Team:UC Davis/Superfund
CenozoicSuperfund Program
Background
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the government agency responsible for protection of the natural environment and human health [1]. In 1980, Congress formed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA), more commonly referred to as the Superfund program. The Superfund program identified the most hazardous, contaminated sites in the United States, and marked them as priorities for clean-up, giving the EPA the authority
to step in. There are more than 1300 Superfund sites across the country, and have been linked to increased rates of cancer and other dangers to human health [2]. Currently, nearly one in six Americans live within three miles of a superfund site
[3].
At the University of California, Davis, there is an established group of researchers who have been working with the EPA for the past 31 years to “acquire a better understanding of the human and ecological risks of hazardous substances; and advance the development of new technologies for the cleanup of contaminated sites” [4]. We had the opportunity to join UC Davis researchers on a trip to visit a Native American tribe in northern California who live on heavily polluted land.
At the University of California, Davis, there is an established group of researchers who have been working with the EPA for the past 31 years to “acquire a better understanding of the human and ecological risks of hazardous substances; and advance the development of new technologies for the cleanup of contaminated sites” [4]. We had the opportunity to join UC Davis researchers on a trip to visit a Native American tribe in northern California who live on heavily polluted land.
Visit with Native American Tribe
The tribe has reported unusually elevated rates of cancer and miscarriage incidence, and has reason to suspect that the cause may be tied to environmental pollution on their tribal land from local agricultural and forestry corporations. Researchers from UC Davis have been collaborating with the tribe’s scientists and governing council to gather data pertaining to environmental and human health.
In the United States, recognized Native American tribes are self-governing bodies, and have the power to make and enforce laws and regulations on their own lands. The specific Native American tribe which we visited has expressed their position on genetic engineering in an ordinance adopted in 2015, which may be accessed here [5]. In the ordinance, the tribe makes clear that they view the release of genetically modified organisms into their environment to be a major threat to their cultural values and traditional way of life. Compared to the United States as a whole, which has relatively tolerant laws regarding the production and use of genetically modified organisms, the tribe has far stricter laws.
Interestingly, within the ordinance, the tribe makes several exceptions. The first is unusual: “Genetically engineered or modified organisms do not include organisms created by traditional selective breeding, [...] or microorganisms created by moving genes or gene segments between unrelated bacteria” [5]. As much of biotechnology and synthetic biology uses bacteria as a host, we were surprised to find that the ordinance deemed the majority of the work done in the iGEM competition as acceptable.
The ordinance also provides exceptions to the prohibition for “State or federally licensed medical research institutions, medical laboratories, or medical manufacturing facilities engaged in licensed medical production, or medical research involving genetically engineered or genetically modified organisms,” as well as for, “Educational or scientific institutes” [5]. This makes it appear that the major focus of the ordinance is to restrict commercial biotechnology and agriculture firms and their crops/livestock on tribal lands. The ordinance specifically refers to transgenic salmon-- which are referred to as a threat to their way of life-- and the significance of the wild salmon to the tribe’s cultural values.
After consideration, we came to the the conclusion that a device or solution made by an iGEM team with the purpose of being introduced into the environment would be met with strong resistance, and would be unlikely to benefit society if it were never allowed to be used. Also, we considered the stance of the tribe, concerning the introduction of genetically modified organisms as a threat to their cultural values and traditional way of life. While many arguments made by opponents of GMOs focus on perceived threats to human health, which can be settled empirically by careful in vivo studies, cultural arguments cannot be dismissed as easily. A community should have the right to live according their values and uphold traditional ways of life. If certain communities decide that their values are incompatible with the introduction of genetically modified organisms on to their land, then their decision should be respected.
The visit with the Native American tribe helped us focus our project and become aware of human and environmental health problems for which synthetic biology can provide tools to help resolve. While working on the campus of our university, we were subject only to federal (America), state (California), and local (Yolo County, City of Davis, University of California) laws. If we were to return to test our device on tribal lands, we would be required to follow their specific ordinances and regulations, including seeking prior written permission to use genetically engineered devices for biomedical research. Likewise, it would be necessary to seek prior written permission before testing environmental samples taken from tribal lands. A similar procedure would be required when working with other communities.
With our project thus contained within the lab, we considered how best to use synthetic biology to help the tribe and other communities facing similar problems with environmental pollution. The agricultural and forestry corporations in the region surrounding the tribe’s land are currently operating within legal regulations, however the tribe has indicated that these regulations are not as strict as they would like. One example a tribal member provided was that currently, herbicides may be applied within fifty feet of sources of drinking water. A concern is that this distance is not sufficient to prevent contamination of drinking water supplies. A variety of harmful chemicals have been found in the waters of the tribal lands, particularly microcystin toxins and organochlorine pesticides [6]. Analysis of water samples by the Young Lab at UC Davis in 2017 also found the presence of low concentrations of pharmaceuticals, including warfarin, in the waters of the tribal lands.
If the working hypothesis is found to be supported, that the tribe’s health crises are linked to environmental pollution of their lands and water, then the remedy would be to tighten regulations concerning the use of pesticides, herbicides, and other potentially harmful compounds. If this working hypothesis is not supported by further study, alternative explanations for the tribe’s health crises should be explored, including predisposing genetic factors within the population and other factors.
To help collect data to support the working hypothesis, and similar projects involving public health and environmental toxicology, we decided to develop a way to easily test what effect low concentrations of potentially harmful chemicals have on the physiological health of mammalian cells.
In the United States, recognized Native American tribes are self-governing bodies, and have the power to make and enforce laws and regulations on their own lands. The specific Native American tribe which we visited has expressed their position on genetic engineering in an ordinance adopted in 2015, which may be accessed here [5]. In the ordinance, the tribe makes clear that they view the release of genetically modified organisms into their environment to be a major threat to their cultural values and traditional way of life. Compared to the United States as a whole, which has relatively tolerant laws regarding the production and use of genetically modified organisms, the tribe has far stricter laws.
Interestingly, within the ordinance, the tribe makes several exceptions. The first is unusual: “Genetically engineered or modified organisms do not include organisms created by traditional selective breeding, [...] or microorganisms created by moving genes or gene segments between unrelated bacteria” [5]. As much of biotechnology and synthetic biology uses bacteria as a host, we were surprised to find that the ordinance deemed the majority of the work done in the iGEM competition as acceptable.
The ordinance also provides exceptions to the prohibition for “State or federally licensed medical research institutions, medical laboratories, or medical manufacturing facilities engaged in licensed medical production, or medical research involving genetically engineered or genetically modified organisms,” as well as for, “Educational or scientific institutes” [5]. This makes it appear that the major focus of the ordinance is to restrict commercial biotechnology and agriculture firms and their crops/livestock on tribal lands. The ordinance specifically refers to transgenic salmon-- which are referred to as a threat to their way of life-- and the significance of the wild salmon to the tribe’s cultural values.
After consideration, we came to the the conclusion that a device or solution made by an iGEM team with the purpose of being introduced into the environment would be met with strong resistance, and would be unlikely to benefit society if it were never allowed to be used. Also, we considered the stance of the tribe, concerning the introduction of genetically modified organisms as a threat to their cultural values and traditional way of life. While many arguments made by opponents of GMOs focus on perceived threats to human health, which can be settled empirically by careful in vivo studies, cultural arguments cannot be dismissed as easily. A community should have the right to live according their values and uphold traditional ways of life. If certain communities decide that their values are incompatible with the introduction of genetically modified organisms on to their land, then their decision should be respected.
The visit with the Native American tribe helped us focus our project and become aware of human and environmental health problems for which synthetic biology can provide tools to help resolve. While working on the campus of our university, we were subject only to federal (America), state (California), and local (Yolo County, City of Davis, University of California) laws. If we were to return to test our device on tribal lands, we would be required to follow their specific ordinances and regulations, including seeking prior written permission to use genetically engineered devices for biomedical research. Likewise, it would be necessary to seek prior written permission before testing environmental samples taken from tribal lands. A similar procedure would be required when working with other communities.
With our project thus contained within the lab, we considered how best to use synthetic biology to help the tribe and other communities facing similar problems with environmental pollution. The agricultural and forestry corporations in the region surrounding the tribe’s land are currently operating within legal regulations, however the tribe has indicated that these regulations are not as strict as they would like. One example a tribal member provided was that currently, herbicides may be applied within fifty feet of sources of drinking water. A concern is that this distance is not sufficient to prevent contamination of drinking water supplies. A variety of harmful chemicals have been found in the waters of the tribal lands, particularly microcystin toxins and organochlorine pesticides [6]. Analysis of water samples by the Young Lab at UC Davis in 2017 also found the presence of low concentrations of pharmaceuticals, including warfarin, in the waters of the tribal lands.
If the working hypothesis is found to be supported, that the tribe’s health crises are linked to environmental pollution of their lands and water, then the remedy would be to tighten regulations concerning the use of pesticides, herbicides, and other potentially harmful compounds. If this working hypothesis is not supported by further study, alternative explanations for the tribe’s health crises should be explored, including predisposing genetic factors within the population and other factors.
To help collect data to support the working hypothesis, and similar projects involving public health and environmental toxicology, we decided to develop a way to easily test what effect low concentrations of potentially harmful chemicals have on the physiological health of mammalian cells.