BIOTECHNOLOGY
▸ Gene drive organisms not ready for environmental release Gene drive technologies have the potential to make important contributions to public health and the environment, but organisms created using them should not be released into the environment at this time, according to a report from the National Academy of Sciences. Gene drives use CRISPR/Cas9 and other gene-editing techniques along with directed evolution to introduce and spread desired genes within a certain species. The NAS report recommends extensive laboratory testing and controlled field trials before the technology is used outside of the laboratory. “Before gene-drive-modified organisms are put into the environment, our committee urges caution—a lot more research is needed to understand the scientific, ethical, regulatory, and social consequences of releasing such organisms,” says panel cochair James P. Collins of Arizona State University. The report details an environmental assessment and testing plan that it recommends be followed before modified organisms are released. No risk assessments have so far been performed on a gene-drive-modified organism. The report also points out that current environmental regulations are inadequate to address this new technology and the public should be involved in any examination of potential harms.—ANDREA WIDENER
Atrazine is widely used on cornfields.
PESTICIDES
Atrazine poses ecological risks, EPA says Atrazine, a triazine herbicide commonly used on corn, poses a risk to many plants and animals, including fish, amphibians, mammals, birds, and reptiles, concludes an EPA draft ecological assessment. Atrazine is persistent in the environment and moves readily into surface and groundwater, EPA says. The agency predicts that average atrazine concentrations above 5 µg/L in water can lead to reproductive effects in fish. Many waters in the heaviest corn-growing areas of the U.S. exceed that level, EPA notes. Atrazine and related herbicides exhibit neuroendocrine effects in mammals and have been shown to alter hormone levels in rats, potentially leading to developmental and reproductive effects, according to EPA. Many farmers worry that EPA will use the assessment to restrict atrazine use. Maryland farmer Chip Bowling, president of the National Corn Growers Association, claims that EPA based its assessment on flawed studies. Atrazine “is among the most reliable herbicides available,” he says, adding that the herbicide has passed rigorous safety testing over the past 50 years.—BRITT ERICKSON
CANCER
CREDIT: SHUTTERSTOCK
▸ NIH creates unified data-sharing system Vice President Joe Biden last week announced the launch of the Genomic Data Commons (GDC). The National Cancer Institute project will create a unified system that will allow scientists to share genomic and clinical trial data. GDC is part of both the Precision Medicine Initiative and the National Cancer Moonshot Initiative, which Biden is leading. “Increasing the pool of researchers who can access data and decreasing the time it takes for them to review and find new patterns in that data is critical to speeding up development of lifesaving treatments for patients,” says Biden, whose son died from brain cancer. Operated by the University of Chicago, GDC will standardize and centralize data from large-scale cancer research programs such as the Can-
cer Genome Atlas and the Therapeutically Applicable Research to Generate Effective Treatments programs, which together comprise cancer genomic data sets from 12,000 patients. Other researchers will be able to submit their data to GDC to share it with scientists worldwide.—ANDREA WIDENER
LITIGATION
▸ Court upholds regulation on nuclear fuel storage A federal appeals court has upheld a Nuclear Regulatory Commission rule that allows spent nuclear fuel to be stored at power plants. Four states asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Cir-
cuit to review the 2014 regulation, arguing NRC failed to comply with its obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act. “The petitioners contend that the NRC did not consider alternatives to and mitigation measures for the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel, miscalculated the impacts of continued storage, and relied on unreasonable assumptions in its environmental impact statement,” Senior Circuit Judge David B. Sentelle wrote in the court’s opinion. “Because we hold that the NRC did not engage in arbitrary or capricious decision-making, we deny the petitions for review.” As a result, NRC can continue to give nuclear plants permission to store their spent fuel rods on-site indefinitely. The attorneys general of New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut filed the lawsuit shortly after NRC voted to make its regulation and environmental impact statement final.—GLENN HESS, special to C&EN JUNE 13, 2016 | CEN.ACS.ORG | C&EN
15
