Controversy Erupts in French Classrooms over Permitting Teens to Genetically Modify Bacteria
Image:
By Barbara Casassus
A row has broken out in France over whether 15- and 16-year-olds should be allowed to create transgenic Escherichia coli bacteria in the classroom.
Practical experiments in which students learn how to use plasmids to alter the DNA of the bacteria have been under way for 17 and 18-year-olds in the final year of the scientific baccalaureate at schools across France for the past decade. But this year teachers have for the first time been offered the option of teaching the experiments to younger students.
The Committee for Research & Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) in Caen, France, which lobbies for stricter controls over genetic engineering, is particularly upset because in the experiments the students modify the bacteria to become resistant to the antibiotic ampicillin.
Gilles-Eric Séralini, president of the organization's scientific committee, says that CRIIGEN is in favor of genetic engineering, as long as it is properly controlled. But the necessary restrictions are not currently in place, he says.
CRIIGEN "will urge the education ministry to impose a moratorium until a full debate on the question is organized", says Séralini. "We believe such material should not be manipulated by students before they reach university."
He warns against trivialization of a sensitive subject, contamination risks and possible violation of European directives on the manipulation of genetically modified organisms in confined spaces. "I am also concerned that practical classes erode the time spent imparting knowledge of biology," he adds.
Luc Chatel, France's education minister, today unveiled a plan to encourage more students to opt for science and technology subjects at university by improving teaching in schools, but he told Nature that increasing the amount of compulsory practical work is not part of the scheme. Schools can choose how much time they devote to experiments, as long as students are prepared for the hands-on work that makes up 20% of marks in the scientific baccalaureate exam at 18.
Nothing to worry about
The French Association of Biology and Geology Teachers (APBG) in Lyons, which sells kits of E. coli with instructions for genetic modification to teachers, dismisses CRIIGEN's concerns.
These practical experiments have been part of the biology option for 17-18-year-old science baccalaureate students for ten years, and are not compulsory for younger pupils, says Serge Lacassie, president of the APBG, who teaches biology and geology at the Lycée Berthollet in Annecy.
Only a few teachers include hands-on transgenesis in their courses for 15 and 16-year-olds, and Lacassie is not among them. He says that this is because of time constraints, although he acknowledges that students in their mid-teens are "perhaps not aware of the danger of manipulating such material". The biggest risk is that the bacteria could escape into the environment, so "we teach students how to take the necessary precautions to ensure this doesn't happen", he says. In addition, "the bacteria are not pathogenic and are destroyed with bleach when experiments are over".
Practical advantage
Lacassie stresses that practical classes teach students how to work in sterile conditions without damaging the environment. "We need to teach science according to the realities of today--DNA is a universal language and it is useful to experience how a gene can be transferred from one organism to another. Our aim is to give students the elements to reflect about biotechnology in general," he says.
The E. coli kits are supplied to the APBG by the DNA School Association in Nîmes. "We launched the product in 2002, and sell about 50 a year," says Jean-Christophe Lallement, the association's director. "That is fewer than at first. We have never had a problem with them, but now some biology teachers prefer to buy our DNA-fingerprinting kits instead," he says.
Valérie Sipahimalani, national secretary in charge of biology and geology for the National Union of Secondary Teachers, part of the Unitary Union Federation in Paris, has no objection to practical transgenesis classes, provided that the safety rules are respected. "It is up to teachers to decide," she says.
But she does not run the practical lessons at her school in Paris, because it is not a priority and because the equipment is too expensive. "Personally, I don't believe in teaching manipulation for manipulation's sake," she says. "More importantly, DNA takes a lot of time to explain--it is very complicated for secondary school-students to understand."
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentI am in a biology program now and am no fan of big brother interference...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, genetically modifying E. Coli to be antibiotic resistant? Hello? Can the school not choose a safer alternative? There definitely should have been some thought of the consequences of this.
As long as you don't eat it you should be fine dear. I highly doubt your using a pathogenic strain of e. coli. That being said do you understand how many times each and every day a bacterium of some type is genetically modified? Put it this way, if I had a $1 for every time I wouldn't need to be a scientist any longer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPfft, they're non-pathogenic bacteria. Man, if I had the chance to do some real molecular biology in high school I probably would have gone to my classes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an Engineer I have no idea how such manipulation is performed. This article would be far more interesting for the scientifically minded reader if a short explanation was given as to how the experiment takes place etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWithout such an explanation this article could well be inserted into any tabloid newspaper :-(.
Though I know how to use Google, it would be nice if the authors did not want to go into more detail, would provid some helpful links.
All it takes is one mutation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile these E. coli are not pathogenic, it would probably be better (particularly by avoiding some controversy) to use something like pGLO. The results are more apparent, often more fun for students, and there is much less risk (though the risk is nearly trivial anyway). I have never known an instructor to attempt to mimic the results of natural selection via direct vector insertion, but in this case the risk is minimal. I think the concern would be that somehow a MRSA-like strain of E. coli (or I suppose Staph. as well) would be developed, but there are several reasons why this is extremely unlikely in this controlled setting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCombined with sterile lab techniques, I think the risk is pretty well covered off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe way I see it, if the kids are interested enough to take the class then they should be expected to be mature enough to use the appropriate safety measures. It's not as though they can't screen some of the students out--particularly for a trial program.
Controlled setting, sterile lab techniques, and genetic bacteria modification? Is that enough?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese are teenagers, as young as 15, how much control do they have over their own impulses? How could anyone oversee each and every one at each stage of the technology? There very well should be controversy and a cease to such dangerous instruction.