A Case study on Biotechnical Engineering

Biotechnical engineering is applied in biology where living things are used in

technology, medicine, engineering and any other application that is useful. Recently the term

has found its use in genetic engineering in addition to tissue culture and cell technologies. This

concept encompasses a broader history and range of steps in modification of living organisms

based on human purposes that dates back to cultivation of plants, domestication of animals

and hybridization.

The problem in our case is eradication of Gypsy Moth in Oregon State which is a pest

that is so damaging. And we have to make decision on whether to spray it with DDT, a pesticide

that is harmful to the environment or to eradicate it using the other two procedures that is,

spraying with the company’s juvenile hormone to stop larvae to developing into adults or

releasing sterile males after using Biotechnical’s scent lure. The company administrator with

our help will have to select a method that will result into the best expected payoffs.

We believe that the newer procedures will work under laboratory conditions in spite of

existence of some uncertainties concerning the efficacy of the sterile- male procedure with

moths and propagation of the chemicals in the wild successfully. We estimate the scent-lure

program to cost 5 million US dollars, of which in Biotechnology we believe that its chance will

be 50-50 with a probability of leaving a small number of native males versus a larger number.

After knowing the results of that phase, a choice will have to be made to release sterile

males or spray with DDT. An extra 5 million US dollars will be incurred in delivering insects to

the countryside and sterilization. The NPV of the worth of trees saved will be 30 million US
dollars that will include the benefit of avoiding all the other form of environmental degradation

if phase two program is successful. With this there will be destruction of the population of

indigenous moth. So the new infestation is likely to occur from migrants.

With other eradication programs and the experience of Biotechnical, the scent- lure

leaves a small native male population, there will be 90% chance for a successful eradication

through use of sterile male. However, only 10% chance of a successful eradication will be

through use of sterile males only. Synthesizing enough juvenile hormone will cost 3 million US

dollars.

The probability that the hormone will be effectively disseminated according to

Biotechnical will only be 0.20. If it is going to work, the worth of saved trees and avoided

environmental damage will be 50 million US dollars. This will be possible due to the permanent

nature of the solution as the pest can be eliminated from the environment through successful

juvenile hormone application wherever the moths are known to exist. An alternative to

hormone will be the DDT that we will still use to save the environment.

DDT is not 100% as it will only constitute a solution that is temporary. Also the worth of

trees savings it will have is far less than the worth of either of the procedures of the esoteric

eradication given that they prove successful. The firm administrator when comparing

alternatives proposes a method that will save environment and crop minus cost that is, the net

advantage. This will be relative to actually where he would be if we were to decide to use DDT

at the beginning or if we were forced to spray it later.

 Here our problem is to make decision under the uncertainties that exist, long term

consequences and large monetary sums. We have to find the ways to eradicate these insect as

we will not leave it to continue causing damage. As there is much uncertainty, we are going to

determine probability and probability distributions for the various methods of eradication.

In solving our problem, we are going to choose among 3 decisions that is, D1, D2 and D3

which will have 3 possible outcomes that are O1, O2 and O3. Assuming that we do not know

the outcome that will occur we are going to construct a payoff table where positive values are

going to represent benefits and negative values the costs. These 3 decisions will be the three

eradication methods that we are going to use. After observing the three outcomes, the one

with the highest probability will be our preferred method that in this case is using the juvenile

hormone. This is because it is going to give permanent solution unlike other 2 methods.

1. The benefits of Dr. Scribner’s proposed payoff measure are that when using such a

relative payoff measure it will have a substantial advantage as there would be no any

need to catalog all the limits and delimits of DDT. We observe that a dollar value

measuring the environmental benefits can be linked to each alternative procedure for

Gypsy moth eradication by treating use benefits can be linked to each alternative

procedure for Gypsy moth eradication by treating use of DDT as the zero point. The only

things that need to be accounted for are the benefits and the residual expenditures. For

example, the crop savings will be more permanent from using the sterile male

procedure and a net present value can be attached to the gain

 2. 2. The decision tree that will apply is shown below with all amounts being in millions of

dollars. DDT is used where another procedure is chosen first but then fails.

The net payoffs are shown at the ends of the respective paths shown by the triangles.

The expected payoffs are reflected inside the respective forks. An act branch is labeled

as False if it is pruned and True if it leads to the maximum expected payoff.

3. The action that maximizes Dr. Scribner’s expected payoff is the juvenile hormone.

4. a. [1] The expected payoff for scent decreases from 6 million US dollars to 3.8 million US

dollars, but the action that will provide the greatest expected payoff is the juvenile hormone.

[2] There will be an increase from 6 million US dollars to 8.2 US million dollars in the expected

payoff for scent lure. This exceeds the one for juvenile hormone, so the scent-lure sterile-male

procedure will therefore provide the highest expected payoff.

b. The probability level for low number of native males affects the choice of procedure. The

decision favors the juvenile hormone at .5 and below while it favors the scent-lure sterile-male

procedure at higher level.

5. a. [1] There will be a decrease of expected payoff for juvenile from 7 million US dollars to 4.5

million US dollars that is lower than the expected payoff for the scent-lure sterile-male

procedure. The juvenile hormone, have to be pruned from the tree by taking the false

designation.

[2] There is an increase of expected payoff for juvenile hormone from 7 million US dollars to 9.5

million US dollars, so that the tree is pruned in favor of the juvenile hormone as was in the

original analysis.

b. When we reduce the juvenile hormone success probability to 0.15 we make that alternative

the less attractive choice than when the probability is 0.20 or 0.25 when it would maximize the

expected payoff.

6. a. [1] There will be a decrease from 6 million US dollars to 5.75 million US dollars of the

expected payoff for juvenile hormone but the juvenile hormone will still maximize the expected

payoff.

[2] There is a decrease from 6 million US dollars to 3 million US dollars of the expected payoff

for the scent-lure sterile-male procedure but the juvenile hormone will still maximize expected

payoff.
b. The expected probability will not have any effect to the original finding that that the juvenile

hormone provides the greatest payoff.

7. a. [1] There is no change in the original pruning of tree in reducing the net present values by

10% albeit there is difference in the expected payoffs.

[2] There is no change in the original pruning of the tree by increasing the net present values by

10% although the expected value differs.

b. In terms of the expected payoff, there are no changes in the ranking of the alternatives.