Since the dawn of the industrial age, man has dumped millions of tons of toxic (as well as non-toxic) metals into the environment. Cleaning up this mess has been a herculean task, often creating more problems than solved. Now, scientists have been able to realize an old dream of using nature against nature, so to speak. Professor Norman Terry, a plant and microbial biologist with U. C. Berkeley has spearheaded a research to do just that, which was recently published in Environmental Science & Technology.

Indian Mustard Plant (Courtesy: Illinois Wild Flowers) The group used genetically modified plants to soak up toxic contaminants (selenium) from the ground, by upwards of 430% than normal. This process, known as Phytoremediation has been used off and on for the last two decades. Mostly, those approaches used normal breeding processes to boost the plant's cleaning abilities. Now, with genetic engineering, researchers are ready to usher in a slew of super-plants.
For the above trial, the plant Indian Mustard was used, which already has some natural ability to clean up toxic soils. Genetic engineering boosted this ability, and also ensured that the plant does not die due to the extra toxicity that it soaked up. Plans are afoot to augment cottonwood trees (by Applied PhytoGenetics) with a bacterial gene, that would allow them to absorb mercury from the soil.
In future, these technologies would not only clean up the environment, but also perhaps provide a new paradigm in mining operations. Of course, we might have unleashed more than we can chew, and only time will tell if these super-plants cause more problems than they solve.

Indian Mustard Plant (Courtesy: Illinois Wild Flowers)
For the above trial, the plant Indian Mustard was used, which already has some natural ability to clean up toxic soils. Genetic engineering boosted this ability, and also ensured that the plant does not die due to the extra toxicity that it soaked up. Plans are afoot to augment cottonwood trees (by Applied PhytoGenetics) with a bacterial gene, that would allow them to absorb mercury from the soil.
In future, these technologies would not only clean up the environment, but also perhaps provide a new paradigm in mining operations. Of course, we might have unleashed more than we can chew, and only time will tell if these super-plants cause more problems than they solve.
10 Comments:
A few years ago, a few bacteria were found to thriving in the highly acid and toxic run-off from an old steel works in Chicago, America.
The water was so poisonous, it was due for treatment, but it was found to be seething with bacterial life, most of which was breaking down the toxins and fast as they were pouring into the pools...
I'm actually reading Gaia by James Lovelock at the minute, and the more I read it, the more this kind of thing makes sense.
Think of it this way: a dog doesn't look for a chemical toilet when it needs to go .. the dog just goes.
Where's the ecological friendliness there?
All animals make a mess with little or no regard for their / our environment. Bacteria on a petri dish will ultimately choke on their own excrement or starve to death.
We humans aren't any different, we just happen to make a little more mess than most other animals...
Gaia suggests that life adapts and coexists with its environment, (like my post on coral reefs). But since the natural world proceeds at a certain pace, wouldnt the system become unstable and collapse if it is tinkered with a faster rate? Animals and plants have always modified their surroundings to their advantage, but I think we are changing our world a bit too faster than the world can cope with.
If you think of Gaia as a living organism, then like all organisms, there's a level of sophistication in terms of nervous system, organs and various others sensors.
So, with humans pumping the atmosphere full of shit, the mean temperature rises.
Snow melts in the Arctic and fresh water desalinates the north Atlantic.
The mid-Atlantic conveyer shuts down, the northern hemisphere cools and the rampant temperature rise is brought under control.
The elevated levels of carbon dioxide are caught in the excess rain and snow fall and the carbon cycle is reined in, also.
There's every reason to believe that the harder we push Gaia, the harder and faster she will react to us.
Right now, she's warning us. If we continue to mess things up, she will alter the conditions of our environment in such as way that it isn't conducive to life, thus culling the human race.
Once our numbers are reduced, and we no longer constitute a reasonable threat, then the conditions will be restored.
In geological terms, we're in an ice age right now, and these things are cyclic, typically connected to the processional movement of the orbit of the Earth, which has a half cycle of 15,000 years.
Let's not forget, we are part of the mechanism of life. As much as we might like to think we know better, or that we're somehow outside of it, we're not.
Right now, we're one wobbly cog in an otherwise near-faultless machine...
I am sure that will be the case. But can the push be so severe that it might lead to not only the eradication of mankind, but also the loss of a large portion of the rest of the species? Also, we have developed some things that are not found in nature (nukes). Once nature starts pushing back, there will be a terrible lack of resources. What if the fight over resources lead to nuclear war? I am not sure nature can recover from such a disaster.. at least not soon.
Whichever is most beneficial to the continuance of life as a whole.
If a short-term mass extinction is required, then so be it. It wouldn't be the first time.
As for nuclear war, there's been considerable amount of research in this area, specifically by the French and the Americans with regards to detonations on the various Pacific atolls.
Other than vitrification of surrounding coral, the general loss of flora and fora in the immediate area, there has been little or no impact in the deeper water courses or to surrounding areas from radioactive fall-out.
In fact, estimates made on the yield of existing nuclear arsenals have projected minimal global impact .. other than major urban human populations being all but wiped out.
For obvious reasons, much of this research gets buried because of various political agendas and the fear that such unfavorable data might otherwise dent reasonable and legitimate efforts for global disarmament.
Sometimes, nefarious political machinations are for the greater good...
Abt. the nukes... one or two (heck, may be 10) might be recoverable. But man has 1000s in his arsenal. Unleashing of most of that might not be recoverable.
But never say never.. perhaps the earth will recover.. only that it will take a lot longer. Multicelullar land life might be destroyed in such a case, but bacteria, and deep marine life would survive. Life would go on.
We do act like a virus, consuming all of our natural resources until there's nothing left and then moving on somewhere else.
Hey! It's pretty good having someone to waste quality brain cells with...
LOL... but the problem is: unless we develop space travel soon, once we have consumed this planet, there wont be anywhere to move on to!
Brain cells are for spending :).. too many of them unused anyway...
Perhaps that will make us crankier as we grow older?!
Post a Comment