|
by Jeffrey Winters, Associate Editor
|
Technology prize competitions are all the
rage. The X Prize Foundation, which awarded millions to the company that
sent SpaceShipOne to the edge of space, has ongoing contests for everything
from landing a rover on the moon to building an ultra-efficient car. The
mania has even entered the presidential campaign: Senator John McCain
has proposed giving $300 million to the company that can build a rechargeable
battery suitable for use in long-range electric cars.
But perhaps the strangest technology prize is being offered by the most
unlikely source. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the Norfolk,
Va.-based advocacy group, announced in April that it was going to award
a million dollars to the first company to produce a commercially viable
food made from artificial meat.
"Scientists have been studying this for years," said Lindsay
Rajt, manager of Vegan campaigns at PETA. "By providing funding,
we hope to help speed along the process of getting this choice to consumers."
Animal-rights groups aren't known for promoting technologyindeed,
some activists in that field have been arrested for sabotaging scientific
research-but what makes PETA's artificial meat prize so interesting is
that it highlights an area that has garnered considerable attention in
that past few years. The idea of meat grown in a vat may sound like something
from a bad science fiction movie, but bioengineers in the U.S. and Europe
are taking strides to make it a reality.
"I am 100 percent sure that tissue engineered meat is inescapable,"
said Vladimir Mironov, director of the Bioprinting Research Center at
the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston.
People have been eating animal flesh as long as records have been kept.
Meat consumption is part of most human cultures, with ritual celebrations
tied closely to specific types of meat (the Thanksgiving turkey) and taboos
established to forbid other meats, such as the prohibition against pork
in Islam or against beef in Hinduism.
For many Americans, eating meat is an every-meal occurrence, with annual
U.S. consumption of beef, pork, and poultry at more than 200 pounds per
person. Livestock competitions are a centerpiece of rural county fairs
and, at the other extreme, meatpacking 9 billion farm animals consumed
each year makes for an estimated $200 billion dollar business.
While vegetarians began questioning the central place of meat in our diets
as far back as the 19th century, recently researchers have examined whether
the current practices for providing this influx of animal protein is sustainable.
The resources taken to produce one pound of meat, for instance, could
produce four pounds of, say, soybeans, with an equivalent nutritional
value. In the U.S., farm animals produce some 1.4 billion tons of waste
each year, not counting the greenhouse gasesespecially methanethat
are an outcome of raising livestock.
In addition, fish stocks from Atlantic cod to yellow fin tuna are either
depleted beyond commercial levels or are heading toward that state.
In 2003, a team of scientists including Mironov, a cell biologist, and
public health researcher Jason Matheny published a paper that looked at
potential alternative means of meat production. Taking a cue from Winston
Churchill, who felt that it was absurd to raise a whole chicken just to
get a breast or leg, the team surveyed the state of the art in tissue
growing techniques with an eye toward putting them to work in meat production.
"The level of functionality needed for most clinical applications
of muscle tissue engineering," the team concluded, "exceeds
that needed to produce cultured meat with nutritional and aesthetic properties
sufficiently similar to those of conventional meat." In other words,
if you could grow an artificial heart or leg muscle, you would be able
to grow a steak in a vat.
Meat is, at its core, a collection of cellsmostly muscle cells,
although some people prize the meat of livers, kidneys, and brains. Since
early last century, scientists have been able to grow individual cells
in a Petri dish filled with agar or some other growth medium. Naively,
then, one could imagine that making artificial meat would be a simple
process of growing individual muscle cells in a vat.
But the experience of eating meat is more than consuming the individual
cells, or else "meat shakes" would be widely popular. Flavor,
texture, and consistency are crucial elements to the acceptance of a cut
of meat as food. Cells grown individually don't possess the cohesive physical
qualities most people desire in meat.
The state of the art of tissue engineering involves growing a patch of
cells in two dimensions and attaching the cells to a scaffold made of
biodegradable polymers or natural substances such as collagen. In 2006,
researcher Anthony Atala at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, N.C.,
created artificial bladders that could be implanted into children with
severe urinary disorders.
Patches of other kinds of tissue can be made in this way, but the technique
is time-consuming and expensive.
A recent conference in Norway, where some 50 research scientists attended
three days of talks, was a good snapshot of current activity in the field.
Presentations ranged from modeling muscle tissue and designing media for
growing cells to marketing artificial meat to vegetarians.
One of the talks focused on the economics of in vitro meat production.
Stig Omholt of the Norwegian University of Life Sciences reported that
a fully operational artificial meat factory could churn out fake beef
or poultry for about $2.30 a pound, well above the wholesale price of
chicken. Other estimates put the costs much higher. One researcher, using
data based on state-of-the-art tissue cultures, claimed that the cost
of one pound of artificially grown beef was in the neighborhood of $10,000.
But groups of scientists are pushing ahead with research, confident that,
between optimizing current practices and breakthroughs yet to be discovered,
industrially grown meat can be both cost-effective and edible.
In Europe, the idea has gotten a bit of serious attention. In 2005, the
Dutch government awarded a $3 million research grant to the University
of Amsterdam, Eindhoven University of Technology, and the University of
Utrecht to develop artificial meat. Private efforts have been established
in Norway and Germany.
In the U.S., in vitro meat research is funded privately, either through
commercial ventures or nonprofit organizations, such as New Harvest, the
Baltimore-based organization founded by Matheny in 2004. Lack of funding
may hurt the effort in the U.S., Mironov said. "It will probably
take 10 years and as much as $100 million to develop this technology at
an industrial scale."
The relatively small bits of tissue that have been cultivated in the
lab so far wouldn't be mistaken for anything edible although a collaboration
of artists and biologists did once serve bits of cultured frog muscle
to arts patrons. The two main strategies for making artificial meat that
bioengineers have envisioned can be thought of as the two-dimensional
approach and the three-dimensional approach.
The 2-D approach would grow a flat sheet of tissue on an edible membrane,
infusing it with nutrients supplied from top or bottom to simulate the
flow of blood. When harvested, the tissue and membrane could then be rolled
up to produce something like a meat strudel.
More ambitious is the 3-D approach, which would seed a spongy scaffold
of collagen or chitosan with muscle cells. As the cells grow within the
matrix, the scaffold would be periodically stretched mechanically or through
electric jolts to simulate the movement of a muscle inside an animal.
When mature, the meat would be removed from the bioreactor and be ready
to consume.
But while some researchers are making up in vitro menus, others aren't
so sure that this line of investigation is going to lead anywhere. Bob
Dennis, a biomedical engineering professor at the University of North
Carolina in Chapel Hill, said the difference between a fully functioning
animal organ and the techniques being talked about in artificial meat
circles is vast.
"We are not even close to starting with cells and ending up with
a whole organ in vitro," he said. "What passes for in vitro
organs is something very different: either small bits of tissue or cells
cultured on a scaffold that is shaped like an organ. I call this 'tissue
topiary.' "
Dennis is a leader in tissue research, and has spent more than a decade
in the field. His main focus is on biomedical applications: the potential
of replacement parts for people grown in a self-organized waythat
is, without the scaffolding most other groups use. Dennis attended the
in vitro meat conference, but his message may not be one that proponents
wanted to hear.
"Muscle precursor cells grown is a gelatinous scaffold is really
just steak-flavored Jell-O," he said. To reach something that would
have real consumer appeal would require stepping back and approaching
the question from a fundamentally new direction.
If Dennis is right, it may take a fundamental rethinking of the bioengineering
of culturing tissue before the necessary breakthroughs needed to make
artificial meat viable can occur. What some people think is the next obvious
step in providing food to the world's hungry may stay just out of grasp.
If so, the PETA prize may be unclaimed. As it is, the likelihood of any
group meeting its goals would be small: The winner must have a commercially
viable in vitro meat product in widespread distribution by the end of
2012. Given the considerable time lags in getting any product to market,
someone would probably have to make a breakthrough of near-historic proportions
by year's end to have a chance.
"We do hold out hope that we can see the emergence of artificial
meat in the next few years," PETA's Rajt said. She added, "We
are ready for science to deliver a methadone to treat our society's addiction
to meat heroin."
home
| features | breaking
news | marketplace |
departments | about
ME
back issues | ASME
| site search
© 2008 by The American Society
of Mechanical Engineers
|