Editing life

Who is afraid of genetic engineering? Guest Radio Liberty - Alexander Panchin, senior researcher at the Institute of Problems of Information Transfer of RAS

Sergey Medvedev: Part of the future of the future is a word of three letters, which everyone is afraid of like fire - God forbid to pronounce it. These three letters are GMOs . Consumers are looking for a coveted icon on products that they do not contain GMOs. Moreover, lawmakers are preparing a bill on the ban on GMOs in products sold in Russian stores. Since the products are sold less and less, I think this ban will be practically not noticed if it comes into force. We invited Alexander Panchin to talk about these problems, a senior researcher at the Institute of Information Problems named after Kharkevich of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Where does this fear come from? Why is GMO bad?

Alexander Panchin: According to polls, about three quarters of Russians are ready to overpay for products that do not contain GMOs, four fifths believe that they are harmful. In my opinion, there are two reasons. The first - people do not understand very well how life is arranged. When asked whether ordinary organisms contain genes or only genetically modified ones, only 29% of the population give a confident correct answer and understand that all living organisms have genes.

A similar sociological survey was in America: is it necessary to introduce mandatory labeling of products containing GMOs? 82% said that it was necessary, 80% - that it is necessary to introduce DNA marking. That is, people simply do not understand what it is, and, in my opinion, this is one of the reasons for fear.

The second reason is the idea that all “natural” a priori is useful, and everything is harmful. This idea inherent in very many people is easily refuted by a simple example: a pale bastard is completely natural, but poisonous, and some kind of ration vaccine is artificial, but it saved a huge number of lives. That is, there is no such thing that everything is natural. But people drove it all to their heads, and therefore everyone is looking for the label "does not contain GMOs."

Consumers are looking for a coveted icon on products that they do not contain GMOs

Sergey Medvedev: And in general, are there any natural things around us? In my opinion, a person has so much changed nature around himself that in a pure form of things that was not exposed to the human mind and practical activity, there was no.

Alexander Pankchin: The same agriculture, all these varieties of plants that we eat are a product of selection, what people have chosen. If you want to eat natural, then you need to go to the jungle of the Amazons to malaria parasites, everything will be natural there, but you will not live there for a long time.

Sergey Medvedev: There is no smoke without fire. Is there any "fire" regarding GMO? A lot is to be heard, for example, about allergies, which are formed on genetically changed organisms.

Alexander Panchin: Allergies occur to some protein, which is available in a certain product. In fact, with the help of genetic engineering, you can make hypoallergen, that is, on the contrary, reduce the content of this allergenic protein in the product. I am allergic to crabs. If the gene from the crab is transferred to the gene of another organism, given that there are 20 thousand genes in the crab, then maybe we will accidentally get to the gene that I have an allergy.

Sergey Medvedev: Does the allergy manifest at the genetic level?

A pale execution is completely natural, but poisonous, and some kind of osopa vaccine is artificial, but it saved a huge number of lives

Alexander Panchin: Usually on some kind of protein, and the gene encodes some kind of protein. You brought the gene, the gene produces protein, you are allergic to protein. This probability is small, but it exists. There are a lot of examples when allergies occur to the most ordinary products. There was one story when they took and transferred one of the Brazilian walnut genes to the soil. If I remember correctly, they received Soi, about which there was a suspicion that people may allergies, because some have an allergy to Brazilian walnut. She was not taken to the market, because they understood: there is such a problem. The existing control system for this, in my opinion, is redundant.

Sergey Medvedev: It is believed that genetically modified products increase resistance to antibiotics - will we react worse to antibiotics?

Alexander Panchin: resistance to antibiotics occurs in bacteria when people use antibiotics. In agriculture, a huge number of antibiotics on animals are used - there is really such a problem, but it is not related to GMOs, this is the problem of excessive or inadequate use of antibiotics. It is being decided, for this you need a certain world collaboration. But the idea is that you need to alternate antibiotics: the bacteria has developed stability by one antibiotic - to start using another, and then, in ten years, you can return to the first. But this is not a problem of genetic engineering.

Sergey Medvedev: I have heard (I can’t believe it yourself) that when consuming genetically modified organisms in your own genes chains, mutations may occur, which will be transmitted to children.

If you want to eat natural, then you need to go to the jungle of the Amazons to malaria parasites, everything will be natural there, but you will not live there for a long time

Alexander Panchin: If genetic engineering could be so easily implemented, then scientists would love to use this with pleasure. Experiments were conducted when, for example, rodents were fed by genes of special fluorescent proteins. If these genes were integrated somewhere, then the cells would shine in an ultraviolet with green light. At first they fed for a very long time, then these genes were injected into the blood and watched whether the offspring would light up or whether the cells of these rodents themselves would be light. It turns out that this is not observed.

Alexander Panchin

To transfer the gene somewhere is not that a difficult task, but it is solved by certain technical means. For example, to deliver to the human cells some genetotherapeutic medicine, which is just an attempt to insert something into some kind of gene to correct a hereditary defect, use special neutralized viruses that must penetrate, transfer this gene. At the same time, the effectiveness of modern specially designed methods for delivering genetic therapy to human cells leaves much to be desired. That is, it is available, but we want it to be better. Therefore, the fact that you eat some genes, and they will integrate somewhere is a very dubious fear. Moreover, we are constantly eating genes - we eat genes of all plants that we eat, and at the same time not covered with a top.

Sergey Medvedev: Still, where does this fear come from? Is this some legacy of the dark centuries, about the same as the fear of the TIN, the "number of the devil"-is it all in the nomination "obscurantism"?

We eat genes constantly - we eat genes of all plants that we eat in food, and at the same time we are not covered with a top

Alexander Panchin: There was a wonderful story. There is one company that crosses out a barcode with a cross on the bags of milk, because there is the "number of the devil". For people they are only trying to prick. The inscription "does not contain GMO" you can find on packages of salt, drinking water and even condoms - condoms without GMOs! It doesn’t even occur to people, where does DNA come from. I think this is quite explained by ignorance.

Sergey Medvedev: Political speculations are made on this. The Law on the ban on GMO has been circulating for so long ...

Alexander Panchin: To be honest, this bill surprises me very much. There are two stories. The first story is that this bill was initiated by the Ministry of Education and Science. A few months earlier, this ministry responded to an open letter from scientists from an open company of scientists in support of bioengineering. In this letter, the ministry wrote that it never supported the deputies who advocated the ban on GMOs in Russia, biotechnology is a future, it is important and necessary to develop. Several months pass, the Ministry of Education and Science says - let's ban GMOs. Moreover, it is proposed to ban the sale of GMOs, but, for example, if the company in America grows something, and then we will buy it, and it can get to the store, then there are no problems with this, but we can not grow our GMOs. Suppose the Russian institute will develop frost -resistant potatoes, which we will grow in Siberia so that it grows better, because in Siberia products are expensive, and frost -resistant potatoes could help them there. This is impossible. Where the logic is completely incomprehensible who needs it - it is not very clear, you can only speculate on this.

The inscription "does not contain GMO" you can find on packages of salt, drinking water and even condoms - condoms without GMOs!

There are separate specific people, they grow organic products, which then are five times more expensive in Auchan. They need to explain why their sour cream is five times more expensive - because it is without GMOs. The second - there are manufacturers of insecticides. One of the main technologies of genetic engineering - we can make the plant resistant to certain pests, for example, to the Colorado beetle. Accordingly, as soon as you did this, it is necessary to water the fields with insecticides much less. In principle, this is good for the environment, because you do not damage all sorts of spiders and God's cows with insecticides, but for those who produce insecticides, this is bad, they lose somewhere a third of their profit.

Sergey Medvedev: In this sense, it turns out that GMO - the product is much more healthy, because it requires less processing with pesticides, insecticides?

Alexander Pankchin: I would not demonize pesticides and insecticides. There are different GMOs. For example, there are GMO products that have nothing to do with pesticides and insecticides. For example, soon tomatoes, rich in anthocyans, should appear in America - these are substances that give black blueberries, for example, they are considered simply useful. There was an idea: let's make a useful GMO product for consumers. They are stored even longer, less mold. There is evidence that anthocyans reduce the risk of cancer. We will eat these tomatoes, but at the same time this does not affect pesticides and insecticides when compared with ordinary tomatoes.

I would not demonize pesticides and insecticides

There are very different technologies. Specifically, the technology about which I said allows you to reduce the use of insecticides. There is a Massandra ranandap , resistant to herbicides, there is another technology when we water herbicides to kill weeds, and your plants must grow, they must be made resistant to herbicides. In this case, one herbicide changes to another. It is generally very difficult to grow plants without herbicides, because it is difficult to fight weeds.

Sergey Medvedev: Herbicides genetically modified?

It is generally very difficult to grow plants without herbicides, because it’s hard to fight weeds

Alexander Panchin: Normal herbicides. They are not directly related to GMOs. GMO is created by a stable to herbicide, so you can fill the fields with a certain herbicide, your weeds will die, and the GMO will grow. The problem is that herbicides are used in any case. Just a specific herbicide, to which stability occurs, becomes more preferable for the cultivation of these varieties of plants.

Sergey Medvedev: Suppose you are a scientist, and I am a capitalist, an entrepreneur in the field of agribusiness: grow a potato that is rich in vitamins and will taste better than the Lipetsk, Chuvash potatoes, will be frost -resistant, and will be resistant to the Colorado beetle. And I set a sheet of specifications on five pages. You say: yes. There are certain genes on all this, you create on the computer the genetic model of this potato, and this potato is obtained. Something like that?

Alexander Panchin: Close to that is only costly enough.

And this potato will speak French, sing the anthem “God, save the queen” and promote phosphorus in the brains of children so that they study better

Sergey Medvedev: What limits, why do we not have grocery abundance?

Alexander Panchin: Great Britain is now making a new GMO potatoes in which 8 genes will be built in, just protecting it from the Colorado beetle, from someone, from some diseases. This potato will get less darkened, less carcinogens will form in it when you make potatoes in McDonald's potatoes from it.

Sergey Medvedev: And she will also speak French, sing the anthem “God, save the queen” and contribute to the phosphorus in the brains of children so that they study better.

Alexander Panchin: This is in the future. There is the following problem - a huge regulation around GMOs. In order to bring GMOs to the market, unlike a breeding variety, you must pass a huge number of different tests, bureaucratic procedures, and so on, if you want to do it legally. In the black market - I do not know what can be there, I have no information. In principle, the technology is not so complicated, it goes most of the money for subsequent approval, verification, and so on. The state allocated 800 thousand pounds to the project to create a supercard in the UK, if I am not mistaken.

There is the following problem - a huge regulation around GMOs

There are two options: either huge transnational corporations are engaged in this, monopolize the market, monopolies have their own problems - this is bad. Or the state is engaged in this, as is now in the UK or in China. In China, the state invests a lot of money in the development of biotechnology. If a small business learned to do this, then, in my opinion, the rapid development of this area with competition, with a decrease in prices at the expense of this competition, the reduction in technology due to its massive use, but for this there should be a realization that, in general, the risks associated with the creation of GMOs are no different, and maybe they are even less than when creating new selection varieties. Then you can, reducing the level of regulation-it is clear that the breeding varieties also undergo some checks-and now, if you reduce these checks, then you will have diversification, and some moderate capitalist will be able to make a biotechnological company in Russia that will create good plant varieties.

Do the pies also contain GMOs?

Sergey Medvedev: Alexander just published the book “The Summer of Biotechnology”, it was published by the Publishing House “Corps”, and it was a great hit at the Non Fikshn Intellectual Literature Fair - the books were scattered like hot pies.

Do the pies also contain GMOs?

Alexander Panchin: I don't know. If with meat, then most likely not.

Sergey Medvedev: On the book stands a label "The book contains GMOs." GMO is you?

Alexander Panchin: “The book contains GMO” is a joke that is played out in the book. There is no evidence that we use the word "GMO" in our conversation, and this does not lead to a planned pregnancy or to something like that.

Sergey Medvedev: Listen to this air with caution!

It turns out that the main restriction that scientists have during selection have, when the new varieties of plants and animals are withdrawn are just regulation and institutional disadvantage, lack of financing, competition and so on. If you create an ideal environment where there will be no strict state regulation and licensing, where there will be unlimited money for GMOs, then can you create anything with any programmable properties?

There is no evidence that we use the word "GMO" in our conversation, and this does not lead to a planned pregnancy or to something like that

Alexander Pankchin: Anything - within reasonable limits. You cannot make talking potatoes. In China, everything is developing very cool, because favorable conditions are created there. What gives modern, existing GMO now? Gives an increase in yield by 20%, a decrease in the use of the same insecticides by 35%, an increase in profit on farms in developing countries by 60%. This is what technologies are now given. It is clear that this can be improved. It is not, of course, that because of this there will be doubling, the triple of GDP, however, there is a certain advantage. The fact that products can be done in principle more useful is, in my opinion, it is also very important.

Sergey Medvedev: That is, charge them with vitamins, acids, trace elements.

Not all vitamins are useful in any quantity

Alexander Panchin: Not all vitamins are useful in any quantity. You can change the content of vitamins, it is already able to. The same famous gold rice that was invented to grow it in developing countries is a rice rich in vitamin A. To fight blindness with a lack of this vitamin, the metabolic path of the synthesis of Vitamin A was programmed there, several genes were brought for this. You can change the taste of the product: there are proteins that have taste.

Sergey Medvedev: And all this has absolutely no side effects for humans?

Вы можете съесть бутерброд с рыбой или рыбу с каким-то белком из пшеницы

Александр Панчин: Эти белки – такие же, как белки в природе. Грубо говоря, есть растение, которое люди едят, в нем есть белок, который люди едят, а теперь этот белок будет еще и в другом. Вы можете съесть, условно говоря, бутерброд с рыбой или рыбу с каким-то белком из пшеницы.

Сергей Медведев: Набор белков тот же самый, просто вы их комбинируете в другой последовательности.

В истории бывали примеры, когда селекционная картошка оказывалась ядовитой

Александр Панчин: Теоретически есть взаимодействие между генами, все это прекрасно знают и понимают. Поэтому, когда вы создаете тот же ГМО, то там есть тест, вы проверяете, совпадает ли состав двух этих продуктов по важным или потенциально опасным веществам. Любой продукт должен не содержать чего-то и должен содержать что-то необходимое (те же витамины). Вы можете проверить и убедиться, что не повлияли ни на что важное. Понятно, что такое тестирование важно. Когда мы создаем селекционные сорта, там тоже происходит изменение работы генов. Вы сделали новый сорт картошки с помощью селекции, путем гибридизации одного и другого сорта картошки, в нем тоже могло что-то измениться, потому что здесь тоже взаимодействуют какие-то гены, которые были у этих двух разных сортов картошки, и получилась новая комбинация генов. В истории бывали примеры, когда селекционная картошка оказывалась ядовитой.

Сергей Медведев: От продуктов ГМО еще никто не умер?

Александр Панчин: От ГМО еще никто не умер.

Сергей Медведев: Пока еще не вывели мыслящую картошку, давайте поговорим о живых, мыслящих организмах – мыслящий тростник, о котором мечтали просветители. В какой степени можно сейчас запрограммировать человека? Скажем, судя по предварительным тестам, есть большая вероятность, что у человека будет какое-то наследственное заболевание.

От ГМО еще никто не умер

Александр Панчин: Когда у человека высока вероятность наследственного заболевания, используют немножко другую биотехнологию – это перинатальная диагностика, выбор правильного зародыша при имплантации матери. Это сейчас самая перспективная методика для предотвращения наследственных заболеваний. Другой вопрос, что, если наследственное заболевание у человека уже есть, он уже какого-то возраста, не зародыш, не одна клетка, казалось бы, очень тяжело изменить все гены организма, потому что клеточек у нас триллионы, и в каждую вы не вставите ген. Но на самом деле оказывается, что это не обязательно делать. Например, есть заболевание гемофилия, при которой плохо сворачивается кровь. Чтобы избавиться от этого заболевания, нужно восстановить функцию одного из генов, который в норме работает в печени и производит фактор свертывания крови. Есть специальный способ доставки, специально измененный вирус, который направляется ровно в клетки печени и именно в них изменяет ДНК, чтобы начал производиться нормальный фактор свертывания крови.

Сергей Медведев: И каков процент успеха?

Александр Панчин: Там успех в какой-то степени наблюдается более-менее у всех, но успех не настолько большой, чтобы всех этих людей можно было бы совсем снять с медикаментации, просто им нужно меньше медикаментации, и без медикаментов им чуть-чуть лучше.

Сергей Медведев: А что касается рака?

Потенциально раковые клетки в нас возникают достаточно часто, но иммунная система с этим справляется

Александр Панчин: Может быть, вы слышали историю про девочку, которую вылечили от рака с помощью генетически модифицированных клеток иммунной системы. Идея заключается в том, что, в принципе, с раком могут бороться клетки иммунной системы. Потенциально раковые клетки в нас возникают достаточно часто, но иммунная система с этим справляется. Ровно в тех случаях, когда иммунная система не справилась, у нас возникает тяжелое заболевание. Даже если у нас нет правильных клеток иммунной системы, которые могли бы распознать рак, мы могли бы их создать, если знаем, какого типа рак. К нему научились вырабатывать специальные рецепторы. Тогда можно взять иммунные клетки человека, из них вынуть, засунуть туда специальный ген, который поможет клеткам иммунной системы распознать раковую клетку и бороться с ней. Опять же, мы не модифицируем целый организм, мы модифицируем отдельные клетки, настраивая их на то, чтобы они выполняли определенную функцию. У этой технологии главная проблема в том, что это очень дорого, это индивидуальное лечение.

Сергей Медведев: Но в принципе такие методики есть?

Александр Панчин: Это уже опубликовано в серьезных научных журналах, есть конкретные пациенты, на которых был достигнут положительный результат. То есть за этим будущее, но пока вы не можете пойти в поликлинику и сказать – дайте мне это.

Сергей Медведев: Здесь вы видите возможность изменения генома человека, создания некоего трансгуманного образования, то есть это человек, генетик, биолог, который берет на себя функцию бога?

Создание генномодифицированных людей пока отложено до того, как мы научимся делать эту технологию более точной

Александр Панчин: Прежде всего, технологическая сторона вопроса… Пытались сделать генетически модифицированные эмбрионы человека в Китае. Брали заранее нежизнеспособные эмбрионы, просто хотели проверить технологию. На тот момент оказалось, что мы часто не там редактируем, где нужно, бывают ошибки. И когда мы говорим о том, чтобы делать генномодифицированных людей, эта ошибка имеет слишком высокую цену. Поэтому создание генномодифицированных людей пока отложено до того, как мы научимся делать эту технологию более точной.

Сергей Медведев: То есть слишком велика цена ошибки? Вырастет трехглавое существо…

Александр Панчин: Скорее, просто будет выкидыш. Если вы делаете генномодифицированное растение, вы можете сто раз попробовать, забраковать 99 образцов, если вам что-то не понравилось, не туда встроился ваш ген. А в одном случае получилось так, как вы хотели, и вы этот случай отобрали. Делать это с сотней эмбрионов человека – плохая идея.

Была еще идея, что можно генетически модифицировать сперматозоиды, добиваться, чтобы в сперматозоиде было все правильно встроено, и после этого оплодотворять яйцеклетку. Может быть, так научатся делать генетически модифицированных людей в будущем.

Единственный способ обнаружения пределов возможного состоит в том, чтобы отважиться сделать шаг в невозможное

Сергей Медведев: Пока еще нет генетически модифицированного человека?

Александр Панчин: Модифицированного в классическом понимании – нет.

Сергей Медведев: Как далеко мы сейчас находимся от этого?

Александр Панчин: Принципиальная технология имеется, останавливают этические комитеты.

Сергей Медведев: Если убрать этические соображения, то где-нибудь в секретных лабораториях можно вырастить гениального ученого, гениального спортсмена?

Александр Панчин: Я думаю, что в какой-то момент случится следующее: технологию доведут до ума – так, чтобы она более-менее работала в ста процентах случаев, плюс-минус маленькая доля процентов, и после этого какая-нибудь страна, тот же Китай, например, скажет: мы освоили эту технологию, мы это делаем. Хотите, приезжайте к нам, мы вам это сделаем за большую сумму. И появится генетический инженерный туризм в эту страну, который привнесет в нее большие инвестиции.

Сергей Медведев: Интересная перспектива... Я хочу процитировать Артура Кларка , его в заключении своей книжки цитирует Александр: "Единственный способ обнаружения пределов возможного состоит в том, чтобы отважиться сделать шаг в невозможное". Так что мы сегодня поговорили о возможных шагах в невозможное.