Chemistry matters. Join us to get the news you need.

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.


Biological Chemistry

Activists warn of algae escape

Genetically modified algae pose risks for the environment, report says

by Melody M. Bomgardner
October 2, 2017 | APPEARED IN VOLUME 95, ISSUE 39

The prospects for algae-based biofuel have dimmed compared with a decade ago. Yet a handful of companies are tweaking algae genomes to create more economically viable strains. Ironically, while the aim is eco-friendly fuels, the effort poses environmental risks should the pumped-up organisms escape, activists allege.

A report by Friends of the Earth and Biofuelwatch points out that the planet’s native species of algae play an important role at the bottom of the food chain. It cites research showing engineered algae grown in open ponds migrated into the outside environment.

Scientists at ExxonMobil and Synthetic Genomics used CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing to increase lipid production in algae. Biofuelwatch says traits such as enhanced lipid production, improved photosynthetic capacity, and resistance to predators could result in escaped algae that are able to outcompete native species.

“Current regulations are abysmally lacking,” says Rachel Smolker, codirector of Biofuelwatch. No regulation can reliably contain an organism that “gets carried in wind, on clothing, out vents, and on the wings of ducks and waterfowl,” she adds.

Most algae firms have shifted from biofuels to higher-value products. Sapphire Energy, for example, is developing modified algae for use in animal nutrition.

Biofuelwatch says it is monitoring the use of synthetic biology in organisms and plants used to create biofuels. For example, a start-up formed by Bayer and Ginkgo Bioworks plans to develop modified microbes that enhance plant growth. The prospect of releasing such microbes in the soil is “very troubling,” Smolker says.



This article has been sent to the following recipient:

Jim Smith (October 17, 2017 8:36 AM)
Anytime you genetically engineer an organism, it should be routine to simply add an engineered "stop" to the organisms ability to reproduce or pass on its genome. The "stop" could take the form of a dominant lethal mutation; a mutation that prevents reproduction; or a mutation that kills the organism when exposed to an agent. Intuitively, such systems should involve redundant multiple systems to "stopping" genetically modified organism (GMO) from impacting the environment. In simple terminology, all GMOs should include multiple kill switches.

Leave A Comment

*Required to comment