Bringing in the controversy : re-politicizing the de-politicized strategy of ethics committees

Human/animal relations are potentially controversial and biotechnologically produced animals and animal-like creatures – bio-objects such as transgenics, clones, cybrids and other hybrids – have often created lively political debate since they challenge established social and moral norms. Ethical issues regarding the human/animal relations in biotechnological developments have at times been widely debated in many European countries and beyond. However, the general trend is a move away from parliamentary and public debate towards institutionalized ethics and technified expert panels. We explore by using the conceptual lens of bio-objectification what effects such a move can be said to have. In the bio-objectification process, unstable bio-object becomes stabilized and receives a single “bio-identity” by closing the debate. However, we argue that there are other possible routes bio-objectification processes can take, routes that allow for more open-ended cases. By comparing our observations and analyses of deliberations in three different European countries we will explore how the bio-objectification process works in the context of animal ethics committees. From this comparison we found an interesting common feature: When animal biotechnology is discussed in the ethics committees, technical and pragmatic matters are often foregrounded. We noticed that there is a common silence around ethics and a striking consensus culture. The present paper, seeks to understand how the bio-objectification process works so as to silence complexity through consensus as well as to discuss how the ethical issues involved in animal biotechnology could become re-politicized, and thereby made more pluralistic, through an “ethos of controversies”

Simultaneous silencing of <i>GaPDS</i> and <i>GaANR</i> in a single plant with the VIGS system.

<p>A, The phenotypes of plants inoculated with pYL156 (i), pYL156:<i>PDS</i> + pYL156:<i>ANR</i> (ii), pYL156:<i>PDS-ANR</i> (iii), and pYL156:<i>PDS</i> (iv), and pYL156:<i>ANR</i> (v). B, Relative transcript levels of <i>PDS</i> and <i>ANR</i> in systemic leaves of plants infiltrated with pYL156:<i>PDS</i>, pYL156:<i>ANR</i>, and pYL156:<i>PDS</i> + pYL156:<i>ANR</i>, and pYL156:<i>PDS-ANR</i>. The CK value was set as 100%. C, Relative levels of TRV RNA2 in systemic leaves of plants infiltrated with pYL156:<i>PDS</i>, pYL156:<i>ANR</i>, and pYL156:<i>PDS</i> + pYL156:<i>ANR</i>, and pYL156:<i>PDS-ANR</i>. The CK value at 10 d post-inoculation (dpi) was set at 1. Error bars represent standard deviations (n = 3 biological replicates) in (B) and (C).</p

Optimal factors for Agrobacterium-mediated <i>GaPDS</i> VIGS in <i>G</i><i>. barbadense</i>.

<p>A, The photobleaching phenotype of cotton leaves triggered by <i>GaPDS</i> VIGS. The pYL156 vector was used as a vector control; WT, wild type. B–E, The percentage of plants showing photobleaching was affected by light intensity, photoperiod, seedling age, and OD value of Agrobacterium cultures. Means ± standard deviation labeled with different letters are significantly different at the 0.05 level.</p

Agrobacterium-mediated TRV VIGS of two marker genes, <i>GaPDS</i> and <i>GaCLA1</i>, in <i>G</i><i>. barbadense</i>.

<p>A, Phenotypes of plants inoculated with pYL156:<i>CLA1</i> or pYL156:<i>PDS</i> vectors. The pYL156 vector was used as a vector control. B, Three cotton cultivars exhibited the photobleaching phenotype triggered by <i>GaPDS</i> or <i>GaCLA1</i> gene silencing to differing extents. C, Relative transcript levels of <i>PDS</i> and <i>CLA1</i> in systemic leaves of plants infiltrated with pYL156:<i>PDS</i> or pYL156:<i>CLA1</i>. The CK value was set at 100%. D, Total chlorophyll content in photobleached leaves. Error bars represent standard deviations (n = 3 biological replicates) in (C) and (D).</p

TRV-induced silencing of the anthocyanidin and proanthocyanidin biosynthetic genes <i>ANS</i> and <i>ANR</i>.

<p>a–d, Plants infiltrated with the vector control (CK), pYL156:<i>ANS</i> and pYL156:<i>ANR</i> showed different phenotypes in systemic leaves (a–c) and stems (d). e–g, DMACA stained leaves. h, Relative transcript levels of <i>ANS</i> and <i>ANR</i> in systemic leaves of plants infiltrated with pYL156:<i>ANS</i> and pYL156:<i>ANR</i>. The CK value was set at 100%. Error bars represent standard deviations (n = 3 biological replicates). White arrows indicate pink leaf veins (c) and stem (d).</p

Synergistic Effects of <em>GhSOD1</em> and <em>GhCAT1</em> Overexpression in Cotton Chloroplasts on Enhancing Tolerance to Methyl Viologen and Salt Stresses

<div><p>In plants, CuZn superoxide dismutase (CuZnSOD, EC l.15.1.1), ascorbate peroxidase (APX, EC 1.11.1.11), and catalase (CAT, EC l.11.1.6) are important scavengers of reactive oxygen species (ROS) to protect the cell from damage. In the present study, we isolated three homologous genes (<em>GhSOD1</em>, <em>GhAPX1</em>, and <em>GhCAT1</em>) from <em>Gossypium hirsutum</em>. Overexpressing cassettes containing chimeric <em>GhSOD1</em>, <em>GhAPX1</em>, or <em>GhCAT1</em> were introduced into cotton plants by <em>Agrobacterium</em> transformation, and overexpressed products of these genes were transported into the chloroplasts by transit peptide, as expected. The five types of transgenic cotton plants that overexpressed <em>GhSOD1</em>, <em>GhAPX1</em>, <em>GhCAT1</em>, <em>GhSOD1</em> and <em>GhAPX1</em> stack (SAT), and <em>GhSOD1</em> and <em>GhCAT1</em> stack (SCT) were developed. Analyses in the greenhouse showed that the transgenic plants had higher tolerance to methyl viologen (MV) and salinity than WT plants. Interestingly, SCT plants suffered no damage under stress conditions. Based on analyses of enzyme activities, electrolyte leakage, chlorophyll content, photochemical yield (<em>Fv/Fm</em>), and biomass accumulation under stresses, the SCT plants that simultaneously overexpressed <em>GhSOD1</em> and <em>GhCAT1</em> appeared to benefit from synergistic effects of two genes and exhibited the highest tolerance to MV and salt stress among the transgenic lines, while the SAT plants simultaneously overexpressing <em>GhSOD1</em> and <em>GhAPX1</em> did not. In addition, transgenic plants overexpressing antioxidant enzymes in their chloroplasts had higher tolerance to salt stress than those expressing the genes in their cytoplasms, although overall enzyme activities were almost the same. Therefore, the synergistic effects of <em>GhSOD1</em> and <em>GhCAT1</em> in chloroplasts provide a new strategy for enhancing stress tolerance to avoid yield loss.</p> </div

Agronomic traits of transgenic and WT cotton plants treated with 200 mM NaCl in the greenhouse.

<p>Three lines each of five types of transgenic cotton (six plants per line, 18 WT plants) were evaluated; the experiment was repeated three times. Values are given as means ± standard deviation (n = 54). Means within a column followed by different letters are significantly different at <i>P</i><0.05.</p

Schematic diagrams of the T-DNA structure of the plant expression vectors.

<p><i>CaMV35S::GhSOD1</i> (top), <i>CaMV35S::GhAPX1</i> (middle), and <i>CaMV35S::GhCAT1</i> (bottom) constructs. NPT II, neomycin phosphotransferase II; DE-35SP, CaMV35S promoter with double-enhancer sequence; TP, transit signal peptide; Nos T, transcriptional termination sequence of nopaline synthase gene; LB, left border of T-DNA; RB, right border of T-DNA.</p

Activities of antioxidant enzymes in chloroplasts of the transgenic and WT cotton plants.

<p>(A) SOD activity. (B) APX activity. (C) CAT activity. Means ± standard deviation labeled with different letters are significantly different at the 0.05 level.</p

Activities of antioxidant enzymes in leaves of transgenic and WT cotton plants.

<p>(A) SOD activity. (B) APX activity. (C) CAT activity. Means ± standard deviation labeled with different letters are significantly different at the 0.05 level.</p