Global climate change impacts in the United States are spelled out with renewed authority in a report released June 16 by the federal government.

The report's key information has been well reported here and in Earth Under Fire and other books, but bears repeating in its straightforward language and up-to-date numbers.

Human activities have led to large increases in heat-trapping gases over the past century. The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to this human-induced increase. Global average temperature and sea level have increased, and precipitation patterns have changed.

Human “fingerprints” also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, plant and animal health and location, and Arctic sea ice.

In the U.S., the amount of rain falling in the heaviest downpours has increased approximately 20 percent on average in the past century.

Many types of extreme weather events, such as heat waves and regional droughts, have become more frequent and intense during the past 40 to 50 years. The destructive energy of Atlantic hurricanes has increased... In the eastern Pacific, the strongest hurricanes have become stronger since the 1980s, even while the total number of storms has decreased.

Sea level has risen along most of the U.S. coast over the last 50 years, and will rise more in the future. Arctic sea ice is declining rapidly and this is very likely to continue. Global temperatures are projected to continue to rise over this century.

Whether by 2-3 degrees F or more than 11 degrees depends on a number of factors, including the amount of heat-trapping gas emissions humans continue to allow and how sensitive the climate is to those emissions. Lower emissions of heat-trapping gases will delay the appearance of climate change impacts and
lessen their magnitude.

Unless the rate of emissions is substantially reduced, impacts are expected to become increasingly severe for more people and places.

For more from this report, please go to the Temperate Zone page.

Obama's Climate Team Moves to Regulate Greenhouse Gases as Research Shows Global Warming Continues at High Rates

President Barack Obama's new Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson has moved to put CO2 and other greenhouse gases under regulation by the Clean Air Act. In one of the most anticipated early actions by the new Administration, the EPA issued a proposed finding on April 17 that these gases endanger human health and well-being. When made final, this will clear the way for regulation of vehicle exhaust, which is the source of about 30 percent of US carbon dioxide emissions.

This is one of the most visible of the climate actions springing from members of the President's new Cabinet, which includes leading scientists and informed diplomats. As they took their posts, working scientists announced in two international meetings that many factors in rapid global warming were getting worse or running at rates which only a few years ago were thought to be extreme.

Besides Jackson, who an was an experienced state environment leader before taking over at EPA, Obama appointed former EPA head Carol Browner to a new post of White House climate and energy chief; Nobel Prize winner Stephen Chu as Secretary of Energy; Harvard professor John Holdren, who has been outspoken on the dangers of climate disruption, as Presidential science advisor; and acclaimed ocean scientist Jane Lubchenco as head of NOAA.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton replaced George Bush's footdragging international climate negotiators with a team lead by Todd Stern. One of his first actions was to announce to international climate talks in Bonn that "the science is clear, and the threat is real. The facts on the ground are outstripping the worst case scenarios. The costs of inaction-or inadequate actions-are unacceptable." The Bonn talks are preliminary to crucial UN Climate Convention meetings in Copenhagen in December [[link: http://unfccc.int/2860.php]], at which nations have promised to agree to sharp limits on greenhouse gases, replacing the Kyoto Protocol. Many national issues and roadblocks remain, however, prime of which is the world recession which dominates other international meetings.

The EPA finding, although initially focused directly on vehicle emissions, will lead under the Clean Air Act to regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, source of nearly half of American CO2. Congress is also proposing control of emissions using a cap and trade process familiar to many from previous Clean Air Act procedures to limit sulphur pollution from coal burning plants. A comprehensive climate and energy bill, drafted by Rep. Henry Waxman of California and Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, will be debated in the House this spring. Reactions to the proposed legislation are being posted by many business and environmental groups and will surely intensify as the bill is amended and moves toward a vote later this year.

The urgency of climate action is even greater now because some recent observations are at or beyond the highest projections of previous reports. Scientific studies updating the IPCC assessment of 2007 show that more CO2 is being put into the air than ever before. Rates of change of global mean temperature, sea level rise, ice sheet changes in Greenland and the edges of Antarctica, and ocean chemical changes are running at the highest projections of the 2007 IPCC. In February 2009 at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Dr. Chris Field of the Carnegie Institute also reported that some major ways that the earth naturally absorbs CO2 were less efficient now, leaving more of the gas in the air. I heard him say that because of all this, we are "on a trajectory of climate... that has not been explored."

Not every indication of climate is changing this rapidly, but most scientists now predict a 5 degree F or more temperature increase and at least three feet of sea level rise before 2100 if things continue in this way. The changes documented in these website pages and my book occurred during a time of just over one degree of warming.

Every citizen of the world needs to be aware of rapid climate change:

1. Understand the problem, its causes and threats.
2. Let your leaders know the facts and that you expect them to act.
3. Do something today to reduce greenhouse gas output -- please Take Action

---

The World View of Global Warming project is documenting this change through science photography from the Arctic to Antarctica, from glaciers to the oceans, across all climate zones. Rapid climate change and its effects is fast becoming one of the prime events of the 21st century. It is real and it is accelerating across the globe. As the effects of this change combine with overpopulation and weather crises, climate disruptions will affect more people than does war.

	Locations documented since April 1999. Site updated June 2008. Text and photography Copyright © 2005 - 2008 by Gary Braasch. World View of Global Warming is funded by donations and grants. If you would like to contribute, please click HERE.
	Photographers' Perspectives on Global Warming October 14 - November 6, 2005 was shown at JW Gallery, Brooklyn. Posters from this exhibit are available. Please email your request.

This project would be impossible without scientists and observers around the world who have provided hundreds of scientific contacts and papers. See Background, Advisors, and Reference for documentation, funders and major advisors, without whom I could not complete the work. This project is privately supported and I seek donations through Blue Earth Alliance.

"Polar Thaw," a 30-print exhibit of photographs from locations of Arctic and Antarctic climate warming, is available for museums, science centers and funded public venues.

World View of Global Warming is a project of the Blue Earth Alliance, Seattle Washington, a 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization. The project is supported entirely by donations, grants, and license fees for the photographs. Information about how to contribute is on the Blue Earth web site, or contact Gary Braasch. Thank you.

This project is featured in The Nieman Reports, Harvard University, Winter 2002,
in a special section on Environmental Reporting. Link to PDF version

PRIVACY NOTICE:

Nuclear Power

Nuclear power – are we ready?

By CECILIA KOK

MOST of us will remember how nuclear power has always been associated with bandits in our favourite cartoon series. So powerful is that technology that they tend to use it as a threat to conquer the whole world.

In real life, the devastating effects of nuclear technology have been recorded in history when Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki were atom-bombed during World War II.

As dangerous as it is, however, this powerful technology has been the most sought-after solution for energy security in many countries, particularly those in Europe.

Thirty years after the accident at Three Mile Island shattered Americans’ trust in nuclear power, lawmakers were pushing for a nuclear energy rebirth as a safe, green way to wean the United States off foreign oil. No new reactors have been opened in the United States since the accident. – AFP

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, the top 10 countries with the highest nuclear share of total electricity generation are all located in the European region. France, for instance, generates 76% of its electricity from nuclear.

The idea of having a nuclear power plant in Malaysia sounds great, isn’t it? The advantages of nuclear-generated electricity have been much touted.

The nuclear plant can generate a stable flow of electricity to users at low prices (rates are presumably cheaper than power generated from other sources such as coal and gas) and it does not emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

It also seems to be the answer to our concerns over the depletion of fossil fuel, which is currently the main source of electricity generation in Malaysia, and the volatile prices of raw materials such as coal and crude oil.

Presently, the major components of Malaysia’s electricity generation mix are natural gas (60%), coal (24%), hydro (8%) and biomass (4.2%).

Malaysia’s nuclear ambition is apparent when Tenaga Nasional Bhd (TNB) announced over the week that it would sign an agreement with Korea Electric Power Corp next month to engage the latter’s assistance in conducting a preliminary study for developing a nuclear power plant in Malaysia.

TNB’s view is that nuclear-generated electricity is the most viable long-term option to address the growing demand for power in the country. Hence, its plan for the country’s first nuclear power plant to begin operations in 2025.

The head of TNB’s nuclear unit Mohd Zamzam Jaafar was quoted as saying that the state-owned utility company is currently scouting for suitable sites for the nuclear plant.

The question is ... do we really need to pursue nuclear energy?

There are many implications of having a nuclear power plant in the country. Of utmost concern is the safety issue, and whether we have the technological capability to deal with any unforeseen incidences that could arise from nuclear energy development.

Former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, in his blog, raised his concerns about the danger of pursuing nuclear energy and urged the authorities to give this option a second thought, citing we do not know enough about nuclear energy to be able to manage it well.

Risky pursuit

Like any other technology, nuclear power has its own risks and rewards, says Ravi Krishnaswamy, director of energy and power systems practice at Frost & Sullivan Asia-Pacific in Singapore.

In his e-mail to StarBizWeek, Ravi says he believes that the safety features of nuclear power plants have increased multi-fold over the last several decades, especially after some major nuclear power plants accidents such as the Three Miles Island in the US in the late 1970s and Chernobyl in Ukraine in 1986.

He cites the examples of countries in high seismic zones such as Japan and Taiwan that have successfully operated nuclear power plants for several years without major incidents.

To date, the nuclear share of total electricity generation in Japan and Taiwan is 25% and 20%, respectively.

However, Ravi points out some of the shortcomings that Malaysia faces in the pursuit of nuclear energy option.

These include the lack of trained human resources and capability in handling the technology, the risk of mishandling and theft of radioactive nuclear material, the problem with radioactive waste disposal and the health hazards that could arise from exposure to radioactive nuclear material such as cancer and birth defects.

When it comes to nuclear energy, it takes just one accident to leave an adverse effect that could last for multiple generations, says an officer at the Centre for Environment, Technology and Development Malaysia (Cetdem).

Citing the case of the Chernobyl disaster, he says there are still ongoing health effects from the incident to this day.

He also points out that the severe release of radioactivity not only affected people living in Ukraine, but also those living in other countries in Europe as the radioactive dust clouds were blown to the region.

Radioactive particles can be easily carried by water and wind. So, even if the nuclear power plant is located offshore, the radioactive effects can still reach people living on the mainland, and neighbouring countries, the officer at Cetdem says.

At what cost?

According to Frost & Sullivan’s Ravi, the viability of nuclear power cannot be seen only in the context of capital expenditure or potential dangers.

He explains that the viability of the initiative is normally evaluated in relation to the country’s energy mix, domestic resources availability, electricity demand growth, fluctuations in supply and cost of other fuels, and whether the country’s economic and industrial growth can justify the creation of an elaborate nuclear power infrastructure.

However, while most of the factors seem to support the development of a nuclear power plant in Malaysia in the long term, the Government still has to consider whether a nuclear initiative is justified in terms of the economies of scale, Ravi says.

“Countries like India and China have huge populations and limited domestic energy resources, hence could easily justify the development of an expensive and elaborate infrastructure for nuclear power ... and not just nuclear power generation plants, but also fuel and spent fuel processing, fuel mining and heavy water plants, among others,” he explains.

These countries, he adds, could potentially obtain at least a quarter of their electricity generation from nuclear and still have sufficient demand to build and replace nuclear reactors every 10 years. Not so for Malaysia. So, in terms of economies of scale, Ravi thinks having a nuclear power plant does not work in the favour of the country.

(The nuclear share of total electricity generation in India and China at present is 3% and 2%, respectively.)

Meanwhile, the officer at Cetdem says there are huge hidden costs involved in the development of nuclear power plants. These include costs of decommissioning, storage of spent fuel and handling of radioactive leakages, as well as the environmental cost.

“Vast amount of resources will have to be diverted towards the maintenance of nuclear power plants, and such costs could be expensive,” he says.

In terms of human resources, he believes there is a need to train a generation of nuclear scientists who know enough about dealing with nuclear waste and accidents.

He argues that nuclear is not a sustainable energy, as the sector requires the mining of uranium, which is a very polluting industry.

He adds that if there is a rush by countries to build nuclear energy, it could result in a sudden increase in demand for uranium, and hence the spike in the price of the commodity.

The debate on whether Malaysia should pursue its nuclear ambition is likely going to continue. But pundits say there are other renewable energy sources such as solar PV, biomass, wind and hydro systems that Malaysia could harness. And these, instead of attracting criticisms, will draw much support from many quarters.

(source:biz.thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/5/30/business/4004635&sec=business)

Technology

Nuclear transfer involves transferring the nucleus from a diploid cell ( containing 30-40,000 genes and a full set of paired chromosomes) to an unfertilised egg cell from which the maternal nucleus has been removed. The technique involves several steps (see diagram below). The nucleus itself can be transferred or the intact cell can be injected into the oocyte. In the latter case, the oocyte and donor cell are normally fused and the 'reconstructed embryo' activated by a short electrical pulse. In sheep, the embryos are then cultured for 5-6 days and those that appear to be developing normally ( usually about 10%) are implanted into foster mothers.

Nuclear transfer is not a new technique. It was first used in 1952 to study early development in frogs and in the 1980's the technique was used to clone cattle and sheep using cells taken directly from early embryos. In 1995, Ian Wilmut, Keith Campbell and colleagues created live lambs- Megan and Morag - from embryo derived cells that had been cultured in the laboratory for several weeks. This was the first time live animals had been derived from cultured cells and their success opened up the possibility of introducing much more precise genetic modifications into farm animals.

In 1996, Roslin Institute and collaborators PPL Therapeutics created Dolly, the first animal cloned from a cell taken from an adult animal. The announcement of her birth in February 1997 started the current fascination in all things cloned. Until then, almost all biologists thought that the cells in our bodies were fixed in their roles: the creation of Dolly from a mammary gland cell of a six year old sheep showed this was not the case and the achievement was voted Science Breakthrough of the Year at the end of 1997.

progress AD (After Dolly)

At first Dolly was a 'clone alone' but in August 1998, a group in Hawaii published a report of the cloning of over 50 mice by nuclear transfer. Since then, research groups around the world have reported the cloning of cattle, sheep, mice, goats and pigs. Equally competent groups have had no success in cloning rabbits, rats, monkeys, cats or dogs.

There are differences in early development between species that might influence success rate. In sheep and humans, the embryo divides to between the 8- and 16- cell stage before nuclear genes take control of development, but in mice this transition occurs at the 2 cell stage. In 1998, a Korean group claimed that they had cloned a human embryo by nuclear transfer but their experiment was terminated at the 4-cell stage and so they had no evidence of successful reprogramming.

Success rates remain low in all species, with published data showing that on average only about 1% of 'reconstructed embryos' leading to live births. With unsuccessful attempts at cloning unlikely to be published, the actual success rate will be substantially lower. Many cloned offspring die late in pregnancy or soon after birth, often through respiratory or cardiovascular dysfunction. Abnormal development of the placenta is common and this is probably the major cause of foetal loss earlier in pregnancy. Many of the cloned cattle and sheep that are born are much larger than normal and apparently normal clones may have some unrecognised abnormalities.

The high incidence of abnormalities is not surprising. Normal development of an embryo is dependent on the methylation state of the DNA contributed by the sperm and egg. and on the appropriate reconfiguration of the chromatin structure after fertilisation. Somatic cells have very different chromatin structure to sperm and 'reprogramming' of the transferred nuclei must occur within a few hours of activation of reconstructed embryos. Incomplete or inappropriate reprogramming will lead to dysregulation of gene expression and failure of the embryo or foetus to develop normally or to non-fatal developmental abnormalities in those that survive.

Improving success rates is not going to be easy. At present, the only way to assess the 'quality' of embryos is to look at them under the microscope and it is clear that the large majority of embryos that are classified as 'normal' do not develop properly after they have been implanted. A substantial effort is now being made to identify systematic ways of improving reprogramming. One focus is on known mechanisms involved in early development, and in particular on the 'imprinting' of genes. Another is to use technological advances in genomics to screen the expression patterns of tens of thousands of genes to identify differences between the development of 'reconstructed embryos' and those produced by in vivo or in vitro fertilisation.

Limitations of nuclear transfer

It is important to recognise the limitations of nuclear transfer. Plans to clone extinct species have attracted a lot of publicity. One Australian project aims to resurrect the 'Tasmanian tiger' by cloning from a specimen that had been preserved in a bottle of alcohol for 153 years and another research group announced plans to clone a mammoth from 20,000 year old tissue found in the Siberian permafrost. However, the DNA in such samples is hopelessly fragmented and there is no chance of reconstructing a complete genome. In any case, nuclear transfer requires an intact nucleus, with functioning chromosomes. DNA on its own is not enough: many forget that Jurrasic Park was a work of fiction.

Other obvious requirements for cloning are an appropriate supply of oocytes and surrogate mothers to carry the cloned embryos to term. Cloning of endangered breeds will be possible by using eggs and surrogates from more common breeds of the same species. It may be possible to clone using a closely related species but the chance of successfully carrying a pregnancy to term would be increasingly unlikely if eggs and surrogate mothers are from more distantly related species. Proposals to 'save' the Panda by cloning, for example, would seem to have little or no chance of success because it has no close relatives to supply eggs or carry the cloned embryos.

Method of Nuclear Transfer in Livestock

Applications

Nuclear transfer can viewed in two ways: as a means to create identical copies of animals or as a means of converting cells in culture to live animals. the former has applications in livestock production, the latter provides for the first time an ability to introduce precise genetic modifications into farm animal species.

	Cloning in Farm Animal production Nuclear transfer can in principle be used to create an infinite number of clones of the very best farm animals. In practice, cloning would be limited to cattle and pigs because it is only in these species that the benefits might justify the costs. Cloned elite cows have already been sold at auction for over $40,000 each in the US but these prices reflect their novelty value rather than their economic worth. To be effective, cloning would have to be integrated systematically into breeding programmes and care would be needed to preserve genetic diversity. It would also remains to be shown that clones do consistently deliver the expected commercial performance and are healthy and that the technology can be applied without compromising animal welfare ( see Farm Animal Welfare Council Report).
	Production of Human therapeutic proteins Human proteins are in great demand for the treatment of a variety of diseases. Whereas some can be purified from blood, this is expensive and runs the risk of contamination by AIDS or hepatitis C. Proteins can be produced in human cell culture but costs are very high and output small. Much larger quantities can be produced in bacteria or yeast but the proteins produced can be difficult to purify and they lack the appropriate post-translational modifications that are needed for efficacy in vivo. By contrast, human proteins that have appropriate post-translational modifications can be produced in the milk of transgenic sheep, goats and cattle. Output can be as high as 40 g per litre of milk and costs are relatively low. PPL Therapeutics, one of the leaders in this field and their lead product, alpha-1-antitrypsin, is due to enter phase 3 clinical trials for treatment of cystic fibrosis and emphysema in 2001.. Nuclear transfer allows human genes to be inserted at specific points in the genome, improving the reliability of their expression and allows genes to be deleted or substitutes as well as added.
	Xenotransplantation The chronic shortage of organs means that only a fraction of patients who could benefit actually receive transplants. Genetically modified pigs are being develop as an alternative source of organs by a number of companies, though so far the modifications have been limited to adding genes. Nuclear transfer will allow genes to be deleted from pigs and much attention is being directed to eliminating the alpha-galactosyl transferase gene. This codes for an enzyme that creates carbohydrate groups which are attached to pig tissues and which would be largely responsible for the immediate rejection of an organ from a normal pig by a human patient.

Cell Based Therapies Cell transplants are being developed for a wide variety of common diseases, including Parkinson's Diseases, heart attack, stroke and diabetes. Transplanted cells are as likely to be rejected as organs but this problem could be avoided if the type of cells needed could be derived from the patients themselves. The cloning of adult animals from a variety of cell types shows that the egg and early embryo have the capability of 'reprogramming' even fully differentiated cells. Understanding more about the mechanisms involved may allow us to find alternative approaches to 'reprogramming' a patient's own cells without creating ( and destroying ) human embryos.

Ethics

Many ethical and moral concerns have arisen over the potential applications of the cloning technology. The technology is still in its infancy and in the meantime, society as a whole has time to contemplate which uses of the technology might be acceptable and which would not. The suddenness of the news of the cloning of the first adult animal caught almost all commentators by surprise and some suggested that we should have fully discussed the implications of our work before we started. The public may see science as a series of 'breakthroughs' but in reality progress is much more continuous. Where in the sequence of events that led to Dolly should we have consulted and with whom? It is also impossible to predict all potential applications of a new technology. Most will be beneficial but all technology can be misused in one way or another. The solution is not to regulate the technology itself but how it is applied.

Those concerned that scientists were "playing at God" seemed to ignore how much mankind has altered the cards that we were originally dealt. Animals were first domesticated about 5000 years ago and selective breeding since has produced modern strains of livestock, plants and pets which are very different from their original progenitors. In medicine, our current life expectancy of well over 70 years is a result of direct intervention in nature, from improved prenatal care, vaccination and use of antibiotics. The human condition is still far from perfect and there is no particular reason now to call a general halt to what most people view as progress.

Roslin believes it has a clear social responsibility to keep the public informed of the results of its research and is a very active participant in the ongoing public debates about cloning, animal experimentation, genetic modification and human stem cell research.

(source:www.prodiversitas.bioetica.org/clonacion2.htm#technology)

Robotics and the Big Trends

by Jeff Burnstein, President , Robotic Industries Association
Robotic Industries Association Posted 09/21/2009

I’ve been thinking and reading quite a bit lately about how robotics ties in with the big trends impacting our society. If the robotics industry is to fully reach its potential, we’ll have to find new applications, new users, and new ways of helping society achieve important goals.

While there are many important trends, I’ll discuss just three in this article that I believe create significant opportunities for robotics in the decades ahead.

Globalization
In the early days of robotics, the opportunities primarily could be found in Japan, the United States and Western Europe. Today, as products are being manufactured and assembled in every corner of the globe, China, India, Korea, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and many other regions present enormous growth potential for robotics.

Plus, as robotics researchers and technology developers spring up everywhere, we find new innovations as well as new opportunities outside the factory. Korea, for instance, is taking the lead in promoting the use of robots for service applications such as elder care. The United States is taking the lead in using robots to protect soldiers on the battlefield. European companies are taking the lead in using robots in the manufacture of solar panels. There is so much global activity occurring in robotics that one can’t help but be excited about the long term potential, despite the current global economic crisis.

Energy
The growth of China, India, Brazil and other once developing countries has placed a huge demand on energy resources. Having consistent and reliable access to electricity is a huge concern, one that we became especially aware of when RIA led a group of members to India in the fall of 2008. Companies can’t count on having power all day every day, which makes manufacturing a challenge.

Additionally, there is concern that the world is running low on oil and the prices will continue to rise. So, we’re seeing an explosion in demand for alternative energy sources, such as solar power, wind, fuel cells and more.

Robots already play a key role in making solar panels. Research shows that robots can be instrumental in making fuel cells and wind turbines. We know these will be growing markets and the use of robots should grow along with them.

Hybrid and electric cars will play a much more prominent role in the future of the auto industry. Assembling these new cars requires new and often complex processes that robots are ideally suited for. As a result, new opportunities will emerge in the automotive and transportation industries, not just in North America, but throughout the world.

Environmental and Health Issues
A closely related trend to the need for alternative energy resources is the need for manufacturing processes and technologies that are good for the environment. Whether or not you or I believe in global warming as a consequence of man’s actions, the fact is that nations and companies are moving in the direction of “green” at a rapid pace, one that is likely to accelerate in the decades ahead. Just think about the images you remember from the Olympic Games in Beijing last summer. As spectacular as the Olympics were, the smog and haze from the polluted air cannot be ignored. The same is true in major cities around the world, such as Los Angeles, Mexico City, and Mumbai.

Health care and related issues will be at the top of everyone’s mind in the remainder of this century. I’ve already mentioned how Korea and others are interested in using robots for elder care. And, we’ve all seen the great developments taking place in using industrial robotics for surgical procedures. One you may not have thought about is how robots are used to make our food supplies safer, which is especially timely as I write this due to a salmonella outbreak related to tainted peanut butter products.

Many food-borne illnesses are caused by people coming into contact with the food. The fact is that robots are cleaner than people. As a result, we’re seeing more of them used in the production and packaging of food. And, going forward, we’re likely to see robots handling food in restaurants (we’ve already seen examples of robotic sushi-makers!).

In moving toward a greener world, demand will increase for cars that pollute less, product packaging that is recyclable, and foods that are safer. Again, these are all areas that present enormous growth opportunities for robots.

There are many other trends I could discuss such as miniaturization and mass customization that create new opportunities for robotics. Suffice it to say that there’s good reason that most people predict robotics will be one of the most important technologies of the 21st Century!

At RIA, our goal is to help our members take advantage of the many new opportunities that are arising. And, we want to make sure that everyone in the world working in or interested in robotics has access to the important information needed to make sure that robots are used effectively to better our global society.

(Source : www.robotics.org/content-detail.cfm/Industrial-Robotics-Feature-Article/Robotics-and-the-Big-Trends/content_id/1709)

Genetic Modified Food

(source:www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php)

Genetically-modified foods (GM foods) have made a big splash in the news lately. European environmental organizations and public interest groups have been actively protesting against GM foods for months, and recent controversial studies about the effects of genetically-modified corn pollen on monarch butterfly caterpillars^{1, 2} have brought the issue of genetic engineering to the forefront of the public consciousness in the U.S. In response to the upswelling of public concern, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) held three open meetings in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Oakland, California to solicit public opinions and begin the process of establishing a new regulatory procedure for government approval of GM foods³. I attended the FDA meeting held in November 1999 in Washington, D.C., and here I will attempt to summarize the issues involved and explain the U.S. government's present role in regulating GM food.

What are genetically-modified foods?

The term GM foods or GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) is most commonly used to refer to crop plants created for human or animal consumption using the latest molecular biology techniques. These plants have been modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content. The enhancement of desired traits has traditionally been undertaken through breeding, but conventional plant breeding methods can be very time consuming and are often not very accurate. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, can create plants with the exact desired trait very rapidly and with great accuracy. For example, plant geneticists can isolate a gene responsible for drought tolerance and insert that gene into a different plant. The new genetically-modified plant will gain drought tolerance as well. Not only can genes be transferred from one plant to another, but genes from non-plant organisms also can be used. The best known example of this is the use of B.t. genes in corn and other crops. B.t., or Bacillus thuringiensis, is a naturally occurring bacterium that produces crystal proteins that are lethal to insect larvae. B.t. crystal protein genes have been transferred into corn, enabling the corn to produce its own pesticides against insects such as the European corn borer. For two informative overviews of some of the techniques involved in creating GM foods, visit Biotech Basics (sponsored by Monsanto) http://www.biotechknowledge.monsanto.com/biotech/bbasics.nsf/index or Techniques of Plant Biotechnology from the National Center for Biotechnology Education http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/NCBE/GMFOOD/techniques.

What are some of the advantages

of GM foods?

The world population has topped 6 billion people and is predicted to double in the next 50 years. Ensuring an adequate food supply for this booming population is going to be a major challenge in the years to come. GM foods promise to meet this need in a number of ways:

Pest resistance Crop losses from insect pests can be staggering, resulting in devastating financial loss for farmers and starvation in developing countries. Farmers typically use many tons of chemical pesticides annually. Consumers do not wish to eat food that has been treated with pesticides because of potential health hazards, and run-off of agricultural wastes from excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers can poison the water supply and cause harm to the environment. Growing GM foods such as B.t. corn can help eliminate the application of chemical pesticides and reduce the cost of bringing a crop to market4, 5. Herbicide tolerance For some crops, it is not cost-effective to remove weeds by physical means such as tilling, so farmers will often spray large quantities of different herbicides (weed-killer) to destroy weeds, a time-consuming and expensive process, that requires care so that the herbicide doesn't harm the crop plant or the environment. Crop plants genetically-engineered to be resistant to one very powerful herbicide could help prevent environmental damage by reducing the amount of herbicides needed. For example, Monsanto has created a strain of soybeans genetically modified to be not affected by their herbicide product Roundup ®6. A farmer grows these soybeans which then only require one application of weed-killer instead of multiple applications, reducing production cost and limiting the dangers of agricultural waste run-off7. Disease resistance There are many viruses, fungi and bacteria that cause plant diseases. Plant biologists are working to create plants with genetically-engineered resistance to these diseases8, 9. Cold tolerance Unexpected frost can destroy sensitive seedlings. An antifreeze gene from cold water fish has been introduced into plants such as tobacco and potato. With this antifreeze gene, these plants are able to tolerate cold temperatures that normally would kill unmodified seedlings10. (Note: I have not been able to find any journal articles or patents that involve fish antifreeze proteins in strawberries, although I have seen such reports in newspapers. I can only conclude that nothing on this application has yet been published or patented.) Drought tolerance/salinity tolerance As the world population grows and more land is utilized for housing instead of food production, farmers will need to grow crops in locations previously unsuited for plant cultivation. Creating plants that can withstand long periods of drought or high salt content in soil and groundwater will help people to grow crops in formerly inhospitable places11, 12. Nutrition Malnutrition is common in third world countries where impoverished peoples rely on a single crop such as rice for the main staple of their diet. However, rice does not contain adequate amounts of all necessary nutrients to prevent malnutrition. If rice could be genetically engineered to contain additional vitamins and minerals, nutrient deficiencies could be alleviated. For example, blindness due to vitamin A deficiency is a common problem in third world countries. Researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Institute for Plant Sciences have created a strain of "golden" rice containing an unusually high content of beta-carotene (vitamin A)13. Since this rice was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation14, a non-profit organization, the Institute hopes to offer the golden rice seed free to any third world country that requests it. Plans were underway to develop a golden rice that also has increased iron content. However, the grant that funded the creation of these two rice strains was not renewed, perhaps because of the vigorous anti-GM food protesting in Europe, and so this nutritionally-enhanced rice may not come to market at all15. Pharmaceuticals Medicines and vaccines often are costly to produce and sometimes require special storage conditions not readily available in third world countries. Researchers are working to develop edible vaccines in tomatoes and potatoes16, 17. These vaccines will be much easier to ship, store and administer than traditional injectable vaccines. Phytoremediation Not all GM plants are grown as crops. Soil and groundwater pollution continues to be a problem in all parts of the world. Plants such as poplar trees have been genetically engineered to clean up heavy metal pollution from contaminated soil18. How prevalent are GM crops? What plants are involved? According to the FDA and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), there are over 40 plant varieties that have completed all of the federal requirements for commercialization (http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/%7Elrd/biocon). Some examples of these plants include tomatoes and cantalopes that have modified ripening characteristics, soybeans and sugarbeets that are resistant to herbicides, and corn and cotton plants with increased resistance to insect pests. Not all these products are available in supermarkets yet; however, the prevalence of GM foods in U.S. grocery stores is more widespread than is commonly thought. While there are very, very few genetically-modified whole fruits and vegetables available on produce stands, highly processed foods, such as vegetable oils or breakfast cereals, most likely contain some tiny percentage of genetically-modified ingredients because the raw ingredients have been pooled into one processing stream from many different sources. Also, the ubiquity of soybean derivatives as food additives in the modern American diet virtually ensures that all U.S. consumers have been exposed to GM food products. The U.S. statistics that follow are derived from data presented on the USDA web site at http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/biotechnology/. The global statistics are derived from a brief published by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) at http://www.isaaa.org/publications/briefs/Brief_21.htm and from the Biotechnology Industry Organization at http://www.bio.org/food&ag/1999Acreage. Thirteen countries grew genetically-engineered crops commercially in 2000, and of these, the U.S. produced the majority. In 2000, 68% of all GM crops were grown by U.S. farmers. In comparison, Argentina, Canada and China produced only 23%, 7% and 1%, respectively. Other countries that grew commercial GM crops in 2000 are Australia, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Mexico, Romania, South Africa, Spain, and Uruguay. Soybeans and corn are the top two most widely grown crops (82% of all GM crops harvested in 2000), with cotton, rapeseed (or canola) and potatoes trailing behind. 74% of these GM crops were modified for herbicide tolerance, 19% were modified for insect pest resistance, and 7% were modified for both herbicide tolerance and pest tolerance. Globally, acreage of GM crops has increased 25-fold in just 5 years, from approximately 4.3 million acres in 1996 to 109 million acres in 2000 - almost twice the area of the United Kingdom. Approximately 99 million acres were devoted to GM crops in the U.S. and Argentina alone. In the U.S., approximately 54% of all soybeans cultivated in 2000 were genetically-modified, up from 42% in 1998 and only 7% in 1996. In 2000, genetically-modified cotton varieties accounted for 61% of the total cotton crop, up from 42% in 1998, and 15% in 1996. GM corn and also experienced a similar but less dramatic increase. Corn production increased to 25% of all corn grown in 2000, about the same as 1998 (26%), but up from 1.5% in 1996. As anticipated, pesticide and herbicide use on these GM varieties was slashed and, for the most part, yields were increased (for details, see the UDSA publication at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer786/). What are some of the criticisms against GM foods? Environmental activists, religious organizations, public interest groups, professional associations and other scientists and government officials have all raised concerns about GM foods, and criticized agribusiness for pursuing profit without concern for potential hazards, and the government for failing to exercise adequate regulatory oversight. It seems that everyone has a strong opinion about GM foods. Even the Vatican19 and the Prince of Wales20 have expressed their opinions. Most concerns about GM foods fall into three categories: environmental hazards, human health risks, and economic concerns. Environmental hazards Unintended harm to other organisms Last year a laboratory study was published in Nature21 showing that pollen from B.t. corn caused high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars. Monarch caterpillars consume milkweed plants, not corn, but the fear is that if pollen from B.t. corn is blown by the wind onto milkweed plants in neighboring fields, the caterpillars could eat the pollen and perish. Although the Nature study was not conducted under natural field conditions, the results seemed to support this viewpoint. Unfortunately, B.t. toxins kill many species of insect larvae indiscriminately; it is not possible to design a B.t. toxin that would only kill crop-damaging pests and remain harmless to all other insects. This study is being reexamined by the USDA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other non-government research groups, and preliminary data from new studies suggests that the original study may have been flawed22, 23. This topic is the subject of acrimonious debate, and both sides of the argument are defending their data vigorously. Currently, there is no agreement about the results of these studies, and the potential risk of harm to non-target organisms will need to be evaluated further. Reduced effectiveness of pesticides Just as some populations of mosquitoes developed resistance to the now-banned pesticide DDT, many people are concerned that insects will become resistant to B.t. or other crops that have been genetically-modified to produce their own pesticides. Gene transfer to non-target species Another concern is that crop plants engineered for herbicide tolerance and weeds will cross-breed, resulting in the transfer of the herbicide resistance genes from the crops into the weeds. These "superweeds" would then be herbicide tolerant as well. Other introduced genes may cross over into non-modified crops planted next to GM crops. The possibility of interbreeding is shown by the defense of farmers against lawsuits filed by Monsanto. The company has filed patent infringement lawsuits against farmers who may have harvested GM crops. Monsanto claims that the farmers obtained Monsanto-licensed GM seeds from an unknown source and did not pay royalties to Monsanto. The farmers claim that their unmodified crops were cross-pollinated from someone else's GM crops planted a field or two away. More investigation is needed to resolve this issue. There are several possible solutions to the three problems mentioned above. Genes are exchanged between plants via pollen. Two ways to ensure that non-target species will not receive introduced genes from GM plants are to create GM plants that are male sterile (do not produce pollen) or to modify the GM plant so that the pollen does not contain the introduced gene24, 25, 26. Cross-pollination would not occur, and if harmless insects such as monarch caterpillars were to eat pollen from GM plants, the caterpillars would survive. Another possible solution is to create buffer zones around fields of GM crops27, 28, 29. For example, non-GM corn would be planted to surround a field of B.t. GM corn, and the non-GM corn would not be harvested. Beneficial or harmless insects would have a refuge in the non-GM corn, and insect pests could be allowed to destroy the non-GM corn and would not develop resistance to B.t. pesticides. Gene transfer to weeds and other crops would not occur because the wind-blown pollen would not travel beyond the buffer zone. Estimates of the necessary width of buffer zones range from 6 meters to 30 meters or more30. This planting method may not be feasible if too much acreage is required for the buffer zones. Human health risks Allergenicity Many children in the US and Europe have developed life-threatening allergies to peanuts and other foods. There is a possibility that introducing a gene into a plant may create a new allergen or cause an allergic reaction in susceptible individuals. A proposal to incorporate a gene from Brazil nuts into soybeans was abandoned because of the fear of causing unexpected allergic reactions31. Extensive testing of GM foods may be required to avoid the possibility of harm to consumers with food allergies. Labeling of GM foods and food products will acquire new importance, which I shall discuss later. Unknown effects on human health There is a growing concern that introducing foreign genes into food plants may have an unexpected and negative impact on human health. A recent article published in Lancet examined the effects of GM potatoes on the digestive tract in rats32, 33. This study claimed that there were appreciable differences in the intestines of rats fed GM potatoes and rats fed unmodified potatoes. Yet critics say that this paper, like the monarch butterfly data, is flawed and does not hold up to scientific scrutiny34. Moreover, the gene introduced into the potatoes was a snowdrop flower lectin, a substance known to be toxic to mammals. The scientists who created this variety of potato chose to use the lectin gene simply to test the methodology, and these potatoes were never intended for human or animal consumption. On the whole, with the exception of possible allergenicity, scientists believe that GM foods do not present a risk to human health. Economic concerns Bringing a GM food to market is a lengthy and costly process, and of course agri-biotech companies wish to ensure a profitable return on their investment. Many new plant genetic engineering technologies and GM plants have been patented, and patent infringement is a big concern of agribusiness. Yet consumer advocates are worried that patenting these new plant varieties will raise the price of seeds so high that small farmers and third world countries will not be able to afford seeds for GM crops, thus widening the gap between the wealthy and the poor. It is hoped that in a humanitarian gesture, more companies and non-profits will follow the lead of the Rockefeller Foundation and offer their products at reduced cost to impoverished nations. Patent enforcement may also be difficult, as the contention of the farmers that they involuntarily grew Monsanto-engineered strains when their crops were cross-pollinated shows. One way to combat possible patent infringement is to introduce a "suicide gene" into GM plants. These plants would be viable for only one growing season and would produce sterile seeds that do not germinate. Farmers would need to buy a fresh supply of seeds each year. However, this would be financially disastrous for farmers in third world countries who cannot afford to buy seed each year and traditionally set aside a portion of their harvest to plant in the next growing season. In an open letter to the public, Monsanto has pledged to abandon all research using this suicide gene technology35.