Environmental DNA (eDNA) | Assignment

QA 1
Title:

QA 2
Question 1
Environment
The continued decline of the world biodiversity signifies a key catastrophe and challenge in the
current period, and political agreements have been reached internationally to slow or stop this
decline. Science has impacted some of the key areas of the society:
 Deficiency of information about biodiversity distribution largely hinders this challenge,
especially because most World species are not scientifically defined. Every effort related
to conservation to preserve biodiversity basically rely on the population and species
monitoring and gathering consistent patterns of distribution and estimates of population
(Thomsen & Willerslev, 2015).
 Traditionally, this type of monitoring has depended on identification of physical
characteristics through visual inspection and calculating species. But, traditional
strategies of monitoring still have problems because of difficulties related to the right
identification of recessive species or early stages of life, the continued reduction of
taxonomic expertise, unstandardized sampling, and the intrusion of certain investigative
technicalities. Therefore, there is a pressing necessity for substitute and effective
technologies to monitor biodiversity in larger scale (Thomsen & Willerslev, 2015).
 Environmental DNA (eDNA) is characterized in this paper as genetic material acquired
from environmental samples directly (water, soil, etc.) minus any apparent biological
signs of the source is a highly effectual, non-invasive and easily standardized sample
method. Combined with sensitive, economical and evolving technology of DNA
sequencing, it might be a suitable candidate for responding to biodiversity monitoring
challenges. Study on eDNA began with microbiology, identifying that culture-based

QA 3
strategies severely distort natural microbial diversity. Consequently, as a process of
assessing diversity, the macrobiological community first analyzed the eDNA in the
sediment, revealing that the extinct DNA, DNA, and existing plants as well as animals,
but meanwhile then samples have been acquired from innumerable aquatic and
terrestrial environments (Thomsen & Willerslev, 2015).
 The outcomes of the eDNA method provide prized insights into ancient times, and the
environment has proven to be useful for monitoring terrestrial and aquatic contemporary
biodiversity in ecosystems. Scientists expect that eDNA-based methods will shift from
the single-marker group or species analysis to meta-genome reviews of whole
ecosystems for predicting spatial and temporal patterns of biodiversity. These
advancements have been applied to a series of environmental, biological as well as
geological sciences (Thomsen & Willerslev, 2015).
Advancement
 In recent years, science has made great progress. In the future, genomic tools may be
used to produce cattle for consumption. Dr. John Basarab, a senior research scientist at
the Alberta Department of Agriculture and Forestry and an adjunct professor at the
University of Alberta and his Sustainable Beef Project team are looking for ways to
produce genetic gEPD and multi-trait index cattle that perform well in crosses (Stothard
et al., 2015).
 This requires calibration of the EPD in order to work on more genetically-crossed dairy
cows to obtain data from more cattle (including less common breeds), thereby creating a
value sufficient for Canada’s diverse herd Reference database. The Irish have one of the
best beef genetics databases in the world due to their national beef improvement

QA 4
strategy. About 80% of beef producers signed their calves and agreed to transfer data
from the national identification and mobile system every night, including birth,
movement, slaughter and export, and then transfer it to a comprehensive cattle breeding
database, with a view to improving the heredity of cattle (Stothard et al., 2015).
 Today, scientists are looking for ways that commercial beef producers can use DNA to
assess bull performance. Six pastures in Saskatchewan, including the WBDC herd, are
collaborating by collecting genetic samples from as many bulls and calves as possible.
The purpose is to find the most multi-pound weaned calf calves to best pay off the debt.
Surprisingly, the performance of bulls that passed the assessment of reproductive
robustness varied greatly (Stothard et al., 2015).
 Current research is focused on tools such as genomic breed composition, genomic
hybrid vigor, gEPD and multi-eigenvalue index exhibited in hybrid cattle. These
characteristics allow producers to maintain and improve such factors as fertility, feed
efficiency, adaptability Features such as adaptability to climate change. Lifetime
productivity today will increase profits for its operations. From a larger perspective,
scientists believe that Canada needs a national beef improvement strategy similar to our
dairy industry and Ireland’s beef industry (Stothard et al., 2015).
Question 2 (Marketing)
 Marketing of products in the name of science is often deceiving. In a recent study,
researchers first categorized claims in glossy advertisements as 'environmental claims'
('no animal testing'), endorsement claims ('dermatologists have recommended') and
'scientific claims' ('medically proven'). The panel comprised of 3 judges categorized the

QA 5
claims as one of 4 types of fact: 'open false', 'omitted', 'vague' and 'acceptable' (Fowler,
Carlson, & Chaudhuri, 2019).
 In conclusion, only 18% of these claims done by cosmetics corporations were judged
‘acceptable’ by the group. In contrast to 50% of claims about a product, 14% of these
‘scientific’ claims were considered satisfactory. The group ruled that only 25.1% of
claims related to performance are satisfactory, while 23% consider it an 'obvious lie'
(Fowler et al., 2019).
 Apart from how much consumers are convinced by claims done by the glossy magazines.
The study also showed regulatory process deficiencies where the marketers avoid
marking cosmetics as drugs to do away the regulatory processes involved with drugs. The
authors note their conclusions and the apparent distrust expressed by the judges when
cosmetic claims have been placed to them and customers (at least those examined by
judges) at present are in doubt (Fowler et al., 2019).
 Product claims and those that they reflect to be false, omit important information or
obscure. Their observations have implications for marketers, who appear to want to
promote their products to customers (Fowler et al., 2019).
Question 2 (Funding)
 The Government of Canada continues to support the researchers’ current activities in
laboratories throughout Canada. The CFREF was established to significantly improve
large-scale science activities in Canada to make it can compete with top international
research firms (Wells, 2016).
 This happened at a time while basic science-the daily laboratory efforts of scholars
around Canada is suffering. The Harper Government is relying on several operating

QA 6
funding for scholars and research students, so there is far less funding available for
new research applications (Wells, 2016).
 The Canadian Institute for Health Research, the federal government's leading agency for
medical research grants, has experienced a 13% drop in the "success rate" and it will
likely to decline more (Wells, 2016).
 It brings many disappointed and disillusioned scholars, several of whom young career
starters, certainly approaching their career phase when majority of the researchers
conduct their most fascinating and fruitful work. k-born cell biologist Tony Pawson (died
in 2013 in Toronto), created a whole new, profitable, and life-saving field of anti-cancer
treatment, with less expensive research, showing less clear promise, and was 21 years old
when he started (Wells, 2016).
Question 3A
Peer-review is a process in which researchers are able to evaluate the quality of research
published by other researchers. Peer-review can be used to determine whether or not an article
has been accepted, and to determine if it has been reviewed by others. The purpose of peer-
review is to ensure that all articles submitted by other researchers to meet the criteria set forth by
the journal editors. This process is also used to identify and govern whether or not a manuscript
has been approved for publication or has the potential for it (Bornmann, 2011; Lederman &
Lederman, 2017).
Question 3B
The peer review has been an important part of the scholarly writing framework within the
scientific community. This aids in making sure that articles published in scholarly journals

QA 7
address questions of logical research and derive valid and precise conclusions centered on expert
findings (Lederman & Lederman, 2017; Wicherts, 2016).
Peer review involves putting the author's professional work and research into the
examination of other professionals in the same field to check if they are available and significant.
This process assists the publisher govern research works to be accepted or not (Bohannon, 2013;
Bornmann, 2011).
Question 2A (SOP)
SOP is a guidelines set that are used to direct the process and make sure that the
processes are followed. It is also used in the production of chemicals, fertilizers, etc. This is done
by using the best practices from all over the world to ensure that there are no problems with the
process. SOP is an important tool for companies because it helps them to keep their processes
running smoothly (Gourevitch & Morris, 2008; Testoni, Melo, Dawson, Salvador, & Kunii,
2019).
Question 2B
SOPs improve the efficacy of the laboratory. It is a good way to measure the efficiency of
experiments and also helps in improving the quality of life (Suvannang & Hartmann, 2018). The
use of sops can be used for many purposes, including -identification of potential hazards,
identification of potential risks; identification of possible solutions to problems; identifying the
best methods for solving problems (Hallin & Wichman, 2007).
Question 2C

QA 8
SOP is designed to identify, minimize and correct flaws in the process of internal
analytics of the laboratory results prior to publication of scientific outcomes. This increases the
consistency of the recorded results from the laboratory (Buick, Doig, Jeal, Land, & McDowall,
1990; Hallin & Wichman, 2007).
Question 3
Respect for people
Respect for individuals reflects human inherent worth, and the dignity and respect that
they pay. This involves the process or manner of treating participants as their details or human
biological resources (for the objectives of this process that include human reproductive
materials) are used in the study. Individual value has dual moral responsibilities to value
autonomy, and to safeguard those with poor or diminished autonomy (Castellano & Reading,
2010).
Autonomy requires the capacity to act upon a decision consciously and intentionally.
Respect for autonomy involves giving due respect to one's decisions and making sure the
individual can choose freely without intervention. Autonomy cannot be used by itself, but is
affected by the various relationships an individual has with family, community, and economic,
educational, linguistic, religious and other classes. Similarly, each of these relations can be
influenced by a person's decisions.
Many factors hinder their opportunity to exercise their autonomy, such as lack of
knowledge or conversation comprehension or lack of freedom to act due to restrictive or
oppressive impact. Many constraints can include barriers to accessing information or expertise

QA 9
beyond the context of the study. Such considerations and challenges must be resolved before
such inquiries may take place to make sure that participants are sufficiently covered.
Where individuals can lose decision-making ability throughout a research study, such as
in cognitive disability studies, it is important to ask volunteers to communicate their expectations
and to ensure that they are encouraged to take decisions by a trustworthy individual. They lack
the right on their behalf to determine whether or not to continue their involvement in the study
(Castellano & Reading, 2010).
Concern for welfare
An individual's welfare is the standard of his/her life experiences. Their physical, mental
and spiritual wellbeing and their political, economic and social circumstances are influenced by
welfare. Therefore, the welfare determinants include other factors such as housing, jobs,
protection, family life, community participation and social involvement (Castellano & Reading,
2010).
Welfare consideration means investigators and REBs will look at protecting the
wellbeing of subjects and, in some cases, encouraging minimizing of any research-related risks.
They need to provide appropriate information to the volunteers to accurately determine the risks
and possible benefits of participating in research. Investigators and REBs need to ensure that
participating volunteers are not subjected to significant risks. Researchers and REBs will strive
to mitigate the risks of answering every research question. They will endeavor in the research
proposal to achieve the most desirable risk balance and potential benefits. Then, it is necessary
for participants or approved third parties to make a final decision on adopting this balance in
keeping with the concept of respect for persons.

QA 10
Research also affects the welfare of communities. Communities may gain from research
expertise but may also be stigmatized, discriminated against or harmed. Engagement with
welfare-affected communities through research in the design process will help to explain the
possible effects of research and identify that it can minimize negative effect on welfare.
Researchers should always recognize the challenges and future benefits of their work as well as
the insight it contributes to society's welfare. But this finding does not mean that a group's
welfare must be prioritized over individual welfare (Castellano & Reading, 2010).
Justice
Justice demands the responsibility to treat people equitably and impartially. Equality
requires fairness and equal treatment for all. Equality demands that the advantages and
obligations of engaging in research be allocated in such a way that no group of people is
inadvertently subjected to research risk or deprived of the advantages of the knowledge produced
(Castellano & Reading, 2010).
It may not always convey similar treatment to everybody by simply treating people with
respect and equitably. Disparities in treatment or allocation have legitimate explanations because
it has contributed to the formation or verification of inequalities that fail to compensate for the
disparities. In terms of equity and fairness, one major difference to remember is risk. Damage is
also caused by the decision-making capability, or restricted access to social resources such as
rights and liberties, opportunities, resources, and power. Historically, groups or individuals
whose situations may leave them vulnerable to studies include adolescents, the elderly, students,
females, inmates, anyone with mental health problems as well as those with restricted autonomy.

QA 11
The recruiting process is an essential part of solid research ethics, with both the subjects
not participating directly in the research and those as a source of knowledge or natural resources
to be used in the analysis. Participation should be based on the process of feedback which the
research question requires. Inequalities are generated where the necessary study advantages are
not received by other groups or when the groups or their circumstances or natural resources
might be studied improperly or for reasons relevant to a study issue.
A significant challenge to Justice is the inherent power imbalance in the Researcher-
Participant relationship. In general, participants won't understand the study in the same way and
in the same detail as the researcher did. Historically, there have been cases of manipulation of
these power imbalances, with severe repercussions for the participants (Castellano & Reading,
2010).
Question 5
De-extinction or species regeneration or reproductive biology is the course of producing a
species that resembles a species already extinct from earth. Different processes are there to
manage the extinction mechanism. Cloning is by far the most commonly discussed approach
while it is often called selective breeding or gene editing. Comparable methods are also adopted
to some endangered species in hopes of increasing population. Cloning is the only method that
provides an animal with a single gene identity. There are obvious positives and negatives of this
method, from technological advances to ethical issues (Bennett et al., 2017; Shapiro, 2015).
Question 6
The ethical dilemma is whether it is ethically correct or worth investing to bring back
species lost over time through de-extinction using cloning technology (Sandler, 2017).

QA 12
With: De-extinction is a good idea. Using genomic science for regeneration can help
transform existing ecosystems and adapt to radical changes in the environment such as global
warming (Cohen, 2014). De-extinction will also help address ecological and evolutional void
caused by lost species.
Against: On the other hand, while implemented to de-extinction, cloning, manipulation of
stem cells, reconstruction and editing of genome are effective techniques with major ethical
implications. For instance, the SCNT's cost and inefficiency has raised concerns about its
practicability for resurrecting endangered species (Cohen, 2014). Moreover, only a few members
of a species does not mean the species is back. They will have limited genetic variations with
almost identical genome, making maintaining a healthy population almost impossible (Sandler,
2017).
Question 7
Apply the power of biotechnology to the benefit of mankind
It is morally right to adopt biotechnology applications that guarantee saving lives or
enhance life quality. The scientists should evade application of technologies devaluing or
disrespecting human rights and with risks outweighing possible benefits. This ensures that the
activities of the industry comply with social norms (Wolpe & Rommelfanger, 2017).
Listen carefully and respond to concerns.
The solution to biological moral issues requires broad public speaking. It is important to
accept the responsibility of considering the welfares and concepts of all parts of society. It is
important to seek out conversations with legislators, religious heads, consumers, patients,

QA 13
providers of health care, ethicists, environmentalists, and other stakeholders with interest in
bioethics issues. It helps in resolving moral dilemmas where proper actions might not be obvious
(Caulfield & Brownsword, 2006).
Emphasis on health, safety and environmental protection
Biotech items are extensively regulated in Canada to protect health, maintain safety, and
preserve the environment by federal agencies including the Canadian Food Inspection, Agency,
Health Canada, and Environment Canada (Oguamanam & Jain, 2017).
Sensitive and considerate on social issues related to genetic research
Scientists, for example, do not manage genetic diseases by modifying the genes of human
sperm or embryos, and the medical, moral, and social problems resulting from this method of
treatment are explored and explained more broadly. In addition, the scientist supports the ban on
biotech for any use that is contradictory to basic human rights, such as the human cloning, with
the assumption that humanity will continue to benefit from studies on the genetic cloning
(Thomas, Hofammann, McKenna, & Michaelson, 2019).
Efficient cleaning of hazardous waste and prevention of contamination by waste treatment
Biotechnology is often used by environmental engineering firms, businesses and
governments to leverage the capacity of natural sources to dispose of pollutants in hazardous
waste areas. Scientists aim to improve the cost-efficiencies and ecological benefits involved with
the use of biotechnology at the same time maintaining human health and eco-safe and
economical ways in industrial operations of treating hazardous stream of wastes (Mosa, Saadoun,
Kumar, Helmy, & Dhankher, 2016).

QA 14
References
Bennett, J. R., Maloney, R. F., Steeves, T. E., Brazill-Boast, J., Possingham, H. P., & Seddon, P. J. (2017).
Spending limited resources on de-extinction could lead to net biodiversity loss. Nature ecology &
evolution, 1(4), 1-4.
Bohannon, J. (2013). Who's afraid of peer review? : American Association for the Advancement of
Science.
Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual review of information science and technology, 45(1),
197-245.
Buick, A., Doig, M., Jeal, S., Land, G., & McDowall, R. (1990). Method validation in the bioanalytical
laboratory. Journal of pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis, 8(8-12), 629-637.
Castellano, M. B., & Reading, J. (2010). Policy writing as dialogue: drafting an aboriginal chapter for
Canada's Tri-council policy statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans.
International Indigenous Policy Journal, 1(2).
Caulfield, T., & Brownsword, R. (2006). Human dignity: a guide to policy making in the biotechnology
era? Nature Reviews Genetics, 7(1), 72-76.
Cohen, S. (2014). The ethics of de-extinction. NanoEthics, 8(2), 165-178.
Fowler, J. G., Carlson, L., & Chaudhuri, H. R. (2019). Assessing Scientific Claims In Print Ads that Promote
Cosmetics: How Consumers Perceive Cosmeceutical Claims. Journal of Advertising Research,
59(4), 466-482.
Gourevitch, P., & Morris, E. (2008). Standard operating procedure: Penguin.
Hallin, P., & Wichman, A. (2007). Standard operating procedures for good laboratory practice work.
Good clinical, laboratory and manufacturing practices–Techniques for the QA professional, 224-
233.
Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2017). The Future of Peer Review: Taylor & Francis.
Mosa, K. A., Saadoun, I., Kumar, K., Helmy, M., & Dhankher, O. P. (2016). Potential biotechnological
strategies for the cleanup of heavy metals and metalloids. Frontiers in plant science, 7, 303.
Oguamanam, C., & Jain, V. (2017). Access and Benefit Sharing, Canadian and Aboriginal Research Ethics
Policy After the Nagoya Protocol: Digital DNA and Transformations in Biotechnology.
Forthcoming, JELP, 3(1), 79-112.
Sandler, R. (2017). De-extinction: Costs, benefits and ethics. Nature ecology & evolution, 1(4), 1-2.
Shapiro, B. (2015). How to clone a mammoth: the science of de-extinction: Princeton University Press.
Stothard, P., Liao, X., Arantes, A. S., De Pauw, M., Coros, C., Plastow, G. S., . . . Schenkel, F. (2015). A
large and diverse collection of bovine genome sequences from the Canadian Cattle Genome
Project. Gigascience, 4(1), s13742-13015-10090-13745.
Suvannang, N., & Hartmann, C. (2018). Implementing good laboratory practices and quality control in
routine and research laboratories.
Testoni, S. A., Melo, V. F., Dawson, L. A., Salvador, F. A. d. S., & Kunii, P. A. (2019). Validation of a
standard operating procedure (SOP) for forensic soils investigation in Brazil. Revista Brasileira de
Ciência do Solo, 43.

QA 15
Thomas, T. R., Hofammann, D., McKenna, B. G., & Michaelson, J. J. (2019). Genetic research at the
intersection of gender identity, sexual orientation, and mental health: community attitudes and
recommendations for researchers. bioRxiv, 685982.
Thomsen, P. F., & Willerslev, E. (2015). Environmental DNA–An emerging tool in conservation for
monitoring past and present biodiversity. Biological Conservation, 183, 4-18.
Wells, E. (2016). Canada’s everyday science researchers still starved for funds: Paul Wells:
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/09/07/canadas-everyday-science-researchers-
still-starved-for-funds-paul-wells.html.
Wicherts, J. M. (2016). Peer review quality and transparency of the peer-review process in open access
and subscription journals. PloS one, 11(1), e0147913.
Wolpe, P. R., & Rommelfanger, K. S. (2017). Ethical principles for the use of human cellular
biotechnologies. Nature biotechnology, 35(11), 1050.