are just as ‘alien’ as changes created by GM.

Moreover, some GM critics are starting to ac‐cept its potential use in publicly funded projects to benefit small-scale farms as well as industrial ones. But GM, if it is the ‘future of food’, is not a silver bullet solution to the problem of sustaining the world’s population.

Technologies such as Bt cotton in India must adapt to problems such as bollworms evolving im‐munity to the Bt cotton gene. This mirrors the pattern of over-reliance on pesticides, creating an‐other monoculture. Just as flawed is the idea of land-intensive organic farming, though promoted as the ideal solution by many environmental activ‐ists.

Instead, the ‘future of food’ should involve the deployment of every feasible method to protect the environment while maximising yields. With head‐lines detailing the stark reality of a burning Amazon and a changing climate, the public is be‐ginning to grasp that we must change, and this should include doing something different to reintegrate our food system with a changing planet. Elizabeth Tatham is a Biological Sciences undergraduate at St Hilda’s College. “...relatively little of this technology has been implemented on a global scale.” “...the use of GM crops has rapidly expanded in developing countries, where potential benefits to farmers are most acute.”

the Oxford Scientist

The UK Atomic Energy Authority to take a big step to fusion electricity UKAEA kindly sponsors the Oxford Scientist

The world needs a new large-scale, clean, reliable energy source. With the increasing electrification of transport, the exponential increase in global energy demand, and the need for deep decarbonisation, we need to be bold in tackling these problems. Nuclear fusion – the process that powers the stars – can be a big part of the answer. It is low land-use, has effectively inexhaustible fuel reserves, less radioactive waste than nuclear fission, continuous supply and no carbon production.

The UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), in Oxfordshire, is helping to shape the future of energy production by hosting the world’s largest fusion experiment and tackling some of the key materials and engineering challenges to making a nuclear fusion power station a reality. We offer a supportive route throughout people’s careers, for example students undertaking summer placements at Culham, a graduate entry programme and post-doc development scheme.

In collaboration with the University of Oxford W orking collaboratively with the University of Oxford has enabled us to find a significant overlap of research interests between the University and UKAEA. Our collaborations range from theoretical plasma addresses this challenge, which continues to evolve and grow. UKAEA uniquely has a portfolio of facilities to address this challenge, which continues to evolve and grow. On top of our existing research programme, the UK

Government is committing £220M to the conceptual design of a fusion power station – the Spherical Tokamak for Energy Production (STEP). This investment demonstrates the UK Government’s commitment to fusion and recognises the central role UKAEA plays in the international fusion programme. STEP could result in the world’s first fusion powerplant being built in the UK – opening the way to a clean energy revolution.

This investment means that our collaborations with Oxford University are set to grow further, and we are

16 physics and mathematical modelling through to materials science and engineering. This breadth of connections creates a dynamic and exciting relationship which is continually growing and creating new groundbreaking discoveries. UKAEA supports many DPhil projects at the University and contributes specialist lectures to the Fusion Centre for Doctoral Training (a multi-university endeavour that includes Oxford Materials).

Fusion Power in South Oxfordshire T hrough hosting the world’s premier fusion experiment – JET – on behalf of Euratom, and the UK’s flagship device, MAST Upgrade, combined with unique research capabilities, the UK is well positioned to lead the commercial development of fusion.

Using the power source of the universe in reactors

recruiting heavily in a wide range of disciplines. We take individuals from a variety of backgrounds and are able to offer opportunities across a number of programmes at UKAEA.

For further information on the current opportunities available, you can view our list of vacancies at the website for UKAEA’s Culham Centre for Fusion Energy lab: https://www.ccfe.ac.uk/Jobs.aspx, or email recruitment@ukaea.uk.

You may also wish to submit your CV for any of our talent pools to be considered for future vacancies that arise.

Case studies

Chris Stuart - General Engineering, Cambridge, completed UKAEA’s 2-year graduate scheme, currently a real-time control and software engineer. • I’ve been interested in fusion since sixth form. We had been taught about fusion as this vaguely abstract thing that happens in the Sun. I got a little bit obsessed and after reading pretty much everything about it, I realised there’s a Sun closer to home – there was a Joint European Torus (JET) experiment in the UK, that was the first place to do controlled DeuteriumTritium fusion reactions. • Going through university I wanted to do something that was pushing sustainability. So UKAEA and JET just became something that was clearly a great fit for me. • I would say in UKAEA there’s quite a focus on developing people. I didn’t have specific expertise in plasma physics, but I came with a set of skills that UKAEA thought was useful and they were very prepared to develop me and help me build more skills along the way.

James Buchanan –Physics undergrad and Particle Physics PhD, Oxford, completed UKAEA’s 2-year grad scheme, currently in the scientific computing group (HPC Specialist RSE) • I was looking for what I could do that would allow me to apply my skillset that I had developed during my PhD, whilst also finding something interesting and somehow meaningful. UKAEA was one of the first things I had stumbled across, and literally the day after handing in my thesis I thought “that seems really interesting” and I applied for their grad scheme. • The work itself is intellectually interesting and fun to do, and I consider myself a lucky guy to be working in such a place. There’s also quite a lot of freedom with your work and you can pursue things that you’re interested in. But also, it’s just a very nice environment to work in – a lot of the people that I work with are also my friends outside of work. • Fusion energy is a very global endeavour and requires a lot of international collaboration, so we have a large European contingent that work here as well as colleagues from across the globe.

Lucy Kogan –Physics, Bristol, Particle Physics PhD, Oxford, currently a software engineer on MAST upgrade. • The opportunities available on site are very broad. We have departments with scientists involved in the experiments happening on the reactors. Then we have staff working on the tools and analysis that supports that work, right down to the engineering roles developing control systems, designing parts for current and future tokamaks. • Fusion is really cross-disciplinary. You need scientific research to push barriers, but for energy purposes engineering an implementation is one of the big challenges. We have everyone from mathematical modellers and theoretical physicists to material scientists, engineers and software developers. • Viable fusion energy is definitely possible, it’s just that there is a lot of work to do! I think we are lucky to be working here, towards that goal.