The Future of Transgenic Farm

18
Animals
G.E. Seidel, Jr

Animal Reproduction and Biotechnology Laboratory, Colorado

State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

Animal scientists have dreamed of applying transgenic technology to improve

production characteristics of farm animals for nearly two decades. Except for the
special case of producing pharmaceutical products in milk, efforts have been
disappointing. In retrospect, this is not surprising in view of our limited knowledge of
gene regulation and function, particularly interactions and pleiotropic effects.
Furthermore, insertion of constructs at random sites has much in common with
random germline mutations that occur naturally; most such mutations have negative,
if any, consequences for the organism (Crow, 1997). There also are serious non-
molecular limitations to generating transgenic farm animals, including high costs of
animals and their care, lack of inbred lines, long generation intervals, small litter size
in some species, expense of adequate replication and failure to develop usable
embryonic stem cells.
Over the next few years, transgenic techniques are more likely to be successful
for obtaining basic information about farm-animal biology than for improving
production characteristics such as growth or lactation rates. Ultimately the resulting
information will lead to improved production traits, but the application phase often
will not require transgenic procedures. Transgenic technology with farm animals is
rapidly becoming more reliable and flexible at the same time as our knowledge of
genes is increasing, in great part due to information from other species. This
combination will lead to remarkably insightful findings over the next decade, and
probably will result in several applications to production-animal agriculture. Finally,
we must continue to share information and procedures, even when developed in the
private sector, or with private-sector funding (usually with considerable public-sector
input). Few organizations can afford to waste valuable resources on protracted
litigation over intellectual property or circumventing inventions derived from
obvious procedures that are either inappropriately patented, or appropriately patented
but unavailable for licensing.

© CAB INTERNATIONAL 1999. Transgenic Animals in Agriculture

(eds J.D. Murray, G.B. Anderson, A.M. Oberbauer and M.M. McGloughlin) 269
270 G.E. Seidel, Jr

Introduction
Hundreds of millions of dollars were invested in transgenic farm-animal
research between 1983 and 1997, much of it by the private sector, primarily
for producing pharmaceutical products. Questions that arise are: What have
investors and taxpayers received for this investment? What will they receive
in the future? and What returns are likely from additional investment? Future
transgenic farm-animal research will be dependent on perceived answers to
such questions.
Research in transgenic farm animals has a unique character. Thousands
of person-years of effort, much of it from the private sector, have been
expended without yielding any product. Huge emphasis has been placed
on refining techniques, rather than on using techniques to answer
biological questions or to develop potential practical applications. To some
extent, this may be explained by the newness of the endeavour and by the
daunting number of unknown quantities. Like embryo transfer, transgenic
research is pushed along by the soaring imagination of people who would
apply the technology. One other oddity of transgenic farm-animal research
is the large number of review papers (Wall, 1996). There is nearly one
review paper for every three data papers, a situation that probably arises
because programme chairpersons are excited about new approaches and
techniques, and transgenic approaches certainly are exciting to think about.
Transgenic research with farm animals generally is undertaken with one
of three broad goals (Fig. 18.1). One goal is to create animals for special
non-agricultural purposes such as producing pharmaceuticals in milk
(Wright et al., 1991) or xenografts for replacing human tissues. When only
a very few animals are needed to have a saleable pharmaceutical product,
and the value of the product is high enough to justify costs both for
creating and caring for the animals, this goal will be achievable and easily
justified commercially.
A second goal is to produce either improved farm animals, for example,
those that grow more efficiently, or improved animal products, for example,
milk that yields more cheese. While such objectives start with creation of
one or two animals, a resulting line of animals must survive and reproduce
successfully with little or no further technological interference. This can be
a formidable task and, because the line must be characterized, will not
immediately result in a product that will cover the costs of developing the
technology. The commercial advantage to the phenotype of individual
transgenically altered animals usually will be less than 10% over herd mates
(possibly excluding a transient spike of profit from novelty or exclusivity).
Moreover, to be acceptable in production agriculture, the transgenic animals
would have to be certified as healthy and not require special care. In the
short term, few transgenic lines will meet the requirements for agricultural
application. However, some decades from now, such applications may be
relatively common.
 The Future of Transgenic Farm Animals 271

DNA

Transgenic farm animals

Improved Production of Information

animals or pharmaceuticals
products Xenografts

Fig. 18.1. Broad goals of transgenic research.

The third goal is to use transgenic procedures as a tool for basic

research on the physiology of farm animals, for example, lactation,
resistance to disease, or mechanisms of growth. Questions addressed in this
paper include the following: Are transgenic farm animals a sensible
approach to obtaining information, which then can be applied in a variety
of ways, including making more appropriate transgenic farm animals? What
sort of questions might be appropriate to ask using transgenic technology?
Further: How useful might transgenic technology be for making improved
farm animals? Are the problems insurmountable? In best-case situations,
what traits might it be desirable to modify in farm animals using transgenic
procedures?

A transgenic golden age?

The field of transgenic farm animals may be entering a ‘golden age’. The
power of transgenic technology has been proven in the mouse model;
many hundreds of papers are published each year that effectively test
hypotheses not easily tested by other methods (Wall, 1996). Also, we have
accumulated an extensive foundation of technology for transgenic farm
animals, both in making standard transgenic techniques more reliable (see
other chapters in this volume), and in developing new techniques such as
somatic-cell cloning (Campbell and Wilmut, 1997).
At this point in evolution, human society places great emphasis on
applications of science and technology. Since use of transgenic technology
in farm animals, almost by definition, is an application, this will be viewed
favourably by both public and private funding sources. As a basis for
developing applications, there currently is an explosion of information from
272 G.E. Seidel, Jr

model systems such as the mouse, and from simpler systems such as
Drosophila, Caenorhabditis elegans and prokaryotes (Miklos and Rubin,
1996). Moreover, tremendous opportunity exists for spin-off applications
resulting from sequencing the human genome. As suggested earlier,
transgenic technology has a charismatic quality about it that affects both
scientists and administrators, including those at funding agencies. As public
funding has levelled off, funding from private sources is more than making
up the difference for transgenic farm animal research. Thus, there are good
prospects for a ‘golden age’, particularly if communication and collaboration
are optimized.

Basic Research with Transgenic Farm Animals

Tools for basic research evolve

One great thing about scientific research is that new techniques and new
approaches constantly come along to solve old problems or create entirely
new possibilities. Some of these innovations have been anticipated by those
working in a given area, for example sequencing DNA, cloning adult
animals or developing mammalian artificial chromosomes. Of course, it is
difficult to anticipate when individual techniques will become available
(Gomory, 1983).
Some techniques or concepts that affect their application cannot be
anticipated, or at least not by the majority of people working in the field.
For example, few reproductive physiologists foresaw the polymerase chain
reaction, gametic imprinting, embryonic stem cells or transgenic technology
itself. I do not mean to imply that researchers were entirely ignorant of
these possibilities. For example, many of us struggled with the fact that
parthenogenetic embryos develop encouragingly for a while, but never to
term, and some had vague notions of possible mechanisms approximating
gametic imprinting (Markert, 1982). But it took considerable research to
build a sufficient body of evidence to understand how imprinting would
both constrain and explain experimental outcomes.

Specific characteristics of transgenic research with farm animals

Transgenic research with farm animals is limited by high costs, long

generation intervals, lack of highly inbred lines, and lack of good culture
systems and usable embryonic stem cells and other techniques commonly
used in transgenic research with laboratory species. Wall and Seidel (1992)
and Wall (1996), and numerous others, have reviewed this area thoroughly
and suggested many improvements in transgenic methodology. Frequently
there are simpler ways to get the desired information than by making a
 The Future of Transgenic Farm Animals 273

transgenic farm animal, for example, using radioisotopes to study metabolic

pathways or laboratory-animal or cell-line models of farm animals. On the
other hand, there are some distinct advantages to doing basic research with
farm animals. For example, considerable amounts of tissue are available,
and one can sample blood frequently, a process that can quickly be
deleterious to small animals. There is also the ridiculous advantage that it is
less expensive to care for sheep than rabbits in many research facilities.
A special advantage of ruminants and swine is that methods to clone
embryos by nuclear transplantation have progressed more rapidly than in
most other species, including rodents. This is due in part to their
commercial value, but there also may be a biological basis, for example,
later activation of the embryonic genome. Recent developments of cloning
by somatic cell nuclear transplantation in sheep (Campbell and Wilmut,
1997) are particularly attractive for many transgenic experimental needs. The
efficiency of this promising methodology, however, needs to be improved.
Another reason for using farm animals for some kinds of basic research
is the lack of models for some tissues. For example, mice simply lack
hooves, a rumen or a shell gland. Moreover, even when laboratory-species
models are feasible, transgenic work needs to be confirmed in farm animals
because differences in physiology of some systems dictate confirmation in
the animal species of interest. As transgenic technology becomes more
widely applied among species, we are likely to be in for some surprises.
There also are reasons for not using farm-animal models for some kinds
of basic research. It would be inappropriate, in my opinion, to attempt to
unravel how primordial follicles are selected to begin differentiation in the
ovary with a transgenic farm-animal model because of the expense.
Similarly, regulation of gametic imprinting, studies on sperm–oocyte
receptor mechanisms, or regulation of certain aspects of meiotic maturation
might best be undertaken first in the less expensive and better-characterized
small animal models than in farm animals.
To summarize, transgenic farm animals are not a panacea, even for
obtaining basic information. On the other hand, as outlined earlier, transgenic
approaches are sensible for some basic research objectives with farm animals.

Examples of basic research with transgenic farm animals

An elegant example of the power of transgenic approaches is presented by

Pursel et al. in Chapter 10. They arranged for IGF-1 to be produced in
muscle, which enabled study in a paracrine rather than an endocrine mode;
this avoided the confusion of exposing all tissues of the body to high
concentrations of IGF-1. This is by no means an isolated example of how
transgenic technology can be used for basic research.
In some ways, the most striking recent example of basic research with
transgenic farm animals has been to transfect fibroblasts with the transgenic
274 G.E. Seidel, Jr

construct of interest, followed by fusing such a fibroblast with an oocyte to

produce a transgenic animal with molecular properties already pre-
characterized in vitro (Campbell and Wilmut, 1997; Schnieke et al., 1997;
also see various chapters in this volume). This, of course, circumvents one
of the major disappointments in basic research in reproductive technology
of farm animals, failure to develop usable embryonic stem cells (Chapter 4).
Although much more needs to be done with this and parallel systems such
as cultured primordial germ cells, these approaches likely can be used to
make non-chimeric founder animals homozygous for the transgene, saving
huge amounts of time in species with long generation intervals.

Applications of Transgenic Technology in Farm Animals

Considerations limiting application

As much as for basic research, the expense, long generation interval and
long time lag from experimentation to observation of results in farm animals
greatly limit commercial applications of transgenic technology (Wall, 1996).
On top of these logistical constraints, there are special issues raised through
commercialization such as: (i) safety to animals or consumers of the animals,
especially regarding side effects; (ii) consumer acceptance, even if there are
no known problems; (iii) possibilities of escape and contamination of wild-
animal genomes; (iv) competition from simpler approaches and systems;
and (v) problems with extreme phenotypes.
Transgenic procedures often produce extreme phenotypes, and nature
tends to select against such extremes. There seems to be one best fit to the
environment for most species, so with natural selection individuals within a
species end up being similar in colour, size, shape and behavioural
characteristics. Dramatic changes in physiology usually are incompatible
with normal life cycles. For example, if cattle or horses were to
superovulate naturally each reproductive cycle, the simultaneous
development of multiple fetuses would lead to abortion. Very extreme
phenotypes, such as sheep that produce an excess growth hormone, which
leads to diabetes (Rexroad et al., 1991), or excess growth in pigs, which
may lead to arthritis (Pursel et al., 1990), are not practicable or compensable
by husbandry practices, and may be ethically inappropriate as well. Also,
there is the serious limitation that animals with extreme phenotypes often
fail to reproduce (Pursel et al., 1990).
While there are costs (Box 18.1), there may be considerable benefits to
extreme phenotypes, as long as they are not too extreme. Although animals
with such phenotypes would not survive in nature, the farmers who use
them in production agriculture may survive well economically.
One other constraint to development of new genetic variants, especially
dramatic ones, is the need to study them in various genetic configurations.
 The Future of Transgenic Farm Animals 275

Box 18.1. Examples of costs of extreme phenotypes in agriculture.

Dwarf wheat Cannot compete with other plants
Large cows Grazing insufficient for required
nutrients
Multiplets in sheep Lambs require extra feed
Docility Protection from predators required
Twins in cattle Major management changes required
Bovine somatotropin (BST) dairy cattle For well managed herds only
Large beef carcasses Do not fit standard transportation box

For example, all transgenic combinations of male, female, hemizygous,

homozygous and controls should be studied for both beneficial and
detrimental effects. This is as attractive an exercise as determining the
factorial of a five-digit number without a calculator; unfortunately,
homozygous transgenes frequently are lethal (Palmiter and Brinster, 1986).
Also, there are cases in which a genetic change may be beneficial in one
sex and detrimental in the other, or one sex may transmit the transgenic
allele and not the other (Palmiter et al., 1984). A further problem is
introgressing a transgene from a single founder to the homozygous state
while minimizing inbreeding (Smith et al., 1987). Finally the transgene may
be imprinted, causing further confusion.

Long-term prospects

The long-term prospects for application of transgenic technology are

favourable. In a reversal of the law that everything that can go wrong will,
things seem to be going unprecedentedly well. For example, as techniques
for producing transgenic animals are becoming more efficient, the
regulatory elements for genes are becoming easier to use (see Chapter 3).
Indeed, relatively precise regulation of transgenes may be possible through
feed additives or by injection (Pursel et al., 1997). Breakthroughs in other
species also will be integrated rapidly into the farm-animal technology.
One driving force for rapid development of this technology, apart from
the fact that against the odds it can be done, is the pressing need for more
efficient food production due to rapid population growth throughout the
world. Moreover, it is entirely possible that there will be specific consumer
demand for transgenic farm-animal products, despite the current recoiling.
Witness the wide acceptance of vaccination and synthetic vitamin pills. In a
way, these are far more radical products of biotechnology than animals
transgenically modified to be resistant to disease. They have been accepted
by consumers because of their history of success. Once the value and safety
of, for example, nutraceuticals have been demonstrated, consumers will
276 G.E. Seidel, Jr

demand the products rather than hold them in suspicion. Moral scruples, as
usual, will be sedated by convenience, economics and improved health.

Manipulation of genetic progress in non-production traits

One mistake that animal scientists are rightly accused of making is to

emphasize production traits when low production is not a problem. More
attention needs to be paid to non-production traits such as animal welfare,
animal health, consumer acceptance and so on. A number of these non-
production traits may be especially amenable to transgenic approaches. For
example, some sheep are resistant to the spongiform encephalopathy,
scrapie, because they have a particular allele (Westaway et al., 1994).
Homologous alleles might be transferred among breeds or even species,
possibly making cattle resistant to bovine spongiform encephalopathy.
Another example is the common practice of docking tails in lambs to
minimize debris, faeces, etc. that accumulate, resulting in a haven for
parasites. Genes that affect tail length have been identified in a number of
species, and it is likely that appropriate alleles could be transferred to sheep
transgenically to make tail docking unnecessary.
An intellectual exercise that illustrates important nuances in requirements
for transgenic approaches to improving non-production traits is the elimina-
tion or diminution of odour from porcine faeces. Porcine faeces not only
present a huge disposal problem, but the smell is also responsible for much
ill will toward the swine industry. One could imagine a compound that could
be fed to pigs that would end up in the faeces, neutralizing the odour. A more
elegant solution would be to incorporate genes for such a compound in pigs
that might, for example, be secreted into the bile or otherwise eliminated in
the faeces, obviating the need to use feed additives. Such a compound should
not decrease growth rates, carcass quality or other production traits, and
conceivably might even enhance them. The manipulation also must have no
detrimental effect on behaviour of the pig (e.g. reproductive behaviour or
avoiding faeces); the flavour of the meat; the physiology of the pig; consumer
safety (especially if eaten); or repulsion of faeces to pathogenic organisms or
vectors such as insects. Clearly this is a rigorous set of requirements.
Nevertheless, such chemicals may exist, and pigs with such transgenes
conceivably could supplant pigs that did not have the odour-neutralizing
chemical.

Manipulation of genetic progress in production traits

Use of transgenic procedures for production traits has been thoughtfully

reviewed by Smith et al. (1987) and Hoeschele (1990) among others.
Therefore, I will concentrate on some less conventional approaches here.
 The Future of Transgenic Farm Animals 277

Transgenic technology might be used to decouple factors that inhibit

animal production. For example, for continued egg production, hens
eventually need to enter a starvation state that results in moulting of feathers;
this somehow renews them reproductively, and they start egg production
again. Currently, it is economically more practical to slaughter layers after
peak egg production rather than invest in caring for them while they are
unproductive. Reproduction in mammals similarly is affected negatively by a
variety of situations. For example, lactation, weight loss, poor nutrition and
season delay or inhibit reproduction in female mammals. We are starting to
understand how these effects are regulated. In many cases, promoter regions
of specific genes are inhibited or enhanced. Transgenic animals presumably
could be made that did not have those inhibitory or enhancer elements in
critical gene regulatory regions and, thus, would not be subject to such
inhibitions. Of course, one would have to compensate with appropriate
husbandry, for example, ensuring that an animal reaching puberty at a light
weight eventually grows sufficiently to give birth normally. Such genetic
changes could make animal agriculture much simpler and more profitable.
One special set of transgenic applications is to move genes from one
species to another. Here are three of a wide spectrum of examples:

1. Tolerance to larkspur. Larkspur is a plant common to pastures in the

foothills of the western USA. At certain times of the year its consumption is
lethal to cattle, so the economic impact of this poisonous plant is significant.
Sheep, on the other hand, are minimally affected by eating larkspur,
possibly because they have an efficient enzyme for detoxifying the alkaloid
in larkspur that is lethal to cattle. Simply replacing the bovine gene with the
ovine gene for this enzyme might make cattle tolerant to larkspur.
2. Visual indicator of oestrus in farm animal species. When oestrogen
concentrations in blood are high in baboons, they sport a bright red
posterior, indicating that they are in oestrus. Likely this response is governed
by only one or two genes. If pigs, for example, could be made to have
bright posteriors when they were in oestrus, timing artificial insemination
would be easier.
3. Omega-3 fatty acids in fish. Fish, although it has high concentrations of
fat, appears to be a health-promoting food, and eating certain fish actually
may decrease coronary disease in humans. It may be possible, for example,
to modify pigs so that this healthful substance will be present in high
concentrations in pork, although the pig may or may not smell and taste
more like a fish than a pig.

Building on sex differences

An interesting aspect of animal husbandry is that what is good for the goose
is not necessarily good for the gander. In most farm animals, the ideal
278 G.E. Seidel, Jr

female in a herd or flock has what are termed good maternal traits such as
mothering ability, appropriate milk or egg production, small to moderate
size, high fertility and early puberty. On the other hand, males and females
to be slaughtered for meat should have a different set of traits. These are
termed terminal-cross traits and include desirable carcass characteristics such
as juiciness and tenderness, rapid growth rates, and moderate to large
animal size. To some extent, maternal and terminal traits are antagonistic,
and therefore inappropriate to have in the same animal or same breed.
While these differences are, in fact, exploited by having different lines of
animals for different purposes, gross inefficiencies still result. For example,
in a maternal line, half of the offspring are of the ‘wrong’ sex. Because only
a few males are needed for breeding, most males that have the maternal-
cross characteristics have suboptimal carcasses and are, therefore, a by-
product. To some extent this might eventually be circumvented with sexed
semen, a product that is not available commercially at this time.
One could enhance these sex differences transgenically. To continue
the above example, extra growth could be designed into the male. By
adding androgen-response elements to the regulatory regions of growth
genes and inseminating sexed semen, one could specify that the growth
gene would be activated either by secretion of testosterone as the testis
matures or, if the animal is castrated or female, by an implant with
androgenic properties. Exploiting such naturally occurring methods of
regulating genes would seem a high priority for transgenic research.
Sex differences also might be exploited by adding genes to the Y
chromosome which, therefore, would only be expressed in males of the line
(Wall and Seidel, 1992). The Y chromosome is nature’s artificial
chromosome. It is one of the smallest chromosomes in most species and has
few genes; most of the chromosome has no known function. Also, most of
the chromosome is hemizygous, which simplifies many aspects of
application. The Y chromosome would seem to be a good place to add
cassettes of genes. Another potentially exploitable fact is that XYY males are
fertile and usually have normal XY sons. This allows for the possibility of
transplanting an entire Y chromosome, custom modified in a cell line, to a
one-cell embryo to serve as a vector.

Collegiality and Intellectual Exchange

Nature of the scientific enterprise

Science is a social enterprise, and most scientists love to discuss their

findings. They genuinely do walk on the shoulders of giants. Scientists
attend scientific meetings, participate in e-mail discussion groups, and even
tolerate peer review of their work by granting agencies and journals. In
many ways, the main currency of this social enterprise is communication,
 The Future of Transgenic Farm Animals 279

and the most rigorous form of communication in science is the refereed

journal article, which involves increasing numbers of collaborators and co-
authors compared with a decade or two ago. Scientists have special rules
regarding ownership of ideas and the ethics of using the ideas of others. For
example, while plagiarism is condemned, it is considered honourable and
even flattering if someone uses another’s findings, as long as proper
attribution is made.
Science has a broadly international character since nationality is
irrelevant to ideas. International collaboration takes a number of forms for
a number of reasons, including circumventing or exploiting local constraints
or sources of funding, costs of doing research, resources available, animal
diseases, laws and even culture. International research often is encouraged
by funding agencies and others, sometimes because there is a prestige
element. I, and many others, believe that goodwill is the most important
international commodity.

Decreasing scientific collegiality

In recent years, I have perceived a decreased collegiality amongst scientists,

including those doing transgenic research. There has always been, in any
human endeavour, a balance between competition and collaboration. This
has particular significance in science because informal collaboration,
including discussing new approaches with potential competitors, is part of
the creative process, and also is a validating process. The balance between
competition and informal collaboration may have changed to give more
weight to competition, in part because sources of funding are less public
and more private. Other factors influencing the degree of trust and
communication among colleagues is the larger scientific community (more
competitors), introduction into the process of the influence of uninformed
public opinion through more rapid and efficient publicity given to new
breakthroughs, and an increased potential for private gain.
Decreased collegiality sometimes results in gross inefficiencies. For
example, scientists on the cutting edge frequently communicate their
findings with each other well before they are published in formal journal
articles. Those who rely on such articles generally are up to a year behind
those who regularly communicate informally.
Inefficiency is perhaps the least of the harm as generation of new ideas
is retarded by lessening of informal communication; for example, lack of
informal constructive criticism increases inadvertent bad science. Another
example of gross inefficiency is removing from general use the best, most
efficient techniques by patenting them without then providing reasonable
licensing terms, with the result that costs are driven up or fear of litigation
becomes the basis of experimental design. Sequelae include slaughtering
hundreds of animals for projects for which patented in vitro approaches are
280 G.E. Seidel, Jr

more sensible. To the extent that research funding is used for litigation
rather than for the advancement of science, resources, especially time and
intellectual energy are wasted.

Possible solutions

There are no simple solutions to these problems. Nor are the problems so
different from those that have occurred with other human endeavours
throughout history.
Communication could be encouraged by designing participatory, rather
than passive scientific meetings. Another idea is the research consortium.
Such consortia have been set up for companies working with high-speed
computing and, in the USA, amongst the large automobile manufacturers to
develop more efficient, safer automobiles. I suspect that private companies
doing transgenic research would be much better off collectively if some
types of research were done under the umbrellas of such consortia where
findings were exchanged, thus making the whole field more efficient.
Timing to commercialization, particularly of agricultural transgenic products,
might be reduced by years, making certain transgenic endeavours profitable,
instead of commercial failures.
Perhaps there should also be changes to the patent system. Patents
currently are clumsy, time-consuming, and expensive to formulate and use.
Inventors in the USA may wait 1 year from publication of their results before
filing for a patent without losing potential patent rights. Such time delays are
not permitted in all countries. Delays ideally might even be longer than 1
year in some circumstances. Perhaps it would be workable to have a two-
phase time delay. For example, the right to patent for basic research use
might expire after 1 year and for commercial applications after 2 years after
publication. The principle would be to get information published
expeditiously without having to give up the right to patent. Of course, most
commercial entities would want to apply for patents sooner rather than later.
It seems to me that misuse of ‘submarine’ patents and similar approaches
aimed at undermining competitors (Petroski, 1998) are unethical when the
health and nutrition of people and animals are at stake.
One other clearly unfair happenstance is that we give undue credit to
timing of discoveries. For example, if one group files a patent application 1
day before another group, or publishes a paper 1 week before another
group, priority is given to the first group in establishing ownership rights
both legally and intellectually. Obviously, if ideas are to be used as
commodities to gain wealth, there must be rules to define ownership of
intellectual property as there must for real property, but the group that is 1
day ahead is not necessarily more deserving, and rushing to publication
results in sloppy science. A rational example of how dating is dealt with on
a routine basis is that when citing literature, we use the year, not the
 The Future of Transgenic Farm Animals 281

precise date that a publication appeared. Providing only this degree of

precision is a way of saying that two groups publishing a particular concept
within a year have substantially equivalent intellectual priority. One might
broaden this in certain legal and intellectual situations by saying that any
work reported within a 12-month period was, for practical purposes,
simultaneous, and that a certain sharing of rights and credit would be
appropriate.
Collegiality and sharing information contributes to making scientific
work rewarding and, to the extent that these do not occur, less pleasant and
less efficient. With all that science has to offer humanity, and with all of the
problems that plague us, it seems to me that we have responsibilities to
make scientific endeavours as efficient as possible. Therefore, we are
obligated to invest a certain amount of energy in making it desirable to
share information and collaborate as appropriate. Organizations that
encourage cross collaboration and intra- and inter-organizational collegiality
will thrive.

References
Campbell, K.H.S. and Wilmut, I. (1997) Totipotency and multipotentiality of cultured
cells: applications and progress. Theriogenology 47, 63–72.
Crow, J.F. (1997) The high spontaneous mutation rate: is it a health risk? Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences USA 94, 8380–8386.
Gomory, R.E. (1983) Technology development. Science 220, 576–580.
Hoeschle, I. (1990) Potential gain from insertion of major genes in dairy cattle.
Journal of Dairy Science 73, 2601–2618.
Markert, C.L. (1982) Parthenogenesis, homozygosity and cloning in mammals.
Journal of Heredity 73, 390–397.
Miklos, G.L.G. and Rubin, G.M. (1996) The role of the genome project in
determining gene function: insights from model organisms. Cell 86, 521–529.
Palmiter, R.D. and Brinster, R.L. (1986) Germ-line transformation of mice. Annual
Review of Genetics 20, 465–499.
Palmiter, R.D., Wilkie, T.M., Chen, H.Y. and Brinster, R.L. (1984) Transmission
distortion and mosaicism in an unusual transgenic mouse pedigree. Cell 36,
869–877.
Petroski, H. (1998) An independent inventor. American Scientist 86, 222–225.
Pursel, V.G., Hammer, R.E., Boldt, D.J., Palmiter, R.D. and Brinster, R.L. (1990)
Integration, expression, and germ-line transmission of growth-related genes in
pigs. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 41 (Suppl.), 77–87.
Pursel, V.G., Wall, R.J., Solomon, M.B., Bolt, D.J., Murray, J.D. and Ward, K.A. (1997)
Transfer of an ovine metallothionein–ovine growth hormone fusion gene into
swine. Journal of Animal Science 75, 2208–2214.
Rexroad, C.E., Jr, Mayo, K., Boldt, D.J., Elsasser, T.H., Miller, K.F., Behringer, R.R.,
Palmiter, R.D. and Brinster, R.L. (1991) Transferrin- and albumin-directed
expression of growth-related peptides in transgenic sheep. Journal of Animal
Science 69, 2995–3004.
282 G.E. Seidel, Jr

Schnieke, A.E., Kind, A.J., Ritchie, W.A., Mycock, K., Scott, A.R., Ritchie, M., Wilmut,
I., Coleman, A. and Campbell, K.H. (1997) Human factor IX transgenic sheep
produced by transfer of nuclei from transfected fetal fibroblasts. Science 278,
2130–2133.
Smith, C., Meuwissen, T.H.E. and Gibson, J.P. (1987) On the use of transgenes in
livestock. Animal Breeding Abstracts 55, 1–10.
Wall, R.J. (1996) Transgenic livestock: progress and prospects for the future.
Theriogenology 45, 57–68.
Wall, R.J. and Seidel, G.E., Jr (1992) Transgenic farm animals – a critical analysis.
Theriogenology 38, 337–357.
Westaway, D., Zuliani, V., Mirenda Cooper, C., Da Costa, M., Neuman, S., Jenny, A.L.,
Detwiler, L. and Prusiner, S.B. (1994) Homozygosity for prion protein alleles
encoding glutamine-171 renders sheep susceptible to natural scrapie. Genes and
Development 8, 959–969.
Wright, G., Carver, A., Cottom, D., Reeves, D., Scott, A., Simons, P., Wilmut, I.,
Garner, I. and Colman, A. (1991) High level expression of active human alpha-
1-antitrypsin in the milk of transgenic sheep. Bio/Technology 9, 830–834.