[Thanks to Dr. Ibarra, Mexico, for this very clear message dealing directly with the issue of appropriateness of biotechnologies for the fishery sector in developing countries......Moderator]
HOW APPROPRIATE ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE BIOTECHNOLOGIES FOR THE FISHERY SECTOR IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES?
Without first considering transgenesis or GMOs, for which the background document indicates 'is currently in the research and development stage' (although at least one case is more in the commercial implementation stage), most of the already available genetic biotechnologies are very appropriate, and in fact in need to be used for the benefit not only of the fishery and aquaculture sector in developing countries, but also for the whole population. In the short to medium term, larger productions can be achieved with many of those genetic biotechnologies when used in aquaculture, and, in the fishery sector, those biotechnologies will (or should) ensure optimum management decisions for conservation of the wild populations exploited by the fishery sector.
If the biotechnologies are appropriate, then why are they not used more extensively? From my point of view, the problem rests in the capability to absorb and appropriately use those genetic biotechnologies in different developing countries. The lack of human resources within the fishery and aquaculture sector trained in the adequate use of those genetic biotechnologies, and their applications, might be the main cause for this. Specifically, there is a shortage of human resources trained in genetics (not only trained in molecular biology techniques, which could be considered as just one small part within the genetics field). For example, there are very few (if any) population and quantitative geneticist working within the fishery and aquaculture sector in most developing countries (I am speaking specifically of Latin America), which would be those [people] trained to use most of those biotechnologies in optimum ways.
That lack of human resources can result also in that, in the medium to long term, potentially high-risk biotechnologies will become implemented without a careful evaluation.
One last interesting point: no one has mentioned the possibility of reducing the risk of transgenic fish or shellfish by using sterility techniques, which are apparently being developed already (Dr. Peter Grewe, CSIRO Australia). Whereas that biotechnology in plants (staple food, mainly) can result in significant problems for subsistence farmers in developing countries, it is probably very appropriate in many fish-shellfish cultures. However, this raises another interesting question, what are the risks of the sterility gene(s) being transferred to wild populations? Anyone knows?
Ana M. Ibarra, Ph.D.
Aquacultural Genetics Group
CIBNOR (www.cibnor.mx), Mexico
aibarra@cibnor.mx
Aquacultural Genetics Lab.
Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas del Noroeste, S.C.
A.P. 128, La Paz B.C.S. 23000, Mexico
Tel: ++ 52 1 125-3633
Fax: ++ 52 1 125-3625
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 2:23 PM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Why are biotechnologies not used more extensively //
sterility techniques
In answer to a specific point [6 September] from Dr. Ibarra ("no one has mentioned the possibility of reducing the risk of transgenic fish or shellfish by using sterility"), the technology is certainly available and simple. The production of all-female triploid populations is a reliable technique for sterilizing salmonid fishes (and presumably other species). Individuals and companies producing transgenic fish for profit will presumably want to only sell sterile fish, in order to protect their investment. Triploid salmonids generally show reduced tolerance of chronic stress, and as a result the aquaculture industry has been reluctant to use them for regular production. However, I think the use of triploids is a simple way to ensure that transgenic salmonids do not breed if they escape into the wild.
T. Benfey
==================================================
Tillmann J. Benfey, PhD
Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
Department of Biology, University of New Brunswick
Fredericton, New Brunswick E3B 6E1, Canada
tel (506) 453-4583; fax (506) 453-3583
http://www.unb.ca/web/biology/Faculty/Benfey.html
e-mail: benfey@unb.ca
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]
-----Original Message-----
From: Biotech-Mod4
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 6:10 PM
To: 'biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org'
Subject: Re: Why are biotechnologies not used more extensively //
sterility techniques
In response to Drs. Ibarra and Benfey [both of 6 September],
I stated in my message (August 30) "Until industry presents us with the data, use of this technology should be restricted to secure facilities and/or sterile fish. Even then, the problem is to determine if all transgenic fish in commercial production would be sterile. I have not seen convincing evidence that the failure rate of sterilization is less than 1:1,000,000, i.e. the escape rate of salmon from net pens."
I know that Dr. Benfey is one of the leading researchers in the area of sterilization by triploidization, however I have not seen the power of his test. To show that the method is safe, one would have to show that the results are significantly less than that expected by chance. For example, if the true rate of failure is 1:1,000,000 then the probability of not observing a failure in a sample of 100,000 is determined by the binomial distribution.
P(0/100,000)= (1/1,000,000)exp(0) x (1-1/1,000,000)exp(100,000)=.904
i.e. there is a 90% chance that you would not have observed a failure in a sample of this size even if the true failure rate is 1:1,000,000
If a sample of 1,000,000 is used, the probability is:
P(0/1,000,000)= (1/1,000,000)exp(o) x (1-1/1,000,000)exp(1,000,000)=.37
i.e. there is still a 37% chance you would not have observed the failure.
To achieve a level of significance that would assure a scientist the method is safe, you would need to get this probability below at least a 5% chance, that would take a sample size of 2,995,730
Was a sample size of that magnitude used to make the conclusion that the method is safe?
Bill Muir
Professor of Genetics
Department of Animal Sciences
Purdue University
W. Lafayette, IN 47907-1151
Phone 765-494-8032
FAX 765-494-9346
E-mail Bmuir@purdue.edu
http://www.ansc.purdue.edu/faculty/muir.htm
[Thanks to Professor Muir for some extra comments on the probability of success of sterilisation technologies (and thus on our ability to determine how efficient a sterilisation technology may be). He points out, from binomial distribution theory, that if the technology has a probability of 0.999999 of making a given fish sterile (and thus a probability of 0.000001 of a given fish not being sterile), then the probability of getting all sterile fish from a sample of N fish is 0.999999 to the power of N. Thus, if N is 100,000 or 1,000,000 or 2,995,730 fish then the probability of making them all sterile (i.e. of not getting a single failure of the sterilisation technique) is 90%, 37% or 5% respectively....Moderator]
[To contribute to this conference, send your message to biotech-room4@mailserv.fao.org For further information on the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture see http://www.fao.org/biotech/forum.asp ]