Difference between revisions of "Team:Toulouse France/Human Practices"

??????? The field of biology evolves very quickly thanks to the technological advances that we witness day by day. The definition of "biology" is also changing. Formerly simply meaning "study of the living", it is now more complex because we are able to transform the living. Indeed, the birth of synthetic biology has created a revolution in the world of biology as important as the discovery of the structure of DNA in 1953 by Watson and Crick or the first complete sequencing of a human genome in 2003. It is natural that suspicion emerges in the minds of the public when they only have a vague idea of ​​what this new discipline is, and the security measures we implement to minimize the risks. Synthetic biology is at the heart of the current debate, and scientists everywhere have to work with integrity and communicate with transparency on their results, their doubts and their failures so that the public can gain more confidence.

To respect the living is a value rooted in each one of us. It is therefore only natural to remain skeptical about modifying organisms and living systems. However, the limits of this debate remain blurry and some basic concepts are not comprehended by everybody the same way. First of all, what is the definition of a living being?

The definitions are very diverse and evolve over time. For example, Vikipédia (an encyclopedia for children aged from 8 to 13 years old) gives the following definition: “A living being is an organism that is endowed with life, that is to say that this organism: is born, grows, nurtures itself, reproduces itself and dies”. For the NASA, “life is an auto-maintained system, capable of Darwinian evolution” (Gerald Joyce, 1992). Some definitions exclude, for example, viruses from their definition when others don’t. The limit has never been clear and yet we know is something lives almost intuitively. James Lovelock even said “The detection of life is part of our natural mental equipment”.

From the start, it is complex to define what we work with. In spite of the absence of definite answer, we can question ourselves differently: when is an organism considered “modified”? Indeed, we are not capable of changing the whole system of an organism, we can only change some functions or metabolic pathways. Is it a lack of respect to nature and the living in general to insert a gene controlling insulin production in a bacteria if that means saving thousands of human lives?

Therefore, we concluded that respecting living beings first and foremost rested on scientific integrity and rigor, a realization of our approach and the precise knowledge of its content, and finally the establishment of security measure. We shall never consider Nature and living beings solely as work tools.

UE In the European Union, the legal definition is mentioned in the 2001/18 directive: a GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) is “an organism, with the exception of human beings, whose genetic makeup has been modified via methods that do not occur in nature and/or through traditional crossbreeding methods”.

The regulation of GMO is very variable from a country to another as far as research, production, marketing and the use of GMOs are concerned.

In France, the confined use of GMMs (Genetically Modified Microorganisms) is subject, via the 2009/41/CE directive, to a system of notification and authorization. The GMO cultures are also allowed in the territory.

The US consider that a GMO is an organism whose “genetic makeup has been modified, either using classic selection, recombinant DNA methods (also called gene splicing) or gene modification”. The regulation is based on other criteria than the one applied to the European Union. Indeed, American policy is based on the product of gene modification techniques, not on the process itself. The regulation is founded on verifiable risks and does not focus on the risks that were not proven. (for more details see the precautionary principle).

Finally, GMO cultures are also allowed and much more common than in France. The US and Brazil remain the biggest growers of GMOs, with respectively 70,1 and 40,3 Mha of culture area.

The unconfined experiments only cover a limited number of vegetal and animal GMOs. Moreover, their multiplication on a large scale for production (corn, colza, fish…) cover even smaller figures. Thereby, the scientific debates raised change from a case to another. Even though MGMs in France are under a strict regulation because of their potential effects on health and their dissemination, they’re commonly for medical purposes (insulin production by E. coli), or in the food industry (modified yeast for beer production).

The distinction between these different kinds of GMOs (GMMs, PGMs, etc…) imposes itself through the conception of one or another by society. Indeed, it is extremely variable (Commissariat général au plan, 2001 ; Bizet et Pastor, 2003). This is how the industrial applications of GMOs were developped (and still are) without it bothering anybody.


Their irruption in the production processes went almost unnoticed. They were even perceived well since they were able to engender more reliable products, as it was the case with growth hormones. It is with the plant GMOs that the debate has emerged. The questions raised are often linked to them, but the confusion is present and the reluctance seems to affect all GMOs.

The risks are not the same for each category of GMOs, and for the moment no problem related to the laboratory MGMs has been declared in 70 years of utilization.

Precautionary principle In France, a very interesting law was written in 1995: the Barnier law, more known as the precautionary principle. It states that “the lack of certainties, given the scientific and technical knowledge of the moment, shall not delay the adoption of effective and proportionate measures that aim to prevent a risk of severe and irreversible harm to the environment to a cost economically acceptable”. It was written in response to the problems related to contaminated blood and the mad cow disease. This law applies to a lot of areas like health, environmental health, or the governance of economy and stock exchange. Thus it enables taking safety precautions even if the risk in question is not demonstrated or proven. However, no state has given this law a constitutional rank, except from France, Germany and Brazil.

The philosopher Hans Jonas tackles this subject in his book Le Principe de Responsabilité. According to him, every technology that contains a risk –no matter how small- of destroying humanity should be forbidden. He adds that if there are many consequences possible when using a technology, one has to decide [to use the technology or not] according to the most pessimistic hypothesis.

In France, this principle is applied for the use of GMOs and allows avoiding to the maximum the risks endangering health and the environment. However, it is sometimes difficult to quantify the risks and visualize the limit between what could be really dangerous for humanity and what is not.

Thereby, thanks to the awareness raised to this debate, numerous precautions have been taken to avoid the dissemination of GMOs, because the scientific community does not know their exact effects on the environment. Thorough searches in order to bring answers are necessary to adapt our security measures in an efficient manner. It is thus important to act responsibly, with conscience and integrity, and to know the risks linked to using GMOs.

Lascaux: since 1979 belongs to the World Heritage of UNESCO

In 1946, representatives of 37 countries met in London to sign and enforce the Constitution UNESCO (The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), defining the concept of world heritage and establishing an initial list of this heritage. This concept is unique by its universal application. Indeed, the World Heritage sites belong to everyone, irrespective of the territory in which they are located. Places as amazing and diverse as the Serra da Capivara National Park in Brazil, the Pyramids of Egypt, Trogiret historic town in Croatia are the heritage of our world. Among the 1052 world treasures that need to be saved, the Lascaux cave and the impressive frescos by their number and aesthetic quality are listed since October 1979 (see ICOMOS RECOMMENDATION). This prehistoric site is located in the French countryside. It includes 147 deposits dating from the Palaeolithic era and 25 decorated caves globally. There is no parietal cave in the world that matches it in terms of the quality and variety of the finds (skeletons, objects, flint, various utensils). The hunting scenes include 100 animal figures with amazing accuracy of observation, rich colors and lifelike quality. The site is particularly interesting from ethnological, anthropological and aesthetic point of views, marking a milestone in the history of prehistoric art and our human culture. Like the links of a long human chain, the Lascaux cave shows to future generations a work executed by ancient men. In order to preserve this chain, it is our duty to best protect this legacy. Indeed, the walls of the cave are partially and gradually covered with black and white mushrooms that hide the frescoes.

Why save art? Art is a paradox in itself. Indeed, at the time of the Renaissance, an interesting definition of art appears: it is a disinterested and free activity, pleasant in itself, having no utility for production. But if art is aimless, why of all times, men made art and attempted to protect it?

In other words, is it really necessary to save art? Indeed, one may think that science is useful only when it is in the service of health or the environment. But why limit oneself? Combining science and disciplines based on beauty and aesthetics for example is an interesting combination. Art has existed for as long as we did, and has always seemed to be associated with what makes us human.

However, isn’t a work of art destined to disappear? In the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, Buddhist conceived mandalas (support for meditation and visualization, symbol of the universe) in the sand (very sensitive material overtime). These disappear with the tide and weather. For Buddhists, a work of art made of sand then destroyed allows the artist to understand and accept the transience of material things and to detach oneself. Even today, ephemeral art is practiced for example in the Landart. This is a trend of contemporary art that uses the framework and materials of nature (wood, earth, stones, sand, water, rock, etc.). Thus, at any time, ephemeral art persists. Does it really make sense to save these frescoes?

Moreover, despite all our efforts, the world tends toward entropy (second law of thermodynamics), which means that the universe tends toward disorder and disintegration. Will we actually counteract this law of nature by saving the frescoes in the cave? Or maybe, we could be satisfied with the survival to transmit this work as long as possible to the future generations?

Humans have used art to fight oblivion and leave a trace of their passages on earth.

Art is an important part of our humanity. It is a proof of our intelligence and our necessity of expression. It is through the power and intelligence of men that we can organize the formless and chaos of the real world in a style, an expression. Thus, Nietzsche promotes art as the most pure and spiritual entertainment. Although it is not directly useful, art can be engaged, a witness and memory. Some works also have a decorative goal. They exist for their beauty, even though beauty is subjective. For the artist, art is also used to escape and to express themselves. Generally, art is a means of timeless communication. Thus, the Lascaux cave is a work of art, it deserves to exist, to be maintained and protected. It carries a message and a memory of the Paleolithic man.

Some philosophers of aesthetics, defined art as "sensitive knowledge": an autonomous knowledge which is opposed to knowledge through concepts. In this case, art is not for art, it has no goals but is a means of knowledge, and is necessarily a role in men’s evolution; it goes beyond the individual. It belongs to no one and is not the object of desire: it is there for contemplation of a generation, and then transmitted to the next.

These frescoes show the representation that men had of their world 18000 years ago. Notwithstanding, wildlife depicted on walls of the cave does not match the species hunted and consumed at the time. It includes mainly horses, bisons and goats, and rare and often dangerous animals, such as bears, rhinos and big felines. A single reindeer engraved was found when it seems that it was very consumed at the time. This art does not represent the time of the hunting scenes as one might imagine. Still, the frescoes are extremely realistic in terms of morphology and attitudes of animals. For many prehistorians, the cave is actually a sanctuary, a sort of religious monument. Other theories circulated on the significance of the frescoes compared with the celestial constellations, shamanic worship, magic destruction of these terrifying animals, etc. Anyway, these frescoes carry the message of men 18,000 years ago, and they show us how they lived and what they believed in. They carry a page of humanity. Is it not necessary to keep this message alive as long as possible?

But why use synthetic biology to save art? Indeed, others techniques exist at present to try to slow the progression of fungi? As said before, the walls of the cave are partially and gradually covered with black and white fungi that hide the frescoes. Alongside more traditional methods currently used against these fungi, we decided to act with the most modern means from this emerging science that is synthetic biology, to contribute to the preservation of an ancient heritage and to ensure its transmission to future generations.

Let’s not forget that the Lascaux cave is not an usual work of art, not only by age but especially by the presence of life. In fact, the cave has a very complex ecosystem, diverse and constantly interacting. It contains its own microflora as well as other living beings like insects. The opening of the cave by humans causing an imbalance in the ecosystem, one would think it’s only coherent that men attempt to repair their mistakes. As biologists, we offer to solve this biological problem, in this fragile ecosystem, with a biological solution.

We want to try a new method to treat frescoes. Physicochemical approaches have been partially successful and, combined with biological ones; the treatment could be completely successful.

However, our project is a proof of concept. We are aware that it is not possible currently to test our genetically modified bacteria in real conditions. Indeed, the ecosystem of the cave is very delicate and vital for the preservation of the frescoes. Thus, it is necessary to know the impact of our project before we can actually achieve it. We want to be safe from the influence of our bacteria in this ecosystem because our goal is to remove the black and white fungi and preserve the balance of this ecosystem. It is part of our project to seek solutions to problems that prevent us to test our bacteria in real cave, like the planning of different systems to minimize the probability of biodissemination (see biodissémination). We have also contacted many scientists and people working in the Lascaux cave. We will be able to test our genetically modified bacteria in a "cave test." This will allow us to get closer to the maximum requirements of the real cave. Among others, we contacted Yvan Moënne-Loccoz, part of the scientific council of the Lascaux cave and Jean-Jacques Cleyet-Merle Director of the National Museum of Prehistory.

As a conclusion, in any project involving the release of genetically modified bacteria in an ecosystem, in-depth studies are carried out to measure the evolution of this ecosystem with the addition of a genetically modified bacterium native. For example, a Canadian1 study analyzed changes in microbiota of rhizosphere (soil area directly formed and influenced by roots and microorganisms) and endorhiza (internal root tissue) cucumbers after adding a genetically modified bacterium native. This allowed the measurement of the risks of the future use of genetically modified microorganisms (GMMs) in crops. The structure of the bacterial community at a genetic level has not significantly varied between the ecosystem in the presence of native GMMs strain and the wild strain, but temporally differ. Thus, this study shows that the ecosystem’s modification in this project is not significant. It gives an encouraging result for the use of synthetic biology. It may be possible in the near future to get the same results for our project. Indeed, the deepening of knowledge about our approach allows us to get closer to the completion of our project. Our research could later be used for other studies that would reuse our results. And why not imagine being able to reopen the cave to the public in the future?


1. Mahaffee, W. F. & Kloepper, J. W. Bacterial communities of the rhizosphere and endorhiza associated with field-grown cucumber plants inoculated with a plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium or its genetically modified derivative. Can. J. Microbiol. 43, 344–353 (1997).

We have designed a device to allow the containment of our genetically modified bacteria in the Lascaux cave.

It is important to understand that this project is a proof of concept. This means that we cannot test our genetically modified bacterium in real conditions. First, the cave is not completely closed and the risk of bio-dissemination is significant and should be taken into account for the ecosystem of the cave and the environment (quote laws). However, results of our work will be useful for other future researches that concern the safeguard of the frescoes in the cave. This allows us to hope that one day we will save the cave thanks to synthetic biology.

In addition, results can also be applied to other caves in the world. Indeed, our MGM is programmed to produce specific fungicides targeting certain fungi. It will also be possible to use our system on others works of art like paintings for example.