# Job transgenic bee



## beemann (Mar 27, 2014)

Hi! 

I am making a bee that is resistant to everything. Only problem is that I am a biotechnologist and have no experience with beekeeping.
Is there someone willing to help? He / she needs experience in insemination and collecting a drone's sprerm.

I could pay him/her, for doing the insemination for me  If possible, you could come to Ireland for three months (I pay the flights). 

We make it happen before Monsanto does! Maybe we patent it, but we will never sue anyone if the genetic material mixes. I hate that practice! 

As a sidenote for the anti-gmo people: It is totally harmless for both the environment and for the bees. No bee is hurt! We are working tightly together with EPA and will never release a bee until we get approval to do so. 
(Inserted DNA is not dangerous in any way - it's just e.g. if a pesticide resistance is inserted into a plant, the farmer then uses the pesticide. And you eat the plant that accumulated the pesticide. Hell, that may make you ill, but it's not the GM plant's fault, since it's the farmer who applies the pesticide!!)


I have identified a lot of natural mechanisms over the last years from other organisms that we can put into the bee. 
3 Months and we have our first proof-of concept bee, totally resistant against some viruses and perhaps Nosema resistant.


If you are interested, shoot me an email  

All the best,
beemann


----------



## beemann (Mar 27, 2014)

Btw, the end goal is a bee that is totally resistant to CCD. 

For what I read, bees have a very very small gene pool (caused by thier way of *more-or-less* in-breeding) compared to other inscects. They can not change their genomes as quick as other insects by natural breeding therefore they hardly have resistance mechanisms. 

I would love to reveal all the genetic circuits I have designed here, to make them open source. But problem is, then it would no longer be patentable. And I gotta make some money to be able to afford further modifying the bees.


_________
Just another anti-GMO disclaimer... An apple has around 57'000 genes - more or less depending on the species (I didn't count the genes from bees, but they're there http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome?term=apis mellifera , one of the genes being this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/NM_001011578.1. If you add one gene, it is still is the same apple with just one additional protein. If you do natural breeding, half of the genes of the mother and half of the father are randomly mixed, genetic recombination occurs... Parasitc genetic elements (transposons) jump within the DNA into a new site ("jumping genes")... The result being actually much less predictable! If you're honest - chances are much much much higher that the naturally bred apple will be toxic than a GMO derivate from a known non-toxic apple


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

I predict that it would be easier to reach your goal and ignore CCD. Concentrate on those things we know about and can identify, like nosema, varroa, and viruses. If beekeepers successfully control those things which they can have some modicum of control over then their bees aught to survive well.

Best wishes. If you are for real.


----------



## beemann (Mar 27, 2014)

Ok, 
If I wipe out many diseases, there may be less CCD? CCD has many factors... viruses will be the easist to wipe out. Then come bacteria, then nosema. Varroa will be the most difficult, but I already have four experimental plans on varroa (not guaranteed that any of the anti-varroa strategies will work). But aren't there some strains that fight off varroa to some degree? Hygenie strains IIRC. 

Thanks a lot! Actually if I succeed doesn't depend so much on me, rather if I can find a beekeeper willing to do this.... Most are natural enthusiasts (just like me, that's awesome) but also anti-GMO (not-so-good)


----------



## Oldtimer (Jul 4, 2010)

If someone does the inseminations in another country, how are you going to run this from Austria?

How is the GMO to be done? It would be a physical impossibility to do all the sperm cells then impregnate a queen, a better approach could be to manually fertilize an egg laid in a drone cell immediately after laying.

How are you considering to do this?


----------



## beemann (Mar 27, 2014)

As I mentioned, for the job I and the beekeeper would need to go to Ireland. There are investors that would fund the party. 

After being laid, the cells are already multicellular.


----------



## beemann (Mar 27, 2014)

Btw, you don't inject DNA into the sperm cells manually. That would be too much work. You add millions of sperm cells and million DNA fragments, and by special means the sperm takes up DNA. Google for heat shock transformation, electroporation, PEG transfection, Gene gun, etc. (I can't publicly tell which method I'll be using.) But getting the DNA into the cells is the easiest part.

Then you inseminate the queen with the modified sperm cells.


----------



## BeeGora (Oct 22, 2013)

This smells fishier than a can of sardines on a hot summer day.


----------



## jrbbees (Apr 4, 2010)

As a sidenote for the anti-gmo people: It is totally harmless for both the environment and for the bees. No bee is hurt! We are working tightly together with EPA and will never release a bee until we get approval to do so. 
(Inserted DNA is not dangerous in any way - it's just e.g. if a pesticide resistance is inserted into a plant, the farmer then uses the pesticide. And you eat the plant that accumulated the pesticide. Hell, that may make you ill, but it's not the GM plant's fault, since it's the farmer who applies the pesticide!!)


Experience has taught that one of the most deadly agents to life is a room full of brilliant people.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

I actually checked the date on my computer to see if it was April 1st.


----------



## Dominic (Jul 12, 2013)

"Never release a bee until the EPA authorizes it"...

First of all, you would never be conducting this research if people did not have the intent to ultimately release it. And governmental approval is more of a matter of "when" than a matter of "if".

Second of all, I fail to see how you plan on containing these genetics.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

It only costs about 35 million to deregulate an "event" here and even then you have to get approval from countries to import, and on top of that you can't even import bees here anyways..... The best of luck but transforming many traits into an organism in a stable fashion and getting a good end product isn't as simple as you're making it out.


----------



## beemann (Mar 27, 2014)

JRG13 said:


> It only costs about 35 million to deregulate an "event" here and even then you have to get approval from countries to import, and on top of that you can't even import bees here anyways..... The best of luck but transforming many traits into an organism in a stable fashion and getting a good end product isn't as simple as you're making it out.


35 million $ in the US?
At some point in the future, they will have to allow it. Or allow the bee to become extinct. 

Here in Europe they could also allow it. I mean, Europe in general is very heavily regulated. On the other hand, transgenic plants and bacteria are more regulated than animals. 

I have hope it will get accepted. Else I wouldn't invest time and money. 




> but transforming many traits into an organism in a stable fashion and getting a good end product isn't as simple as you're making it out.


Actually it is. I have transformed plants, bacteria, mammalinan cell lines... I can't think why bees should be much different, to be honest.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Bees are a little more complex than transforming a cell line or bacteria. What promoter(s) are you going to drive expression under, what's your selectable marker? How will you control heritability and it escaping into the wild?


----------



## beemann (Mar 27, 2014)

Sorry, but please understand I can't tell the details plublicly. I love open source, but I gotta make money somehow. It integrates into the bees genome and is inherited in a Mendelian manner.


----------



## Dominic (Jul 12, 2013)

beemann said:


> 35 million $ in the US?
> At some point in the future, they will have to allow it. Or allow the bee to become extinct.


What an overly simplistic and pessimistic point of view. Bees survived and evolved for millions of years, thousands of which under human management, and how, suddenly, they won't be able to survive unless we turn them into some frankeinstein constructs?

Your hopes of GM bees are equally simplistic and overoptimistic. GM crops are an illusion. Yields are often lower, pests grow resistance, and their usage becomes ever more complicated. Roundup Ready? Can't even just use Roundup anymore, you need to use other herbicides to take care of the weeds that adapted. So they make the plants resistant to two herbicides! And then, surprise, you get spontaneous corn grow throughout your field that is resistant to both of your products, so you need a third one! It's just stacking more and more genes, that create more and more problems, and that in the end give a product with higher seed costs and lower yields. Make GM bees, and you'll end up with varroa, viruses, and whatever else you want that'll adapt to whatever junk you dump into them. I'm not one of these people who thinks that eating a single grain of GM corn will give you cancer, but I still think it's junk.

But for gods sake, as these are unlikely to deter one following the lure of money, at least try to find a way to make your BM bees unable to lay viable drones and for the queens to be flightless.


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

Anytime people play with nature there will be an opposite reaction because of the Law of Cause and Effect.
If you apply the wrong cause then you will never know what is the end as this will affect all the other organisms
in this world as well. Because bees are mobile insects a little accident on releasing the bees, queens or drones will have
a detrimental effect on other bee species. This reminded me of the you tube documentary on AHB experiment.
Not only the bees are aggressive in multiplying but affecting the balance of flora and other species of native bees in the region as well in a short amount of time. His only concern is to produce a super bee specie but neglect the larger effect on their release though he has no intention of releasing them into the wild. A nuc hive behavior is very different from a full grown strong colony.
The naked eye cannot tell from one species to another i.e. EHB or AHB but only thru a lab test to measure the material
differences can separate the 2. Surely, you can insert different genetics into your super bees but once you cannot 
contain them anymore then the real effects will begin. This you cannot monitor or control anymore out of your hands. I just feel sorry for the Ireland black bees once somebody who out of curiosity supports your idea on this experiment on Ireland. It is after all on an Island so whatever got escaped into other continents afterward is the real effects. Why don't we just use our observation
to monitor and select the most qualify queens to head the next generation. The bees are still thriving here from the almond run. If one day when nobody goes to the almonds anymore then I would be worry about the extinction of the honey bees. By then we are affected as well. Hope you know what you are doing trying to play god here.


----------



## Fusion_power (Jan 14, 2005)

Just noting for other readers that JRG13 does this for a living. He knows the details of genetic modification because it is what he went to college for and it is what he does for a living. Now ask why Beemann clams up when questioned about details. There are ethical geneticists and there are patent medicine men. Where does Beemann fit?


----------



## beemann (Mar 27, 2014)

Fusion_power said:


> Just noting for other readers that JRG13 does this for a living. He knows the details of genetic modification because it is what he went to college for and it is what he does for a living. Now ask why Beemann clams up when questioned about details. There are ethical geneticists and there are patent medicine men. Where does Beemann fit?


I am surely not all for patents. But you gotta see my situation:

Immagine I tell you all the promoters and genes I am using. Then I would have done all the months of literature research useless. I could not patent it any more and Monsanto could also make Frankenbees. But they would build upon my knowledge - plus they enhance it further. Then everyone would buy their transBees and I would be broke. 
Btw, you know how genetic engineers do their workflow? If Monsanto wants to make a transgenic bee, their engineer also do a google (followed by a google scholar) research first to see wat has already been done, which promoters are there. And they would certainly find this thread and have all the information they need. 

So am I the evil guy for not letting the public know (but also not letting the big corperations know)? It's up to you. 


As said, if I patent it (and in this harsh world I think I gotta) then everything is revealed in the patent. Everyone can replicate my work - just not sell them commercially. As I said, I am not going to sue anyone if the bees interbreed with the neighbors bees. Except if that is Monsanto and they sell my bees then. 




> Make GM bees, and you'll end up with varroa, viruses, and whatever else you want that'll adapt to whatever junk you dump into them.


That is true in many cases, but in this case very unlikely. The virus is specifically tagged, and there would have to be like 100 mutations at the same time (so much unlikely, if they happen the virus would probably be unable to function). I am giving you this information and the genetic engineers already know what kind of method I am using probably (there are only four or five methods that work that way).





> But for gods sake, as these are unlikely to deter one following the lure of money, at least try to find a way to make your BM bees unable to lay viable drones and for the queens to be flightless.


That is certainly possible... They did it with mosquitoes. Problem is, then haters gonna hate because they cannot breed their own bees anymore. Just look how much critique the terminator seeds got.






> This you cannot monitor or control anymore out of your hands


The same is true with every natural organism. Mutations occur frequently. Horizontal gene transfer, etc. etc.
No one has ever had a problem with that.





> I just feel sorry for the Ireland black bees once somebody who out of curiosity supports your idea on this experiment on Ireland.



They would probably interbreed and with a 50:50 chance get the resistance genes.
C'mon, there has been forced interbreeding with russian bee strains.
There is no stable genome, constantly new genes arise from duplication etc. 




> Why don't we just use our observation
> to monitor and select the most qualify queens to head the next generation.


Nope. That would need thousands of years to adapt.
For the bee even longer because of the narrow gene pool.





> Hope you know what you are doing trying to play god here.


A doctor that saves a patients live - is he also playing God? Because nature wanted the guy to die.
Is it still ethically correct?


----------



## Dominic (Jul 12, 2013)

The Terminator gene got so much bad rep because of Monsanto's strive to make the poor farmers of the world wholly dependent on them. If it wasn't for the social implications, I doubt many would have objected to GM plants that can't contaminate non-GM plants.

Bees are considerably different than corn, in this regard, or any other crop. They are still pretty much wild animals, and despite your prediction of their extinction, they can still be found in the wild. So even if you did bring GM bees to poor countries, if they had a terminator-like gene, these peasants could still go capture wild swarms and wouldn't be forced to buy from you again and again just to have bees.

As for the patents, regardless of what your true intent may be, if you are getting sponsors, you are probably ceding part (or all) of the ownership rights to them, and thus, you wouldn't even be the one to make the calls. I doubt any company would be willing to dish out big bucks without a desire to cash in as much as possible on it.


----------



## beemann (Mar 27, 2014)

The agreement is they own 20% of the company then. That means I have more than 50% which means my decision will be followed. I assume, but I haven't studied MBA


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Stewardship will be your biggest problem, trust me. When your bees 'genetics' show up in unapproved countries, guess who gets the bill. I'm also telling you, the attitude towards GMO for most people is, 'they don't want it'. If you think getting a GMO product to market is as straight forward as you're making it sound you're fooling yourself. Just start talking to all the regulatory agencies involved to get a product out, and your head will spin in the first 30 seconds.


----------



## beemann (Mar 27, 2014)

You don't think it's worth trying? Or fight for your dreams? Some country will allow it.


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

In a season I can select up to 4 generation of bees to play with simultaneously. That is my ongoing dream although not a 
big one now. Since it is of natural selection I don't have to worry much about their genetic manipulation. All the good characteristics are here after 40 years of natural selection. All I need to do is to continue to select from the best one to continue this progress.
Everything is contained locally for my own learning and research only. Of course there are many countries that will allow the
people who have their dreams and the knowledge to try it. While you are still dreaming many people are doing it the natural
way with AI, II already improving their stocks. Before you can improve you need to know what you are looking for first. How many
years have you had hands on experience with the honey bees? I don't think you will allow your assistant beekeepers to handle such an important work. Do you?


----------



## beemann (Mar 27, 2014)

beepro said:


> In a season I can select up to 4 generation of bees to play with simultaneously. That is my ongoing dream although not a
> big one now. Since it is of natural selection I don't have to worry much about their genetic manipulation. All the good characteristics are here after 40 years of natural selection. All I need to do is to continue to select from the best one to continue this progress.
> Everything is contained locally for my own learning and research only. Of course there are many countries that will allow the
> people who have their dreams and the knowledge to try it. While you are still dreaming many people are doing it the natural
> ...





> since it is of natural selection I don't have to worry much about their genetic manipulation.


This is a common fallacy. When doing natural interbreeding, half of the genome (mother) recombines with half of the other genome (dad). There are weird things going on, namely jumping genes, retrotransposons, non-homologous end joining (aka illegimate recombination - DNA breaks and gets repaired, sometimes with errors), polymerase errors (mutation)...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy



> While you are still dreaming many people are doing it the natural
> way with AI, II already improving their stocks.


And this is here the problem is. I don't believe you can breed new traits fast enough. Else there would be no CCD any more already. 


EDIT: Deleted confidental information. Sry.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> You don't think it's worth trying? Or fight for your dreams? Some country will allow it.


I read through the posts and I doubt seriously you can do what you say. For starters, quoting Wikpedia instead of actual work done on gene modification in Apis. No mention of RNAi, or more importantly, CRISPR. RNAi is a much safer way to change gene expression and it is not permanent. Beyond that, you have no idea what to alter in the genome to bring about the changes in phenotype you propose. I think this is an April Fool's Joke, too.

Pete


----------



## beemann (Mar 27, 2014)

peterloringborst said:


> I read through the posts and I doubt seriously you can do what you say. For starters, quoting Wikpedia instead of actual work done on gene modification in Apis. No mention of RNAi, or more importantly, CRISPR. RNAi is a much safer way to change gene expression and it is not permanent. Beyond that, you have no idea what to alter in the genome to bring about the changes in phenotype you propose.


I can't publicly write here whether I will use crispr or RNAi or some other mechanism like zink finger nuclease. You think I haven't considered using these methods? I assure you, I have carefully considered all options and choosen the smartest.

Believe what you want, but to me it is a project I am working on hard and not some April joke.


BTW, and just for your information, I assumed the people here have little molecular biological knowledge. So if I cited or linked to a wikipedia article, it was to show it is possible. Written in an understandable langugae for everyone. 
If I publicly post the scientific papers here, the usual folks won't care (probably not even read through the entire paper) and those with genetic engineering knowledge who want to steal my idea then have what they need without the long literature research I did.


----------



## nschomer (Mar 14, 2014)

Hello Beeman,

Not to sound too harsh, but you should really do your research before looking for gullible investors. From your first post, and follow-ups, there are several red flags that tell me you don't know what you're talking about. I'm not saying that you don't have some molecular biology experience, or that you don't have good intentions, but I've basically looked at the same research you have and your proposal is, to put it mildly, wildly optimistic.
For starters, you claim you want to do this "before Monsanto gets to it" - well, do some research there, because Monsanto acquired Beelogics in 2011. When Monsanto acquires a company, it is for the patent rights - in this case pretty much anything having to do with honey bees and RNAi. If you think that there is money to be made, and that Monsanto is going to lay off and let you be the one to make it, you are fooling yourself. Monsanto has invested a lot in what is probably one of the worlds greatest concentrations of patent lawyers - and isn't afraid (or even hesitant) to use them. If your fledgling company doesn't ALREADY have a patent on file from before 2011, and at least a couple full-time patent lawyers on the payroll, then you can forget about it now.
Secondly, the "wiping out viruses is the easy part" is an instant red flag. There is nothing easy about wiping out a virus, or imbuing 100% viral resistance - just because you've made some bacteria immune to ampicillin or kanomycin doesn't mean that you can make bees immune to deformed wing virus. And making stable transfections of cell lines is nothing like making stable transgenic organisms - transient transfection is fundamentally different from stable germ-line transformation. I'm not saying this is impossible, but the examples you use are poor analogues at best.
Thirdly, you promise not to go after people for genetic drift, and claim to want to make money, these two things are mutually exclusive. I can understand how you might not get this, as you admit you don't keep bees, so maybe you aren't familiar with the natural method of reproduction in honey bees. The queens fly out of the hive and open-mate with any drones in the area. So by year two every bee hive within a several mile radius of whoever bought your original transgenic bees now has some mixture of those genetics in them - and the original colony (unless maintained under artificial insemination) now has a diluted version of the same. This comes back to my "do your research" assertion, I understand that you are passionate about this, but before you try introducing ANYTHING into the bee populations of the world, I would suggest that you keep bees yourself for a couple years and have a basic fundamental understanding of their biology.


----------



## beemann (Mar 27, 2014)

> If your fledgling company doesn't ALREADY have a patent on file from before 2011, and at least a couple full-time patent lawyers on the payroll, then you can forget about it now.


Oh ****. But, I have lots of different mechanisms. Patents are there for going around them  




> And making stable transfections of cell lines is nothing like making stable transgenic organisms - transient transfection is fundamentally different from stable germ-line transformation.


Yeah, I know. But it is worth trying. I never promised it is going to work, did I. I am confident it will work. If noone tries, no one makes it. 
There are several ways to get stable integrations. 




> I'm not saying this is impossible, but the examples you use are poor analogues at best.


Yeah, surely. But understand me, I can't give working examples without a confidental agreement. 




> Thirdly, you promise not to go after people for genetic drift, and claim to want to make money, these two things are mutually exclusive.


Yeah right, but in this case I won't sue, I promise (however, why trust the man on the internet right? ) 
I would know I contributed to environmental protection. Save the bees. 
And in year 2 I would have even better bees to sell. The version-1 bees will then be made open source, perhaps. 




> I understand that you are passionate about this, but before you try introducing ANYTHING into the bee populations of the world, I would suggest that you keep bees yourself for a couple years and have a basic fundamental understanding of their biology.


My coworker beekeeper will teach me, right?


----------



## nschomer (Mar 14, 2014)

I hate to say it, but if you are truly interested in using genetic alteration to improve honey bee health, your best course is probably to talk to the people at the Beelogics division of Monsanto. They are well funded and have been studying it for years, you may not agree with their business plan, but a dedicated stream of revenue can't be underestimated in a laboratory, everything takes longer and costs more money than you initially estimate (it's what puts the "re" in "research").
Even if you've got some good ideas, or a vague sense of the problem and an enthusiasm to help, your investors are going to get tired and go away if you don't have something promising to show for their investment way sooner than you realize. Most start-up ventures fail, and I can't help but noticing that yours seems doomed to failure on a number of levels, in the long run for your own sanity, it would probably be wiser to swallow your pride and go talk with the Beelogics people. I'm no huge fan of Monsanto, but if I had to guess I would say that most of the actual scientists working there probably feel very similarly to the way you do now, and were faced with the decision that - in a best case scenario - you would be faced with after 5-10 years of struggle - watch the company you founded wither and die as revenue dries up or get absorbed by a larger corporation with adequate funding that might not exactly match your core values.


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> But understand me, I can't give working examples without a confidental agreement.


Yes, and I have invented a method of producing unlimited energy for free. I would like to tell you more about it, but it is confidential and I am afraid you may try to steal my idea

Sorry

P


----------

