Section Seven
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
95    ENVIRONMENTAL BIOTECHNOLOGY: THE PROMISE AND
DELIVERY OF BIOREMEDIATION
Professor Rita R. Colwell
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana
We, obviously, have a long way to go before alleviating concerns about release and fate of genetically engineered organisms.
The major point which we must address is the methodology of molecular biology, which is extraordinarily precise. It is far more precise than selection employing enrichment cultures or "breeding" of
microorganisms for specific application, which is what we do at the present time. The power of the
methods of molecular biology enables us to isolate genes and transfer them across natural barriers,
from species to species, and from species to other families or phyla; e.g., human genes into bacteria
and vice versa.
The potential adverse effects remain in the realm of possibilities, since none have been realized.
However, the potential must be addressed. The important task is to minimize the likelihood of
undesirable effects.
The issues are the uncertainties. We need to understand the properties associated with genetic
modifications. We need to understand properties of the environment into which the organisms are to
be released. Familiarity is the underlying point. Familiarity with the organism. Familiarity with the
changes which have been made. Familiarity with the environment into which it has been introduced. If
we lack information on microbial systematics and ecology, which unfortunately we do, and if we lack
an understanding of variation among microbial taxa in ecologically different environments; unfortunately we do; then we are in a bind, and that is a situation we are now in. We are "swung by our own
petard" because we have invested billions of dollars over the last 20 and 30 years in molecular biology
and only a tiny fraction of that sum in microbial ecology, microbial systematics, environmental
biology and ecology. We are now having to pay dues in arrears, so to speak, in order to be able to
release organisms to carry out environmental remediation.
The nondomesticated nature of most microorganisms makes it difficult to ensure confinement.
That is, most microorganisms are not as well known as Saccharomvces cerevisiae, used in baking, or
Rhizobium species used to enhance nitrogen fixation in fields. We have a great deal to learn about the
ecological complexities, large-scale dependent effects, and time lags.
The intellectual environment in which we operate is a regulatory one. It is increasingly stringent,
complex, and under intense Congressional and public scrutiny; e.g., Congressman Dingle's investigations of scientific research, overhead, etc. In terms of environmental regulation, there is much intense
Congressional interest, costly environmental liabilities, and potential liabilities from environmental
degradation, whether accidental or intended. There is a real threat of civil and criminal penalty.
Thus, we have a lack of information on one hand, and an intense need for action, on the other
hand, because of Superfund sites and landfill sites that need to be cleaned up. And, at the same time,
being faced with increasing regulatory demands.
So, what is the debate really all about? It is a scientific debate on introduction of recombinant DNA
organisms; that is, genetically engineered organisms, or GEMs, into the environment. Do they cause
harm? Can we actually detect them when they are released? Can we contain them? What are the risks?
Can we confine them if, in fact, some adverse effect occurs, if there is a microbiological "kudzu"?
The available data document the usefulness of introductions of microorganisms, produced by
traditional genetic methods, that are capable of degrading hydrocarbons and xenobiotics. But there is
no consensus among views of molecular biologists, who are familiar with inducing genetic change,
46th Purdue Industrial Waste Conference Proceedings, 1992 Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan 48118.
Printed in U.S.A.
917