Ch. 7 — The Use of Genetically Engineered Micro-Organisms in the Environment • 127 
has proposed a method tor using it to clean up 
oil s[)ills. The bacteria are to he grown in the 
lahoratorv, mixed with sti'aw, and dried. The 
hacteria-coated straw can he stored until 
needed, then dropped from a ship or airci'aft 
onto oil spills. The straw ahsoi'hs the oil and the 
bacteria degrades it.'* To completely cleanu[) a 
spill w ill prohahh’ retjuire mechanical efforts in 
addition to the biological attack. It was the pro- 
duction of one of (diakraharty’s strains that led 
to the Supreme (!ourt decision on "the patenting 
of life.” (See ch. 12 for further details.) 
The essential difference between the well- 
publicized Chakraharty approach and a less 
well-known one is that all the desired acti\ ities 
in C'hakrabarty’s approach are combined in a 
single organism; while in the other method, 
bacteria hearing single activities are mixed 
together to yield a desired “formulation.” In yet 
another approach, Sybron/Biochemical uses 
mutation and selection to produce specialized 
degradation activities. It also sells mixed 
cultures for some applications. 
The single-organism, multiple-enzyme system 
has the adv antage that ev ery bacterium can at- 
tack a number of compounds. The mixed for- 
mulations allow the preferential proliferation of 
bacteria that feed on the most abundant chem- 
ical; then, as that chemical is exhausted, other 
bacteria, which nourish on the next most abun- 
dant cbemical, become dominant. The pref- 
erential surv ival of only one or a few strains in a 
mixed formulation might result in no bacteria 
being available to degrade some compounds. 
The multienzyme bacteria, on the other hand, 
can degrade one chemical after another, or 
alternativ ely, more than one at the same time. 
Federal research support for 
engineering microbes to detoxify 
hazardous substances 
EPA currently limits its support to research 
aimed at selecting indigenous microbes, an area 
'^Patent Specification 1 436 573, May 19, 1976, Patent Office, 
London. England. 
that has already attracted some commercial 
research supjioi't. Commercial firms are looking 
for lai'ge-scale markets, such as sewerage sys- 
tems, or commonly occurring smaller markets, 
such as gasoline spills and common industrial 
wastes. 
Whatever potential exists in identifying, 
growing, and using naturally occurring mi- 
crobes tor pollution control pales beside the op- 
portunities ottered by engineering new ones. 
I'ntortunately, the potential risks increase as 
well. EP,A has taken a preliminary step toward 
assessing the risks by soliciting studies to deter- 
mine what environmental risks may exist from 
accidentally or deliberately released engineered 
microbes. 
Summary 
While some unreported efforts may be 
underway, genetics bas apparently been little 
applied to pollution abatement. Nevertheless, 
the production of "new” life forms that offer a 
significant improvement in pollution control is a 
possibility. The constraints are questions of 
liability in the event of health, economic, or en- 
. v'ironmental damage; the contention that added 
organisms are not likely to be a significant im- 
provement; and the assumption that selling 
microbes rather than products or processes is 
not likely to be profitable. 
The factors that have discouraged develop- 
ments in this area would probably become less 
deterring if convincing evidence were found 
that microbes could remove or degrade an in- 
tractable pollutant. In the meantime, the re- 
search necessary to produce marked improve- 
ments has been inhibited. Overcoming this in- 
hibition may require a governmental commit- 
ment to support the research, to buy the 
microbes, and to provide for protection against 
liability suits. Such a governmental role would 
be in keeping with its commitment to protecting 
health and the environment from the toxic ef- 
fects of pollutants. 
