Please note: Your browser has been unable to load the stylesheet that accompanies this page. The page is still readable. [Accessibility statement]

[Skip to navigation]

Scotsman.com
 
photo: Glencoephoto: The Bass Rockphoto: Callanish standing stonesphoto: Golden Eaglephoto: Beach at Durnessphoto: Distilleryphoto: Calton Hill, Edinburghphoto: St Kilda

Ideas & Ingenuity

The Scotsman Mon 15 Jan 2007

'Super-chickens' offer hope of cheap drugs

LYNDSAY MOSS HEALTH CORRESPONDENT

A FLOCK of chickens genetically modified to lay eggs that could help produce cancer-fighting drugs, has been bred by a team of Scottish scientists, it emerged yesterday.

Researchers at the Roslin Institute near Edinburgh have successfully bred three generations of hens, each capable of producing eggs containing high levels of proteins that could be the basis of new drugs.

Experts believe the breakthrough could allow the production of treatments for cancer, MS and other illnesses at a fraction of the price the NHS pays now.

But anti-GM campaigners expressed concern over the so-called transgenic hens, details of which are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The scientists at the Roslin Institute - where the cloned sheep Dolly was created - used a common breed of egg-laying hen known as ISA browns. The aim was to create a chicken capable of laying eggs containing medicinal proteins that could be used to make drugs.

The team, led by Dr Helen Sang, created an artificial gene containing the human protein they wanted to reproduce in the eggs. This was put into a virus which was injected into the embryo inside an egg.

Dr Sang said the team was trying to put a new gene into the chicken to mimic human DNA, to create proteins useful in the treatment of human disease. Some of the chickens born as a result of the technique will be able to lay eggs that contain the desired proteins. The proteins could then be extracted from the white of the egg and used to develop drugs.

The team has so far focused its efforts on creating proteins which could be used to treat MS and skin cancer.

Dr Sang said chickens producing high levels of the proteins in their eggs had been bred several generations on from the original hen. "It does take a long time to do this kind of work, and then you suddenly realise you have actually achieved something important," she said.

But Dr Sang said it could be some time before drugs created using the technique were on the market. "It is a long process and clinical trials of drugs take at least five years," she said.

The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), which sponsors the Roslin Institute, welcomed the developments.

Professor Nigel Brown, director of science and technology at the council, said: "I am delighted to see the practical outcomes of Dr Sang's work, the original development of which was funded by BBSRC more than a decade ago.

"To have developed a genetically stable line of chickens producing a therapeutic protein is a significant achievement.

"It bodes well for the future risk-free production of therapeutic products that are identical with a natural human protein."

But Pete Riley, from GM Freeze, which highlights concerns about genetic modification of food and animals, expressed doubts about the work.

"We are very concerned about this from an animal-welfare point of view," he said. "Dolly the sheep had a very short life and suffered serious health problems.

"We need to know a lot more about what we are doing with this type of technique. We would be very, very cautious.

"There are some major moral and ethical issues that need to be debated."

Mr Riley said scientists needed to look for ways of preventing diseases rather than focus on using GM to find treatments.

"We need to look at lifestyles, diet and the environment to look at the causes of cancer, and not be swept along by scientific euphoria about the drugs," he said.

But Dr Mark Matfield, scientific advisor for the Association for International Cancer Research, said such work was necessary to find new treatments for cancer. "I can understand people's concerns, but they are misguided. Nature has been genetically modifying plants for all of evolution," he said.

Dr Matfield said the research was "very promising".

He added: "A big area for cancer treatments is what we call biological drugs. These are drugs that come from a natural source, in this case chickens, rather than synthesised molecules. After proper safety testing, these drugs could be available in just a few years.

"The potential to produce lower-cost drugs is also a big plus for the NHS."

Related topic

This article: http://heritage.scotsman.com/ingenuity.cfm?id=71892007

Last updated: 16-Jan-07 11:08 BST

Comments

1. babba, black sheep/ dundee / 2:22am 15 Jan 2007

IF I HAD CANCER I WOULD EAT THEM NO PROBLEM.
THIS IS A FUNNY WORLD WE SAVE LIFES WITH HAND WHILE HOLDING A GUN IN THE OTHER.
GOOD LUCK

Report as unsuitable
2. Macbeth, Scotland (where else?) / 3:41am 15 Jan 2007

Now, what was it Mr Riley advised us about GM food almost a decade ago? Oh yes, at the FoE website

"THERE ARE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS THAT HAVE SIMPLY NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. GIVEN THE STRENGTH OF PUBLIC OPINION IT IS NOT SURPRISING THAT THE ONLY WAY THESE PRODUCTS CAN BE SOLD IS FOR THEM TO BE SECRETLY SMUGGLED INTO OUR FOOD.”

http://chelus.foe.co.uk/resource/press_releases/199710090...

Thanks, but this time, I'll believe the scientists rather than any Fiends of the Earth.

Report as unsuitable
3. Graeme, Guangzhou / 8:32am 15 Jan 2007

And to think that these scientists and others like them are being actively targeted and attacked by the animal rights brigade. Even if in this article it is only on the “moral and ethical level”, I wonder how long their principles would last if they all got cancer and had a choice between their principles or life. Me thinks I know the answer!

Report as unsuitable
4. paulr / 9:40am 15 Jan 2007

These anti gm campaigners need to learn to live in the real world.

Report as unsuitable
5. Dave From Barra, Western Isles / 10:48am 15 Jan 2007

Which came first, the chicken or the drug?

Which ever one is smoking the cigarette!

Report as unsuitable
6. Messalina / 11:38am 15 Jan 2007

It's about time people realised that humans have been tinkering with the Earth's gene-pool since they took up farming and animal herding way back in non-recorded historical times.

How do they think domesticated animals got that way, fo goodness sake? Our ancestors used selective breeding, that's why! They were experimenting with strains of dry grass to produce properly edible wheat and corn. Did you think they were natural?? Then there's the various strains of apples, pears, berries, etc, etc, etc .......

The more recent, well-publicised wave of genetic engineering is only a natural offshoot of our "tinkering"!

Long may it continue!

Report as unsuitable
7. Dave From Barra, Western Isles / 11:55am 15 Jan 2007

The first potatoes were virtually inedible with a thick waxy skin that exuded a sticky bitter subsitance and bitter flesh. It was a quirk of nature that produced a spud without the horrible skin (due to a physiological response to a change in environment) and we took it from there (they actually reckon the nethandertals used to farm the spud amongst others).

Now we have 9,000 strains of lovely spuds, 5,000 of which are European strains.

Report as unsuitable
8. Dennis Surgenor, Falkirk / 12:03pm 15 Jan 2007

Would it be possible for those who complain about the scientific advantages brought about by the scientists at Roslin, to be able to identify those life saving drugs produced via this research and deny their use in any personal health problem ?
it would certainly bolster their protest campaigns !

Report as unsuitable
9. Kennybhoy, Aberdeen / 1:56pm 15 Jan 2007

#2..well said. I am sure most people, including tree-huggers and anti-GM campaigners, if faced with the prospect of painful cancer treatment and a humiliating death for themselves or their family, would wish they had eaten two or three of these eggs per day...if they do what they say they do.

Report as unsuitable
10. Arthur / 2:49pm 15 Jan 2007

No there are no major moral or ethical issues to discuss here, let's just get on with finding out what benefits this new biotech will bring to humans and
other animals.

Report as unsuitable
11. aljok23, Staffs / 2:52pm 15 Jan 2007

Trouble in mind. When something this big is produced then big money is to be made . Decisions may be made in future not for the greater good .
eg. forget those needing cosmetic surgery after an accident , I want pouting lips and no wrinkles.

Report as unsuitable
12. Jim Yell, Fayette, MO / 3:46pm 15 Jan 2007

This business always makes me cringe. Why? Altering the genetic makeup of the plants and animals we depend on opens up real questions that have nothing to do with ethics, at lest not the religious ethics.

I have wondered for some time about the goats that produce raw material for I believe it is Kevlar? How can we keep food animals and plants for that matter altered to produce none food proteins from getting into the same animals and plants that produce our food? If they do and they will breed with general population of food animals than what are the effects, increased intolerance and allergies to basic food? One of the first of these that sent a chill down my spine is altering, was it colon bacteria. If the tinkering leds to a toxic bacteria at home in the gut, what new horrors in health will that produce?

The researchers will say they have it under control, same thing they said about killer bees.

Report as unsuitable
13. Arthur / 4:14pm 15 Jan 2007

Exactly how big a problem have killer bees been?
How many of them are there?
How many people have died from killer bee attacks?
Did they come about as a result of GM?
Or did the come about as aresult of natural mutation?
Methinks the lady doth protest to much

Report as unsuitable
14. John B Dick / 4:45pm 15 Jan 2007

There are some major moral and ethical issues that need to be debated.

I agree. Lets debate them this afternoon, and then the Scottish Government can throw money at the problem to-morroow.

Why are these guys paid less than footballers?

Report as unsuitable
15. Arthur / 5:26pm 15 Jan 2007

Why are any of us paid less than footballers, they should be in the guards van of the gravy train.

Report as unsuitable
16. Erwin at MN / 6:57pm 15 Jan 2007

Scots have done so very well with 32 of our U.S. presidents. Don't stop now. We need more!

Report as unsuitable
17. Arthur / 7:22pm 15 Jan 2007

16) Are you saying that, that is what is wrong with the current president. Trouble is Blair claims to be a Scot
and Brown is, though now seen a a traitor.

Report as unsuitable
18. Macbeth / 10:07pm 15 Jan 2007

To get back to today's article. May I reassure Jim Yell? Farmers have segregated crops like oil seed rape for food and OSR for industrial use (which is poisonous) for years. It's called crop stewardship, involves distance bewteen crops and sticking to the rules about thrshold. So nothing new.
Re cross pollination etc., this will also reassure you
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?Story_I...
It's the story of a peer reviewed 10 year study of how GM potatoes, oil seed rape, maize and sugar beet reacted in the UK with the same normal crops when left untended side by side. Only one crop survived longer than 4 years before dying out - potatoes. And the existing conventional potatoes outlived the normal ones! So GM does not mean crops are any more invasive or competitive than their conventional cousins. So "contamination" is NOT an issue (Back to Dunsinane now)

Report as unsuitable

Commenting on this article has closed.