Are Genetically Modified Algae a Threat?

By Stephen Lacey, Editor
April 1, 2011   |   15 Comments
No one knows. And that's what scares some people.

Do you like this podcast?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

Dear Listeners -- While the written companion article for each episode of the Inside Renewable Energy podcast remains below, the associated audio files have necessarily been removed. We apologize for the inconvenience, and appreciate the support you gave to our podcast production.

Thank you,
RenewableEnergyWorld.com

15 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 15
April 1, 2011
There should never be a technology that is beyond question. There should be no industry that would be granted immunity for environmental regulation and oversight. While the risks of problems from algae may be small, they are also unknown. The responsible thing to do would be to continue with techniques that incorporate a "suicide gene" or require a controlled environment for growth, but the processes must be available for study to determine what the effects are and what can be done to avoid them. To make any technology exempt from review is bound to be a recipe for damages.
If we are to trust Monsanto, then they have already proven to be irresponsible and unjust in their dealings with GM food products, so they need extra scrutiny, not less. The quickest way to get outrage from the public is to try and hide the facts and risks from the people. Independent oversight solves that problem, but secrecy feeds the problem.
Comment
2 of 15
April 5, 2011
I agree that care must be taken to avoid disease or genetic ill effects from all algae handled, manipulated, grown, used in any pproduct offered for public use...We already have good control over bacteria, viruses, molds, etc. used for medical or industrial purposes. Perhaps any new strains or types of algaes shud be observed and monitored to assure no manufacture of monster-materials! By registering and cataloging all such life, we can avoid the 'escape' or later manifestation of such potentially dangerous/deadly matter. We have managed to contain and control yeasts and other cultures we use to make bread, cheese, beer--let's keep our eyes on the algae-balls, too?..Perhaps the FDA and/or our national institute of health can monitor these products and suggest ways to control/kill any runaway witches' brew?..How about Pasturizing all algae fuels after conversion into fuels?..Aaron Allen...
Comment
3 of 15
April 5, 2011
This article broaches an issue that I think has needed mentioning for a long time. In regard to genetic engineering, the Union of Concerned Scientists suggested years ago that such crops should be grown in greenhouses rather than outside, but was ignored. The result (chuckle) has been widespread contamination! It is very difficult now - perhaps impossible - to find any significant canola or corn crops that remain "virgin."

Since genetically modified crops are used to produce such products as medicines, plastics etc., I feel it is only a matter of time before our ridiculously lax security measures in GMOs result in more obvious poisioning of at least a small part of the population.

Of course, that we are probably already affected negatively (albeit on a subtle level) by GMOs in our foodstuffs is (for me) a given - but I don't "sweat bullets" over it, though I do laugh at how ridiculously unconcerned - or even in a state of dogmatic denial - many people are about this problem.

Of course, many will remain unconcerned about nuclear power problems too, and indeed the world will continue to go on despite these problems, just as it will continue to survive even with GMO pollution.
Comment
4 of 15
April 5, 2011
WE ALL GONNA DIE! SAVE ME, JOHN CUSACK!
Comment
5 of 15
April 5, 2011
"The lysine contingency - it's intended to prevent the spread of the animals is case they ever got off the island. Dr. Wu inserted a gene that makes a single faulty enzyme in protein metabolism. The animals can't manufacture the amino acid lysine. Unless they're continually supplied with lysine by us, they'll slip into a coma and die."
Comment
6 of 15
April 6, 2011
After growing microalgae for ten years, my observation is that alga that are important commercially aren't usually easily cultured. Of course I'm making a generalized statement, but my gut feeling is that GM algae's aren't going to do well in the wild. However I'm not suggesting we throw caution to the wind until we know more.
Comment
7 of 15
April 6, 2011
Any facts on what kind of markers exhibited by organisms (algea in particular) that have posed a threat to our species and the mechanisms behind this. Anything beyond mere journalistic speculation?
No image available
Comment
8 of 15
Anonymous
April 6, 2011
All green plants use solar energy to make biomass. They do it very inefficiently by way of photosynthesis. PV cells do a much better job, but the storage of energy is still a problem. If you're going to fool around (genetically modify)with green plants with the possibility of inflicting a serious pest on the world, don't do it in the name of energy. Of course all the subsidies and hype are with energy. Fool around with plants to clean up our toxic wastes, sewage, oil spills, etc then hopefully turn these into energy. Not much glamour, but that's the way to go.
No image available
Comment
9 of 15
Anonymous
April 6, 2011
The fact is that there is a very robust regulatory regime in place that involves USDA, EPA and other federal agencies. And Haberman has a sub rosa agenda. He has his own algae process and feels threatened by GM algae technology.
Comment
10 of 15
April 15, 2011
Mixing science with money can have bad results, look at the nuclear energy industry. Had the scientists there been allowed to do the necessary footwork to guarantee safety, we might have many reliable nuclear energy system today. But, we do not. These science people with their investors have a bad track record. As a result, I think I would need someone elses valid proof that this science is safe. The industrys opinion is tainted with 'investor prospectus' tar.
Comment
11 of 15
April 15, 2011
Everyone here should subbmit a *huge* order from these clowns, then leave bogus contact information. Flood em with love! These commercial attacks are poison to the internet. agiobase.com
Comment
12 of 15
April 18, 2011
Aaron again: After reading the comments after my first entry, I'm prompted to suggest that we all resolve to keep the 'algae business' as public as possible. We don't need a 'Big Algae' to replace 'Big Oil'! The zillions of dollars we can save shud be used to keep 'fuel-from-crud' as cheap as possible--yet responsible to the public and environment: After all, petroleum oil isn't patented by anyone and has not been 'improved' by mad scientists?..Aaron Allen...
Comment
13 of 15
April 28, 2011
GMO algae can produce sustainable energy, food and a host of other products while mitigating climate change and conserving water resources.
Problems associated with global warming/climate change, water resource depletion, food shortages and mining fossil fuels greatly outweighs any problems associated with GMO algae…you people are ridiculous. Humans have been genetically modifying organisms for millennia…it's called breeding, now were just doing it using recombinant DNA techniques and it has been proven to be relatively safe and benign. Basic biological principles are still at work in any domesticated species: any benefit conferred upon GMO algae to increase their oil/biomass productivity under artificial growth conditions decreases their evolutionary fitness when competing against native species that are more adapted to survive in any given natural environment.
The probability of destroying civilization by continued use of fossil fuels is high (resource wars and climate change). The probability of destroying civilization via GMO algae is small. With proper planning and usage the risk of GMO algae is minute. Because GMO algae can produce energy, food and a host of other products while mitigating climate change and conserving water resources I think the choice is clear and the risk is well worth it.
Comment
14 of 15
April 28, 2011
>The probability of destroying civilization via GMO algae is small ...
The probablity of blowing your brains out playing Russian Roulette is low too, but it is still a bad idea.
Comment
15 of 15
May 10, 2011
Hi Steve: How about these precautions: 1. When received, a batch of algae is tested for evil 'bugs' then poured into refinery equipment. 2. During processing, samples are taken
to assure that sneaky strains haven't 'snuck-in' or evolved.
3. When 'processed' [grown to limit, multiplied enuf times],
is completed, ALL algae-based 'stuff' passes thru Lexan or
glass [Pyrex?] pipe thru which an electronic 'death beam' shines--everything passes thru it [like cross-linking plastic or killing bugs and decay in foods?] 4. Workers wear HAZMAT gear and breathe clean air...
like Ctrs for Desease Control?
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Stephen Lacey

View Stephen Lacey's Profile
About: I am a reporter with ClimateProgress.org, a blog published by the Center for American Progress. I am former editor and producer for RenewableEnergyWorld.com, wh... more »

Advertise With Us

Texas Renewable Energy Industries Association Intertek Met Office Conergy Inc. Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America SkyFuel Solmetric Corporation
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters