Headline Bioethics: Enviropig – significant advance or environmental ‘band-aid’?

January 9, 2013

[A printable version of this Headline Bioethics Commentary is available via this link]

EnviropigMediumAuthor: Rebecca Hyde

Clip: ‘Enviropigs’: genetically modified for food consumption

Date of Story: 4 January 2011

Summary of story: For the past decade, researchers at the University of Guelph, Canada, has been developing a line of Yorkshire pigs now known as Enviropig. In January 2011, a BBC reporter had the opportunity to see the pigs in a research facility while applications to approve the Enviropig for human consumption were being deliberated by the US Food and Drug Administration. The Enviropig has been genetically modified to contain genes from Escherichia coli and mice and bred over several generations to become more environmentally friendly by reducing the toxicity of their waste.

Discussion of ethical issues: Development of the Enviropig raises a number of ethical questions. Some of these relate to issues of animal rights, some relate to genetic modification of organism in general and foods in particular. Given the reasons behind the investment in the Enviropig research, there are also specific issues relating to environmental ethics, and this represents a good place to begin evaluation.

Intensive pig farming produces large amounts of manure which contains high levels of phosphate. Whilst some phosphate is vital to life, and is necessary for good plant growth, high concentrations can lead to disruption and poisoning of ecosystems. Runoff from pig farms can lead to eutrophication of nearby water ecosystems, which can potentially lead to the water becoming anoxic and unable to support life (University of Guelph, 2011). Enviropig has been genetically modified to produce phytase in its saliva. This enzyme is important for the breakdown of phytic acid, an indigestible form of phosphorus commonly found in cereal-based foodstuffs. Bacteria in the guts of cattle and other ruminants, but not pigs, normally provide this enzyme allowing this dietary phosphate to be released and used by the mammal. Read the rest of this entry »

Headline Bioethics: GM chickens offer solution to bird flu problem?

January 4, 2013

[A printable version of this Headline Bioethics Commentary is available via this link]GMchickenmedium

Author: Rachel Bell

BBC News Clip: Chickens that cannot spread bird flu developed

Date of story: 13th January 2011

Summary of story:   Scientists from the Universities of Edinburgh and Cambridge have created genetically modified chickens that are unable to transmit the H5N1 “bird flu” virus between individuals. This effect was generated by inserting genetic information coding for a ‘decoy’ RNA hairpin molecule that acts as an inhibitor for the RNA polymerase enzyme required for replication of the flu virus (Lyall et al, 2011). It has been suggested that this approach may offer a means to reduce the extent to which bird populations act as a reservoir for flu and other diseases.

Discussion of ethical issues:  This story presents ethical tension on two levels; the possible benefits and complications for the chickens themselves, but also the implications for the human population. Laws relating to the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) vary in different parts of the world. In the UK, the law covering the creation and use of GMOs is set out by the Health and Safety Executive. This requires any experimentation to undergo strict risk assessment, notification of the authorities regarding any GM activity, and total clarity and public availability of information gathered by the research (HSE, 2011). In this case, Sang and her team at the Roslin Institute, Edinburgh have complied with these regulations and the necessary details are included in the final paper (Lyall et al, 2011). Read the rest of this entry »

Synthetic biology: “Playing God”?

December 31, 2012
playing god

My notes on the episode, divided into principal sections

On reflection, I think 2012 was a good year for the BBC’s flagship science programme Horizon. One of my favourite episodes came way back in January, when Dr Adam Rutherford fronted the one hour documentary Playing God on the emerging discipline of synthetic biology. From a bioethical standpoint, this was a particularly strong episode with good coverage of the science, the potential advantages and the potential pitfalls of synthetic biology clearly demonstrated. My notes on the episode are available here.

The full episode is no longer on iPlayer, but a series of clips are still on the official Horizon website and are mirrored on the BBC’s official YouTube channel (in the list below the title link goes to the BBC Horizon site, the end link to YouTube). In terms of potential clips for teaching it therefore makes sense to start with these sections although, as we will note below, the best section on ethics is not included among the official clips.

    • Title sequence (duration 1:47) Content: The opening sequence sets out the key themes for the programme – the contrast of billions of years of evolution versus the emerging potential to predetermine the development of new species; life as a programmable biological machine. This power has great potential for good but might be abused. Comments: Of the five available clips, I don’t think this would be my first choice for introducing the issues as there isn’t quite enough detail without subsequently seeing those themes expanded in the rest of the programme. (YouTube).
    • An animal that shouldn’t really exist (duration 3:14) Content: Rutherford visits a farm in Logan County, a research facility belonging to Utah State University. Prof Randy Lewis explains the attractive properties of spiders’ silk to him, and the fact that the spiders’ cannibalistic tendencies make them impossible to farm directly in order to produce adequate quantities of the material. The solution? Transferring the gene for the silk protein into another animal to produce an organism “part spider, part something else”, with the next clip revealing that to be a goat.  Comments: This clip and the next are actually from the same section of the programme and could usefully be shown back to back (total = 6 mins). (YouTube).
    • The goats with spider genes and silk in their milk (duration 2:43) Content: Continuing their discussion at the research farm in Utah, Rutherford is introduced to the “spider goats” by researcher Randy Lewis. The goats have been engineered to produce the protein for spider silk and extrude it in their milk. When challenged that this is “bizarre”, Lewis counters that he considers the goats to be  “absolutely normal”. The clip goes on to show the goats being milked but does not include extraction of the silk, which was shown elsewhere in the programme Comments: I don’t like the use of the term “spider goat” as it implies something much more of a hybrid or a chimera than the reality – which is a goat with one gene added. We have discussed some of the issues surrounding such transgenic animals in other posts on BioethicsBytes, especially in regard to the Animal Farm documentary series and associated extended commentaries. Nevertheless, this section does usefully highlight some of the attractive features of this kind of bioengineering – the capacity to produce a valuable protein in an easily harvestable form (YouTube).
    • Playing God, by recreating life (duration 4:38) Content: This section discusses the 2010 announcement of the production of Synthia by Craig Venter and colleagues. Synthia, or Mycoplasma mycoides JCVI-syn1.0 the more formal name for the organism, is “the only lifeform on earth whose parent is a computer”. (this is a reference to the fact that the sequence of DNA in Synthia was decided in advance using online genome databases and then the DNA molecules themselves were produced chemically as a series of shorter sections assembled together to make the complete genome for the cell). The clip includes a section where Rutherford uses white and red candle wax to draw out cells of two different species (more of that in a moment). As he points out Venter’s team can’t truly be said to have “created” life since – aside from addition of a few DNA ‘watermarks’ to identify the species – the DNA code had essentially been purloined from another related bacterium. “Recreated” or “rebooted” might be nearer the mark, Rutherford suggests. Even putting the hype to one side, he emphasises that this is an unprecedented degree of control over a living thing. Comments: Overall this is a nice section, summarising the achievements of making Synthia, without getting too sucked in to the hype. On the downside, the demonstrations are a little confusing – the drawing of cells using candle wax inadvertently implies that the cells have a nucleus which, as bacteria, they don’t (YouTube). 
    • Mind control (duration 2:22) Content: Rutherford visits Ed Boyden in his lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to discuss his pioneering work in synthetic neurobiology, a step from controlling microbes to controlling the brain, the  “most precious part of our anatomy”. Comments: A slightly frustrating clip, it ends just as it’s getting to the interesting bit! (YouTube). 

Frustratingly, the producers have not made available the clips with the most overt bioethical content. If you have access to the full programme (TRILT code: 0243AA4F; available as an off-air recording to BUFVC members) then I would favour the following sections:

  • 16:16 to 20:55 where the “biobricks” approach is raised
  • 25:56 to 33:11 manufacture of “biodiesel”
  • 41:21 to 45:33 introduction to garage or DIY biology, aka “biohacking”

Ethical concerns include:
– safety and the risk of modified organisms escaping (though this is partly countered by reference to the inclusion of inbuilt metabolic “kill switches”, see section 34:18 to 36:02). This is a consequentialist argument.
– exploitation of the poor, with necessary agricultural land being given over instead to growing plants as feedstuff for the bioplastics industry (section 36:03 to 38:02). Again a consequentialist argument.
– risks of bioterrorism, especially as the necessary molecular biology moves out from the lab and into suburban garages (section 38:03 to 41:20).
– playing god, a deontological argument, raised in the clip of the same name.

Rutherford’s closing statement nicely encapsulates the situation we are in at the moment “Whatever you think of the uneasy bargain that surrounds synthetic biology, one thing is absolutely clear. We have created for ourselves unprecedented power over life itself” (58:22).

Rise of the Planet of the Apes – a bioethical feast

December 31, 2011

Rise of the Planet of the Apes, now available on DVD, was one of the blockbuster releases in the summer of 2011. A prequel to the classic series of films (5 cinema releases between 1968 and 1973, TV spin-off and Tim Burton’s 2001 remake of the main Planet of the Apes), the new movie tries to offer a plausible mechanisms for the evolution of apes into a dominant global force.

(Warning: contains spoilers!) The new film is a veritable gold-mine for discussion of ethical topics, it would make as excellent vehicle for an engaging “film night”. In terms of bioethical issues, the film touches on all of the following:

  • Research ethics – there are lots of examples where aspects of the conduct of research are raised (some of which are picked out specifically in the list below). The motivations for doing research are touched upon at several points in the film – these include financial gain, fame and a desire to do good, both for mankind in general and specifically for the benefit of a relative in need. GenSys boss Steven Jacobs (David Oyelowo) is the embodiment of profit as a driver for research whereas Will Rodman (James Franco) represents more noble aspirations. A discussion of the ethics of research funding could follow naturally. Read the rest of this entry »

Blood & Guts – A History of Surgery: Fixing Faces

February 16, 2009
Michael Mosley performing a facial surgery technique on a Mannequin/dummy

Michael Mosley performing facial surgery on a mannequin/dummy

In the fourth part of the BBC 4 Blood and Guts series, Fixing Faces looks at the evolution of plastic surgery. True to form, Michael Mosley presents a graphic account of how brutal attempts to reconstruct patients’ diseased or damaged faces have led to a modern medical speciality which is now believe to be on the eve of the first full face transplant. This episode describes and illustrates the history of this area of surgery: showing the work of the 16th century Italian doctor Gasparis Taliacotii (00:05:06 – 00:18:02); the beginning of the Botox era (00:18:02 – 00:30:00); and the work of Sir Harold Gillies and Sir Archibald Mclndoe, who developed both surgical techniques and the need for psychological support for patients undergoing reconstructive facial surgery (00:30:00 – 00:50:00) (Please see this Student BMJ article – ‘A brief histoy of plastic surgery’).

This episode highlights two main ethical topics for discussion: functional Magnetic Resonance Imageing (fMRI) and Neuroethics (00: 01:54 – 00:05:06); and face transplants or facial allograft transplantation (00:50:00 – End).

Read the rest of this entry »

Exploiting Genetic Knowledge – Visions of the Future (2)

January 11, 2008

The Biotech Revolution, the second episode of the BBC4 Visions of the Future series, continues to describe ways in which humanity is making a “historic transition from the age of scientific discovery to the age of scientific mastery”. Presenter Michio Kaku suggests that unlocking the basic code of life will allow us to “predetermine the destiny of life itself” and to manipulate it at the most fundamental level (Start-00:02:00).

The programme begins with Kaku having his “medical future rather than history” diagnosed via a series of genetic tests for complex diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and Alzheimer’s. He describes this as an “owner’s manual” which will enable him to have greater control of his health, and to allow others to perhaps prolong their life by decades (00:02:20-00:06:20 and 00:20:05-00:23: 20). As a scientist, he is eager to discover what secrets his genome may contain however, as a person, he says “wait a minute, this could be a Pandora’s Box… I’m looking at a side of me I have never seen before, a side that has potential medical problems lurking there”.

Some of the issues raised here mirror those found in the ITV1 broadcast The Killer in Me, which illustrated particularly well the anguish associated with having such tests and the way actions could be taken in light of the results. In this programme, in contrast, there is greater emphasis placed on the potential impact on relatives and wider society that may result from taking the tests. “We really want to respect your privacy and the privacy of your relatives” the physician emphasises to Kaku.  Much of the future of this testing, if not the present, relies upon “the last great discovery of the 21st century, the Human Genome Project”.  Kaku believes that this event holds such significance that we will look at the history of medicine in two eras, “before genome and after genome”. “Having unravelled the fundamental code of our biology the stage is set for us to manipulate it” he adds (00:06:25-00:09:20). Read the rest of this entry »

Introducing our “Extended commentaries”

September 6, 2007

As the number of resources on BioethicsBytes continues to grow, so too does the range and diversity of the materials we are offering.  We have recently launched a new genre, the BioethicsBytes Extended Commentaries.  As the name implies, these articles pick up on one or more theme arising from a book, film or programme but discuss the issue(s) in a broader context. The Extended Commentaries draw on a wider range of academic texts than would be usual for a standard BioethicBytes review. They will normally be linked to a shorter post on the main blog.

At present there are four Extended Commentaries on:

Transgenics and a world of “limitless possibilities” – concerning issues arising from the first documentary in the Animal Farm series (Channel 4, March and April 2007), including medical v non-medical applications of transgenic organisms, connections with the debate about genetically-modified (GM) food, and a consideration of what is ‘natural’

The “pharmaceutical farm” – discusses speciesism, identity and the ethical treatment of experimental animals, as prompted by the second episode of Animal Farm

Making “creatures that work for us” –  looks at the medical benefits from transgenic animals, the modification of animals for our pleasure (specifically the transgenic GloFish) and the development of animals specifically to counter mankind’s impact on the environment, all of which were issues arising in the third programme of the Animal Farm series

The future of our families? – a consideration of some of the ethical concerns about saviour siblings, including illustrations drawn from Jodi Picoult’s novel My Sister’s Keeper

Further Extended Commentaries will follow in due course.

Making “creatures that work for us” – Animal Farm (3)

June 20, 2007

The final episode of the Channel 4 documentary series Animal Farm (originally broadcast on 2nd April 2007; TRILT identifier 0062CC6E) continues many of the themes explored in both Episode 1 and Episode 2. Despite being entitled Arrival of the Clones, this episode again deals predominantly with transgenic animals; Olivia Judson and Giles Coren meet “a spider-goat” (00:05:25), fluorescent pigs and fish, and an “Enviropig” (00:20:47) – as well as a cloned horse, a ‘resurrected’ Banteng, and a room full of “mutant mice” (00:48:00).

In the first section of the show we meet Prof. Randy Lewis who has taken the gene for spider silk from a spider and incorporated it into the genes of a goat, to create a transgenic organism that is “part mammal, part arachnid” (00:03:30). This gene is expressed in the mammary glands of the goat such that it is able to produce the proteins that are the building blocks of spider silk in its milk. Though there is a lot of additional work involved in ‘spinning’ these proteins into fibres, these goats represent the first step in the potential mass production of synthetic spider silk fibres, which are both strong and light, and also biodegradable. These fibres have numerous medical applications including artificial joints, ligaments and limbs, though also military uses, for example in the next generation of body armour (read more in the Daily Telegraph).

Following on from the previous programme’s glow-in-the-dark rabbits, this episode features two more fluorescent transgenic animals: a GFP pig, seemingly created for very similar purposes to the rabbits created by Louis-Marie Houdebine; and fish with a transgene from sea choral, which, at present serves a very different purpose. Originally developed as an “early warning system for toxins in water” (00:15:47), and intended to have the transgene “switch on and off in response to the animal’s environment” (00:15:00; further details are given in the New Scientist). However, since “scientists are still working on the switch” (00:15:57), these fish have instead become the first GMOs to go on sale as pets (available in the US under the trademark GloFish).

Two other transgenic animals discussed here share particular similarities. These are the Enviropig and the ‘resurrected’ Banteng, both created in response to the environmental effects of human activity. The Enviropig’s creators claim that this organism solves “an impossible problem of biology” (00:20:23). It contains a “man made gene” (00:21:17), constructed in the laboratory from sections of bacterial and mouse genome, which was inserted into a fertilised pig egg. Unlike normal pigs, this animal produces an enzyme in its saliva which allows it to digest organic phosphorus, thereby reducing the phosphorus content of pig manure, which has otherwise become a pollutant by-product of intensive farming.

The ‘resurrected’ Banteng, however, ‘solves’ what might be seen as a more serious side-effect of human activity: the possible extinction of “50% of all lifeforms…within the next 100 years” (00:36:38).

The ethical question underlying all these creations is: is it morally right, or justifiable, for us to be modify animals for our own medical benefit, personal pleasure, or to correct environmental problems caused by human activity? While these issues are not explicitly addressed in the programme, the techniques and organisms featured in this episode of Animal Farm, would make it an excellent resource for group discussion of this question. Examples and possible answers are discussed in the BioethicsBytes Extended Commentary that accompanies this post (pdf).

Overall, episodes 1, 2 and 3 of this series have covered a wide range of technologies and associated ethical issues, at a level of detail that makes them ideal reusable learning objects. If I have one criticism, it is of the closing statement of the series: “one thing is certain: the genie has been let out of the bottle, and genetic science is here to stay” (00:59:10). It seems a shame that, having opened up and, given the two-presenter format, literally discussed such a wide range of contentious ethical issues, the series ends with a banal cliche. In terms of the selective breeding of both plants and animals – including those depicted in Animal Farm, ‘genetic science’ has been around for a long time, indeed, since before the gene came to be recognised as “the fundamental unit of heredity” (Ricard, 2005). What the biotechnologies shown in Animal Farm seem to offer is an unprecedented level of precision (as suggested in episode 1) and, hence, the ability to make very specific and targeted genetic alterations.

They do, however, seem to raise new ethical questions, ones which – as the unresolved argument between Olivia Judson and Giles Coren suggests – may have no fixed answer. In this sense, a genetic science informed by debates in bioethics (as I believe ours is) seems to have an uncertain future, though only because our answers to the ethical questions posed by the series will, inevitably, shape where transgenics, for example, goes next.

All timings given here are approximate, and correspond to quote timings on the ERA recording of Animal Farm – Part 3 of 3, CH4 2100-2200pm, 02 April 2007.

The “Pharmaceutical Farm” – Animal Farm (2)

June 20, 2007

In this second of three programmes, Imperial College Research Fellow Olivia Judson and food critic Giles Coren investigate several more biotechnological creations on Channel 4’s virtual Animal Farm (originally broadcast on 26th March 2007; TRILT identifier 0062CC6E). Development discussed in this episode include tissue engineering – used here to make a replica of Giles Coren’s nose – and footage on transgenic cows, sheep and tobacco plants. As the programme’s guides meet these animals and their creators, they not only elborate some of the themes from Episode 1, but also draw out some additional ethical issues surrounding the latest uses of techniques of genetic modification on the “pharmaceutical farm” (00:47:08).

In particular they meet a herd of cloned, transgenic cows “built…from the ground up, to help cure some of the most dangerous diseases on the planet” (00:03:29), including anthrax and the currently incurable Ebola. These cows have a series of gene-knockouts (that is, genes of their own which have been engineered to stop normal expression) but also, more significantly in this context, carry a human ‘microchromosome’ (HAC), which “has the human antibody gene in it” (00:03:48). The purpose of this modification is to mass-produce human antibodies, which thanks to the HAC, can be harvested in large quanities by filtering the cows’ blood. According to the programme this is the only way to achieve this short of repeately innoculating humans, but, as Olivia says, “we can’t go round infecting people with antrax” (00:05:12).

In the course of the programme Olivia also encounters, what are described as, ” the sheep that is just a little bit human” (00:25:27). In what is a very technical, though understandable, section of the programme, Prof. Esmail Zanjani describes how human adult stem cells can be injected into the embryo of a sheep while in the womb, such that “the lamb, when born, will contain sheep and human cells” (00:28:04). This is termed a process of ‘humanisation’. Prof. Zanjani is, however, only really interested in the sheep’s organs, as opposed to creating “a strange new hybrid” (00:29:52), as a result of cell fusion – something that the programme identifies as one of the risks of this technique. He is interested in growing “human parts inside animals” (00:25:01), for the purposes of patient specific organ transplantation. As he says, these sheep contain, for example, livers which are “at least 10 to 15 percent made up of the liver cells derived from that patient” (00:29:04).

A third transgenic organism featured in the show is a variety of 10ft, transgenic tobacco, engineered to ‘manufacture’ cyanovirin. This chemical, produced by a gene found only in a specific type of blue-green alge, is vital in the global battle against HIV-AIDS. This tobbaco plant’s creators intend the cyanovirin to be used for an HIV barrier cream, which, since they are harvesting the seeds as well as the leaves for global supply, could – in theory – be made in, and by, any country in the world.

Aside from further discussion of the ethical issues identified in episode 1 (for example, the differential treatment – and assesment – of plant and animal transgenesis), episode 2 is an excellent resource for addressing questions of whether transgenics blurs, or even, breaks down species barriers in a morally significant way. This can be broken down into questions around:

  • Speciesism
  • Identity
  • The ethical treatment of experimental animals

Each of these issues is explored in the BioethicsBytes Extended Commentary that accompanies this post (pdf).

All timings given here are approximate, and correspond to quote timings on the ERA recording of Animal Farm – Part 2 of 3, CH4 2100-2200pm, 26 March 2007.

Transgenics and a world of “limitless possibilities” – Animal Farm (1)

June 13, 2007

In this, the first of three episodes, the documentary series Animal Farm (originally broadcast on Channel 4 on 19th March 2007; TRILT identifier 0062CC6E) begins to explore the world of selective breeding, transgenics and cloning – a world that is described as having “limitless possibilities” (00:20:31). The series places the scientist Olivia Judson and the food critic Giles Coren on a virtual farm, populated solely by plants and animals that have been subject to some form of genetic manipulation. The farm’s inhabitants range from selectively bred Belgian Blues and a hairless cat, to ‘super salmon’, featherless chickens, ‘humanised’ sheep and Golden Rice.

The Belgian Blue (Animal Farm. Channel 4, episode 1, 2007)

While the series itself offers an excellent source of concise and understandable scientific background to some of the most groundbreaking, contemporary biotechnological developments (the short animated sections are an excellent resource in this respect: see for example the explanation of how and why transgenic salmon were created – 00:27:13 “Traditionally a salmon only grows in warm water” to 00:27:47 “…all year round whatever the water temperature”), the programme is explicit in its attempt to examine the ethics of these developments and, further, public responses to them.

The “Super Salmon” v. the normal salmon (Animal Farm. Channel 4, episode 1, 2007)

This first episode, for example, begins with a number of questions: “If they can create a rabbit that glows in the dark, should we fear it?”, and “If they can make a goat that produces spider’s silk in its milk, is this going too far?” (00:00:09), followed by statements relating to two positions one might take on such organisms: “…evolution has produced weird and wonderful creatures, now man can do the same” (00:00:27); and, that they have “…been designed by men to exploit animals for their own ends” (00:09:03). Each position is represented by one of the presenters, and as the programme proceeds we learn how and why one believes that the techniques explored in Animal Farm offer “limitless possibilities” (00:20:32), and the other the “possibility for getting it all horribly wrong” (00:31:52).

The potential of transgenics is one of the major issues addressed in this episode. Indeed, it is described as “one of the great discoveries of the last 20 years” (00:20:31). The ability to isolate a gene form one species, transfer it into another species, and have it expressed in that organism, is the basis for almost all recombinant DNA technologies. While such techniques have been in routine use for at least 20 years, it is in their application to higher, and more proximate, animals that is the principal focus of Animal Farm.

The Scaleless Chicken (Animal Farm. Channel 4, episode 1, 2007)

During their time on the ‘farm’, Judson and Coren meet: rabbits that glow in the dark ; salmon that grow to four times normal size in their first year; and rice that, thanks to bacteria and daffodil genes, is able to produce beta carotene – one of the “building blocks” of vitamin A. Each of these transgenic organisms is introduced and explored in turn, particularly through interviews with their ‘creators’. They are asked to explain the rationale behind the use of transgenics in each case, and also to address the ethical issues and public concerns that go alongside each development. While the series itself appears implicitly supportive of this technology, these interviews do attempt to address the perception that “swapping genes from one species to another [is] inherently disturbing” (00:40:50). Some of the main issues affecting the ethical assessments contained in the programme are:

  • Medical v. non-medical uses of transgenics
  • Connections with the GM debate
  • Debate about “What’s natural” (00:09:33)

An exploration of each of these topics, as presented in this episode of Animal Farm, is given in the BioethicsBytes Extended Commentary that accompanies this post (pdf).

However, whatever one’s view on whether and how each of these issues could or should affect our ethical decision-making regarding transgenics, what this programme clearly highlights is the truly revolutionary feature of transgenic technology: precision. Where selective breeding and the crossing of plant species have allowed us to manipulate the genetics of animals and create new hybrid plant species, genetic technologies of the type explored in Animal Farm offer us a precision we have never had before.

Reflections on Episode 2 and Episode 3 of Animal Farm can also be found on this site.

All timings given here are approximate, and correspond to quote timings on the ERA recording of Animal Farm – Part 1 of 3, CH4 2100-2200pm, 19 March 2007.