- Email: [email protected]
Not such a hot topic
COMMENT
Our genomic future We should welcome news of a WHO committee to discuss the issues surrounding human genome editing, says Andy Greenfield
JOSIE FORD
THE World Health Organization (WHO) will convene a meeting this month to develop global standards of governance for human genome editing. This is a welcome move: although the WHO committee lacks the power to enforce compliance, its recommendations will be influential. But I hope committee members will bear a few points in mind in their discussions. The first is safety. It is likely that the WHO meeting will focus on edits to human embryos that are inheritable, known as germline genome editing (GGE). The issue of GGE was thorny enough even before reports of the birth of twins with edited genomes in China – an intervention widely condemned as reckless. The criticism partly stemmed from numerous mouse studies suggesting that we cannot rely on genome-editing tools like
Not such a hot topic Bizarre weather is soon viewed as normal and that is troubling news, says Frances Moore CLIMATE change is creating weird weather around the world. Just last week, the UK basked in winter temperatures that felt more like summer. Warm conditions get people talking, but what happens when climate change makes them a regular occurrence? A recent study I published with three co-authors suggests 24 | NewScientist | 9 March 2019
that people quickly get used to unusual weather. This has troubling implications for our ability to recognise the climate change happening all around us. We measured the literal remarkability of temperatures by seeing how much comment they generated on Twitter. Hot and cold conditions both resulted in
lots of posts, particularly if they were unusual for the time of year. But temperatures quickly became unremarkable: after just a couple of years of strange temperatures, people stopped tweeting about them. Our best estimate is that people base their idea of normal weather on what happened in just the past two to eight years (PNAS, doi.org/c266). This is a concern if we think about climate change, which gradually shifts the weather
“After just a couple of years of strange temperatures, people stopped tweeting about them”
CRISPR‑Cas9 to make precise and predictable changes to DNA in every embryo. Genome editing cannot yet safely be performed on fertilised eggs for use in assisted human reproduction. But it might be safe at some point. The WHO can define standards for the evaluation of safety and efficacy in preclinical research on GGE. Such standards are important for the research community. Human embryo research is central to improving IVF success rates. We must resist the temptation to prohibit it for fear of what we may learn. A second key point to bear in mind is that germline interventions are already lawful in some jurisdictions. In the UK, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is regulated by the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority (of which I used to be a member). PGD
people experience from year to year. Significant warming is projected for the 21st century in the absence of ambitious climate policy. But if people forget what the weather was like more than eight years ago, these unprecedented conditions won’t feel particularly unusual to those experiencing them. The tale of the boiling frog has long been used to describe the dangers posed by change that happen slowly relative to people’s perception and memory. The apocryphal story compares a frog dropped into a pot of boiling water, who jumps out right away, to another placed
For more opinion articles, visit newscientist.com/opinion
Andy Greenfield is a programme leader at the Medical Research Council’s Harwell Institute, UK, and a member of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The opinions expressed here are his own
in a pot of cold water that is gradually heated up. This frog never recognises the danger it is in and eventually boils to death. Our findings suggest we may be at risk of becoming boiling frogs – but we can still determine our fate. There are plenty of records we can use to provide the longer‑term context critical for understanding climate change. Normally, keeping things in perspective makes problems seem smaller, but the opposite is true regarding climate change. ■ Frances Moore is an assistant professor of environmental science and policy at the University of California, Davis
ANALYSIS Recycling
CHINA PHOTOS/GETTY
involves screening embryos for genetic abnormalities so that only “healthy” ones are used in assisted human reproduction. It may not involve actively altering DNA, but PGD is a germline intervention nonetheless. So, the way it is regulated, and the social, legal and ethical issues it raises, should be core comparisons when evaluating GGE. Which leads on to a third point: intelligent governance is vital if GGE becomes lawful. Regulation should be seen not just as a way of prohibiting irresponsible science, but of facilitating responsible innovation. Finally, given the pace of current scientific and societal change, engagement matters. We must, of course, avoid introducing genomic technologies in the face of significant public opposition. But a big conversation about GGE could help allay fears by emphasising how we might protect those most vulnerable to its introduction. Clear language is required, as is transparency and sensitivity to diversity: there are no shortcuts to consensus. ■
Why the US is burning its recycling Chelsea Whyte
China still put a damper on the market. According to a report by the National Waste and Recycling Association in Washington DC, recyclable materials have plummeted in value. For example, in December 2017, mixed paper sold for around $35 per tonne; a year later it was valued at about $5 per tonne. Before the ban, which first came into effect in March 2018, China was the biggest buyer of US recyclable materials. Last year, the Chinese government stopped allowing the import of 24 recyclable materials,
PEOPLE who take the time to recycle hope they are doing their bit to help the planet. It is no surprise, then, that recent news reports of US waste facilities burning plastics and sending recycled paper to landfill have sparked outrage. Thankfully, this should be a temporary problem. The US used to send most of its recycling overseas. In 2016, it exported more than 40 per cent of its paper and a third of its plastics to China. But last year, the Chinese government closed the doors to some “In 2016, the US exported more than 40 per cent of foreign waste, and the US had to its paper and a third of its scramble for buyers. It seems to be plastics to China” finding them in countries such as Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam. Official trade data for the first including mixed paper and post11 months of 2018 shows that the consumer plastics, such as water increase of exports in all scrap bottles and yogurt containers. commodities exceeds the decline in Under a programme called National exports to China, says Adina Renee Sword, China says it intends to end all Adler at the Institute of Scrap imports of foreign recyclable material Recycling Industries in Washington DC. by 2020, not just the 24 covered by “Next week we will have a final report the 2018 ban. “In public, they’ll tell you and confirm that for the entire year.” it’s because they’re trying to protect Though US recyclables have found their environment,” says Adler. “In a new home, the policy change from reality it’s a protectionist measure to
China has had enough of everyone else’s plastic waste–
support their internal recycling market.” Adler says China’s residential and commercial recycling sector lags behind that of other countries, and the ban on foreign imports may create an opportunity for the country to better recycle its own waste. But the environmental reasoning doesn’t take into account the full picture when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. With a sudden drop in raw materials from recycled plastic, Chinese manufacturers are having to increase their use of new plastics, says Adler. That in turn means a rise in petroleum extraction and in the resulting greenhouse gas emissions. When the Chinese government first signalled its intent to implement a ban on imports of foreign waste, some thought it would negatively affect Chinese recycling companies so much that it would force the government to take a more measured approach. Adler says Chinese recyclers are feeling the pain of this regulation, but the country is moving forward with its timeline. In other words, the US has no choice but to find other customers for recycled materials and invest in its own recycling centres, as some communities are doing. But that can’t happen overnight. “It takes time to develop equipment and test it. But by 2020 or 2021, we’ll really see that this market has recovered,” says Adler. ■ 9 March 2019 | NewScientist | 25
Our genomic future We should welcome news of a WHO committee to discuss the issues surrounding human genome editing, says Andy Greenfield
JOSIE FORD
THE World Health Organization (WHO) will convene a meeting this month to develop global standards of governance for human genome editing. This is a welcome move: although the WHO committee lacks the power to enforce compliance, its recommendations will be influential. But I hope committee members will bear a few points in mind in their discussions. The first is safety. It is likely that the WHO meeting will focus on edits to human embryos that are inheritable, known as germline genome editing (GGE). The issue of GGE was thorny enough even before reports of the birth of twins with edited genomes in China – an intervention widely condemned as reckless. The criticism partly stemmed from numerous mouse studies suggesting that we cannot rely on genome-editing tools like
Not such a hot topic Bizarre weather is soon viewed as normal and that is troubling news, says Frances Moore CLIMATE change is creating weird weather around the world. Just last week, the UK basked in winter temperatures that felt more like summer. Warm conditions get people talking, but what happens when climate change makes them a regular occurrence? A recent study I published with three co-authors suggests 24 | NewScientist | 9 March 2019
that people quickly get used to unusual weather. This has troubling implications for our ability to recognise the climate change happening all around us. We measured the literal remarkability of temperatures by seeing how much comment they generated on Twitter. Hot and cold conditions both resulted in
lots of posts, particularly if they were unusual for the time of year. But temperatures quickly became unremarkable: after just a couple of years of strange temperatures, people stopped tweeting about them. Our best estimate is that people base their idea of normal weather on what happened in just the past two to eight years (PNAS, doi.org/c266). This is a concern if we think about climate change, which gradually shifts the weather
“After just a couple of years of strange temperatures, people stopped tweeting about them”
CRISPR‑Cas9 to make precise and predictable changes to DNA in every embryo. Genome editing cannot yet safely be performed on fertilised eggs for use in assisted human reproduction. But it might be safe at some point. The WHO can define standards for the evaluation of safety and efficacy in preclinical research on GGE. Such standards are important for the research community. Human embryo research is central to improving IVF success rates. We must resist the temptation to prohibit it for fear of what we may learn. A second key point to bear in mind is that germline interventions are already lawful in some jurisdictions. In the UK, preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) is regulated by the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority (of which I used to be a member). PGD
people experience from year to year. Significant warming is projected for the 21st century in the absence of ambitious climate policy. But if people forget what the weather was like more than eight years ago, these unprecedented conditions won’t feel particularly unusual to those experiencing them. The tale of the boiling frog has long been used to describe the dangers posed by change that happen slowly relative to people’s perception and memory. The apocryphal story compares a frog dropped into a pot of boiling water, who jumps out right away, to another placed
For more opinion articles, visit newscientist.com/opinion
Andy Greenfield is a programme leader at the Medical Research Council’s Harwell Institute, UK, and a member of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. The opinions expressed here are his own
in a pot of cold water that is gradually heated up. This frog never recognises the danger it is in and eventually boils to death. Our findings suggest we may be at risk of becoming boiling frogs – but we can still determine our fate. There are plenty of records we can use to provide the longer‑term context critical for understanding climate change. Normally, keeping things in perspective makes problems seem smaller, but the opposite is true regarding climate change. ■ Frances Moore is an assistant professor of environmental science and policy at the University of California, Davis
ANALYSIS Recycling
CHINA PHOTOS/GETTY
involves screening embryos for genetic abnormalities so that only “healthy” ones are used in assisted human reproduction. It may not involve actively altering DNA, but PGD is a germline intervention nonetheless. So, the way it is regulated, and the social, legal and ethical issues it raises, should be core comparisons when evaluating GGE. Which leads on to a third point: intelligent governance is vital if GGE becomes lawful. Regulation should be seen not just as a way of prohibiting irresponsible science, but of facilitating responsible innovation. Finally, given the pace of current scientific and societal change, engagement matters. We must, of course, avoid introducing genomic technologies in the face of significant public opposition. But a big conversation about GGE could help allay fears by emphasising how we might protect those most vulnerable to its introduction. Clear language is required, as is transparency and sensitivity to diversity: there are no shortcuts to consensus. ■
Why the US is burning its recycling Chelsea Whyte
China still put a damper on the market. According to a report by the National Waste and Recycling Association in Washington DC, recyclable materials have plummeted in value. For example, in December 2017, mixed paper sold for around $35 per tonne; a year later it was valued at about $5 per tonne. Before the ban, which first came into effect in March 2018, China was the biggest buyer of US recyclable materials. Last year, the Chinese government stopped allowing the import of 24 recyclable materials,
PEOPLE who take the time to recycle hope they are doing their bit to help the planet. It is no surprise, then, that recent news reports of US waste facilities burning plastics and sending recycled paper to landfill have sparked outrage. Thankfully, this should be a temporary problem. The US used to send most of its recycling overseas. In 2016, it exported more than 40 per cent of its paper and a third of its plastics to China. But last year, the Chinese government closed the doors to some “In 2016, the US exported more than 40 per cent of foreign waste, and the US had to its paper and a third of its scramble for buyers. It seems to be plastics to China” finding them in countries such as Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam. Official trade data for the first including mixed paper and post11 months of 2018 shows that the consumer plastics, such as water increase of exports in all scrap bottles and yogurt containers. commodities exceeds the decline in Under a programme called National exports to China, says Adina Renee Sword, China says it intends to end all Adler at the Institute of Scrap imports of foreign recyclable material Recycling Industries in Washington DC. by 2020, not just the 24 covered by “Next week we will have a final report the 2018 ban. “In public, they’ll tell you and confirm that for the entire year.” it’s because they’re trying to protect Though US recyclables have found their environment,” says Adler. “In a new home, the policy change from reality it’s a protectionist measure to
China has had enough of everyone else’s plastic waste–
support their internal recycling market.” Adler says China’s residential and commercial recycling sector lags behind that of other countries, and the ban on foreign imports may create an opportunity for the country to better recycle its own waste. But the environmental reasoning doesn’t take into account the full picture when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions. With a sudden drop in raw materials from recycled plastic, Chinese manufacturers are having to increase their use of new plastics, says Adler. That in turn means a rise in petroleum extraction and in the resulting greenhouse gas emissions. When the Chinese government first signalled its intent to implement a ban on imports of foreign waste, some thought it would negatively affect Chinese recycling companies so much that it would force the government to take a more measured approach. Adler says Chinese recyclers are feeling the pain of this regulation, but the country is moving forward with its timeline. In other words, the US has no choice but to find other customers for recycled materials and invest in its own recycling centres, as some communities are doing. But that can’t happen overnight. “It takes time to develop equipment and test it. But by 2020 or 2021, we’ll really see that this market has recovered,” says Adler. ■ 9 March 2019 | NewScientist | 25