The Impossible Burger is a plant-based burger, the key ingredient of which is a protein called soy leghemoglobin, derived from genetically modified (GM) yeast. The burger arrived in New York City’s restaurants with much fanfare – but now it is almost impossible to find, according to an article in the New York Post.¹
Possible reasons put forward by the Post’s reporter include that the burger is expensive and can’t compete with cheaper options; that the company that makes it, Impossible Foods, is having manufacturing problems that mean it can’t keep up with demand; and that people don’t see any reason to buy it when plant-based veggie burgers with more everyday ingredients are commonly available.
But it’s also possible that NYC restaurant owners and their customers are becoming aware – and wary – of the GMO (genetically modified organism) status of the product and are choosing to avoid it. The results of a rat feeding study commissioned by Impossible Foods and carried out with soy leghemoglobin (SLH) suggest that they may have good reason.
SLH is the substance that gives the burger its meaty taste and makes it appear to bleed like meat when cut. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initially refused to sign off on the safety of SLH when first approached by the company. The rat feeding study results suggest that the agency’s concerns were justified. Rats fed the genetically modified (GM) yeast-derived SLH developed unexplained changes in weight gain, changes in the blood that can indicate the onset of inflammation or kidney disease, and possible signs of anemia.
2015: FDA says SLH safety not proven
The company maintains that SLH is safe to eat.² It wanted the US Food and Drug Administration to agree with its self-declared conclusion that SLH is “GRAS” (Generally Recognized As Safe), providing reassurance for consumers. But in 2015, in response to Impossible Foods’ first application, the FDA refused to agree that the substance was safe. It responded with tough questions for the company, as revealed in documents obtained under a Freedom of Information request.³
The FDA was concerned that SLH has never been consumed by humans and may be an allergen. The agency pointed out that the safety information submitted by Impossible Foods was not specific enough: “Although proteins are a part of the human food supply, not all proteins are safe. Information addressing the safe use of modified soy protein does not adequately address safe use of soybean leghemoglobin protein from the roots of the soybean plant in food.”³
The FDA concluded, “FDA believes that the arguments presented, individually and collectively, do not establish the safety of SLH for consumption, nor do they point to a general recognition of safety.”³
2017: Impossible Foods tries again
In 2017 Impossible Foods tried again with a new application for GRAS status. It submitted data from a study that the company had commissioned in which rats were fed SLH.⁴ Although Impossible Foods had in its 2015 submission told the FDA it intended to conduct a 90-day feeding study (the standard length for subchronic toxicity in rats), the company said that following “feedback” from the agency, it had decided on a shorter study of 28 days.³
While this change would cut costs for Impossible Foods, it is not in the public health interest. That’s because the shorter the duration of a study, the less likely it is to find health effects such as organ damage, which take time to show up.
The number of animals and duration of a feeding study are two key design elements in an investigation of the safety of a new GM food substance.
It was always unlikely that SLH would have strong and obvious toxic effects in the short term; any adverse effects from a novel food substance would likely be subtle. Long-term studies with relatively large numbers of animals are required in order to reveal the significance of such effects. Given these requirements, it seems clear that Impossible Foods’ study was statistically weak. There were too few animals in each test group (10 per sex per group) and again, the study was too short in duration (28 days in a rat is equivalent to just 2-3 years in a human) to clarify any health concerns from long-term consumption of this product.
Adverse effects in SLH-fed rats
In light of these limitations, it is remarkable that the SLH-fed rats did show a large number of statistically significant potentially adverse effects, compared with the control group – for example:

• unexplained transient decrease in body weight gain
• increase in food consumption without weight gain
• changes in blood chemistry
• decreased reticulocyte (immature red blood cell) count (this can be a sign of anemia and/or damage to the bone marrow where red blood cells are produced)
• decreased blood clotting ability
• decreased blood levels of alkaline phosphatase (can indicate malnutrition and/or celiac disease)
• increased blood albumin (can indicate acute infection or damage to tissues) and potassium values (can indicate kidney disease)
• decreased blood glucose (low blood sugar) and chloride (can indicate kidney problems)
• increased blood globulin values (common in inflammatory disease and cancer).⁴

The fact that these changes were seen in spite of the statistical weaknesses of the study gives particular reason for concern.
Reproductive changes in SLH-fed females?
In the study, apparent disruptions in the reproductive cycle were found in some groups of females fed SLH. In normal healthy rats, the uterus fills up with fluid during the proestrus phase of the cycle, in the run-up to the fertile and sexually receptive phase (estrus). In the SLH-fed rats, significantly fewer “fluid filled” uteri were seen. This correlated with decreased uterus weight, as might be expected.⁴
In response to this finding, Impossible Foods commissioned a second rat feeding study,⁴ which found no effect on the SLH on the rats’ estrus cycle. The company concluded that the findings of the first study had been a mere artifact of the experimental method used.⁴ For the sake of the women who eat the Impossible Burger on a regular basis, we hope that the company is correct.
All effects dismissed
All these effects were dismissed by Impossible Foods as “non-adverse”, as having “no toxicological relevance”, as “transient” on the grounds that they appeared to reverse themselves after some days, and as not dependent on the dose (i.e. the effect did not increase with increasing dose).
It is true that the adverse outcomes may appear somewhat haphazard. However, the fact that there were so many statistically significant changes in multiple organs and systems suggests that closer scrutiny of the safety of SLH is urgently required. The apparent randomness of the effects may be due to the fact that the study design was statistically weak. And it is well known that toxic effects do not always follow a linear dose-response pattern.⁵ Dismissing the findings as irrelevant appears irresponsible.
The only way of ascertaining if potentially adverse effects seen in short studies are truly adverse or have lasting consequences is to extend the study length to the rats’ full lifetimes (2-3 years) and to do multigenerational testing. In this case, neither was done.
FDA capitulates
Impossible Foods’ second attempt to obtain GRAS status for SLH succeeded and the FDA issued a “no questions” letter, indicating that it had no further questions.⁶
Contrary to what many people believe, such letters are not an assertion by the FDA that the food in question is safe. They state that the company asserts that the food is safe and remind the company that it, and not the FDA, is responsible for ensuring that it only puts safe foods on the market.
“No questions” letters may protect the FDA from liability in case something goes wrong. But they do not protect the consumer from unsafe novel foods.
Another GMO ingredient
Impossible Foods recently introduced a new recipe for its Impossible Burger. In addition to GMO-derived SLH, the burger now contains another GMO ingredient: protein from herbicide-tolerant soy.⁷ The company introduced soy protein to replace wheat protein in order to improve the texture and to avoid gluten, the protein in wheat that some people cannot tolerate.⁸ As a result, Impossible Burger Version 2.0 may contain residues of the “probable carcinogen” glyphosate,⁹ the main ingredient of the herbicide used on GM soy.
Knowing the concerns that the use of GMO soy protein and glyphosate residues may raise, Impossible Foods CEO Pat Brown has gone to some lengths to reassure the buying public.¹⁰ But the history of the Impossible Burger thus far suggests that people are unlikely to get meaningful answers to safety questions from the regulators or the manufacturer.
Now a nonprofit group has stepped in to try to fill some of the information gaps. GMO Free USA states that its mission is to educate people about the potential hazards of GMOs and synthetic pesticides. The group has launched a health survey to gather the experiences of people who believe they have had an adverse reaction to the burger. GMO Free USA says it took action because “We have been contacted by a few people who have experienced gastrointestinal problems after eating the Impossible Burger (IB).  There is currently no simple mechanism for people to report these problems to the FDA.”
The group plans to send its findings to the FDA and Impossible Foods. Whatever the results, based on what we already know about the potential health effects of the Impossible Burger, the company would be well advised to shelve SLH and the reformulate their product with natural – and if possible organic – ingredients.
Claire Robinson is editor at GMWatch.org. Michael Antoniou, PhD is a London-based molecular geneticist. Contrary to allegations received following the publication of a previous article about the Impossible Burger, they were not paid to write this article by the livestock industry. They are vegetarian, but respect all dietary choices based on minimally processed and organic foods.
References
1. Cuozzo S. Why the overhyped Impossible Burger won’t survive in NYC. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2019/06/04/the-impossible-burger-is-just-an-overhyped-failure-in-nyc/. Published June 4, 2019. Accessed June 10, 2019.
2. Strom S. Impossible Burger’s ‘secret sauce’ highlights challenges of food tech. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/business/impossible-burger-food-meat.html. Published December 22, 2017. Accessed February 27, 2019.
3. Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. Response to FDA Questions – GRAS Notice 540 soybean leghemoglobin – Impossible Foods, Inc. May 2015. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwj0loTyjonjAhUQQEEAHX5fA5cQFjAAegQIBBAC&url=https%3A%2F%2F1bps6437gg8c169i0y1drtgz-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F08%2F072717_Impossible_Burger_FOIA_documents.pdf&usg=AOvVaw39TKTfQVQ91ki0HubfZnEd.
4. Impossible Foods, Inc. GRAS notification for soy leghemoglobin protein preparation derived from Pichia pastoris: GRAS Notice (GRN) No. 737. October 2017. https://www.fda.gov/media/124351/download.
5. Hill CE, Myers JP, Vandenberg LN. Nonmonotonic dose–response curves occur in dose ranges that are relevant to regulatory decision-making. Dose-Response. 2018;16(3). doi:10.1177/1559325818798282
6. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Re: GRAS Notice No. GRN 000737. July 2018. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwikvJT7t9zgAhV4TBUIHWRGBgAQFjAAegQIBxAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fda.gov%2Fdownloads%2FFood%2FIngredientsPackagingLabeling%2FGRAS%2FNoticeInventory%2FUCM620362.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3mkbfa11aCZlbvwMHW0F4K.
7. Brodwin E. The inside story of how the Silicon Valley burger startup Impossible Foods is going global after its sizzling Burger King debut. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/impossible-burger-national-launch-gmo-soy-burger-king-2019-5?r=US&IR=T. Published May 16, 2019. Accessed June 10, 2019.
8. Watson E. Impossible Foods replaces wheat with soy protein concentrate in its plant-based burger; says color additive petition won’t delay retail launch. Food Navigator USA. https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2019/01/08/Impossible-Foods-replaces-wheat-with-soy-protein-concentrate-in-its-plant-based-Impossible-burger. Published January 8, 2019. Accessed June 10, 2019.
9. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs Volume 112: Evaluation of Five Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides. Lyon, France: World Health Organization; 2015. https://monographs.iarc.fr/iarc-monographs-on-the-evaluation-of-carcinogenic-risks-to-humans-4/.
10. Brown P. How our commitment to consumers and our planet led us to use GM soy. Medium.com. May 2019. https://medium.com/impossible-foods/how-our-commitment-to-consumers-and-our-planet-led-us-to-use-gm-soy-23f880c93408. Accessed June 11, 2019.
Image of the Impossible Burger by Dllu, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. Via Wiki Commons.

• Impossible Foods’ meatless burger is marketed as a healthy and environmentally responsible choice.
• The key ingredient that gives the Impossible Burger its meaty taste and makes it bleed like meat when cut is soy leghemoglobin (SLH), derived from genetically engineered yeast.
• The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) refused to sign off on the safety of SLH, which has never been in the human food supply before.
• The FDA is also concerned that SLH may be an allergen.
• The Impossible Burger contains a number of other ingredients that are derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
• Some ingredients in the Burger are highly processed and are produced in industrial vats (“fermentation”).
• The GM yeast must be grown in a nutrient-rich broth made of chemically synthesized ingredients that are themselves industrially manufactured.
• Overall, the manufacturing processes for the Impossible Burger are materials-hungry and energy-hungry. These facts are being ignored in promotional claims about the environmental impact of the Burger.
• The Impossible Burger represents the opposite of what today’s health-aware and environmentally conscious consumers want from their food: pure, natural, non-GMO ingredients that are transparently sourced.

The high-tech food company Impossible Foods is asking health-aware and ecologically conscious consumers to help the environment by eating its plant-based “Impossible Burger”. The burger is available in restaurants across the US.
Impossible Foods is pitching its product on the basis of claims that it is a healthy and environmentally responsible choice. But a look at the facts gives a different picture.
The Impossible Burger is a GMO food
A key ingredient of the Impossible Burger is a protein called soy leghemoglobin (SLH) derived from genetically engineered yeast. SLH contains an add-on component known as “heme”. In its natural form, SLH is found in the root nodules of soybean plants. Impossible Foods has taken the SLH gene from the soybean and used genetic engineering technology to insert it into a strain of yeast. The resulting genetically modified (GM) yeast is grown at an industrial scale in vats, a process known as fermentation. The SLH is then isolated from the yeast and added to the Impossible Burger.
The heme component of SLH in the Impossible Burger gives it a meat-like taste and makes it “bleed” like rare meat. (This component mimics the effect of heme in natural meat such as beef, where it is principally present as part of two proteins, hemoglobin in red blood cells and myoglobin in the muscle of the meat.)
The Impossible Burger is not made from organically sourced or Non-GMO ingredients, so there are other substances present in this product that in all likelihood are also derived from GM organisms (GMOs) – namely soy protein isolate and a number of vitamins – which we shall return to later in this article. So overall, the Impossible Burger is a GMO food.
Is it safe?
The company maintains that the key ingredient of the Impossible Burger that gives it a meaty taste, SLH, is safe to eat. It wanted the US Food and Drug Administration to confirm safety, providing reassurance for consumers. But the FDA refused to do so, as revealed in documents obtained in 2017 under a Freedom of Information request by the ETC Group and other environmental and consumer organizations.
In its communications with Impossible Foods, the FDA expressed concern that SLH has never been consumed by humans and may be an allergen. The agency pointed out that the safety information submitted by Impossible Foods was not specific enough: “Although proteins are a part of the human food supply, not all proteins are safe. Information addressing the safe use of modified soy protein does not adequately address safe use of soybean leghemoglobin protein from the roots of the soybean plant in food.”
The FDA concluded, “FDA believes that the arguments presented, individually and collectively, do not establish the safety of SLH for consumption, nor do they point to a general recognition of safety.”
Slight changes in proteins can have big impacts
Impossible Foods argued that SLH is safe to eat because its modeled 3D structure is similar to that of hemoglobin and myoglobin. Generally, hemoglobin and myoglobin are proteins present respectively in the red blood cells and muscles of animals, some of which form part of the human food supply. (Hemoglobin and myoglobin are also present in humans.) But the FDA replied, “Conformational similarity or functional similarity among proteins is not an indication of the safety of proteins for consumption.”
Dr. Michael Hansen, senior scientist with Consumers Union and member of the GMOScience advisory board, agreed, telling Wired Magazine: “Just because proteins have similar functions or similar three-dimensional structures, doesn’t mean that they’re similar. They can have a very different amino acid sequence, and just slight changes can have impacts.”
Such impacts could include unexpected toxicity or allergenicity.
Additional proteins
Another safety issue raised by the FDA is that the SLH product extracted from the GM yeast, by Impossible Foods’ own admission, is only 73% pure. The rest is made up of 46 additional yeast proteins, some of which are unidentified. None have been assessed for safety by the company.
Impossible Foods says, “The non-target proteins which may co-purify are expected to be safe for consumption based on history of safe consumption of the whole yeast in animals.”
Allergenicity
The problem with Impossible Foods’s statement is that animals are poor predictors of human allergenicity. While it’s unlikely that these yeast proteins are overtly toxic, the yeast does not seem to have been part of the human diet, so we don’t know if it could cause immune reactions and allergies.
Impossible Foods argued against allergenicity, partly on the basis that a bioinformatics analysis using the Allergenonline database did not show a greater than 35% similarity to known allergenic proteins. But the FDA was unconvinced, countering that the approach used in Allergenonline “does not provide evidence of the lack of sensitization/allergenic potential of SLH.” The agency added, “Analyses using other software, such as SVM module-based software, indicate that SLH could be an allergen.”
In spite of all the FDA’s advice, the company decided in any case to sell the Impossible Burger to the public.
It may be no coincidence that 20 minutes after eating an Impossible Burger for the first time, a man Tweeted, “Went into anaphylactic shock & taken to ER. Never happened to me before…”. His Tweet (shown here) has since been deleted.
An incident of anaphylactic shock is a severe, potentially life-threatening allergic reaction which can occur within seconds or minutes of exposure to something you’re allergic to.
This man’s report is not definitive proof that ingredients in the Impossible Burger were to blame for the anaphylactic shock. But given the FDA’s warning, and the timing of the onset of the man’s symptoms, there is plenty of reason for caution.
Dr. Michelle Perro, pediatrician and executive director of GMOScience, commented, “Food allergies are so commonplace in the American landscape that California schools are now required to have Epipens to treat life-threatening allergic emergencies. The epidemic of food allergies in our population affects approximately 40% of American children – a number that is likely underreported.
“Dr. Arpad Pusztai, one of the first researchers of GM food safety, raised the issue that newly modified proteins are foreign to our immune systems, which could make them immunogenic and ultimately allergenic. For example, a normally non-allergenic protein in beans (alpha-amylase) was found to cause immunogenic and allergic-type reactions in mice once it had been genetically engineered into peas.¹
“Given these facts, to introduce another potential allergen into the food supply before it has been tested appears highly irresponsible.”
Allergenonline: Links to Monsanto
The Allergenonline database cited by Impossible Foods is housed at the University of Nebraska and is described as “a tool for evaluating the safety of proteins” included in foods through processing or genetic modification”. It is funded by biotechnology companies and is managed by the former Monsanto scientist Richard E. Goodman.
Impossible Foods contracted Dr. Goodman to assess the potential allergenicity of SLH as part of its submission to the FDA. According to the submission, “Dr. Goodman’s expert opinion concluded that soybean leghemoglobin is very unlikely to present a risk of dietary allergy to consumers.” Dr. Goodman also published his opinion in a peer-reviewed article co-authored by an Impossible Foods scientist.
It is to the FDA’s credit that it was not swayed by the “expert opinion” of Dr. Goodman and refused to give its safety stamp to the Impossible Burger. Impossible Foods withdrew its request to the FDA for GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) status for SLH in November 2015. However, it is a sad indictment of the US’s regulatory system that the company was nevertheless legally able to go ahead and launch the product onto the market in 2016.
Low environmental impact?
A major plank of Impossible Foods’ pitch for its meatless burger is the heavy environmental impact of industrial-scale livestock farming . According to the company’s website, “The way the world produces meat today is taking an enormous toll on our planet. According to livestock researchers, animal agriculture uses 30% of all land, over 25% of all freshwater on Earth, and creates as much greenhouse gas emissions as all of the world’s cars, trucks, trains, ships, and airplanes combined.”
In contrast, Impossible Foods presents its product as low-impact and environmentally friendly : “Because we use 0% cows, the Impossible Burger uses a fraction of the Earth’s natural resources. Compared to cows, the Impossible Burger uses 95% less land, 74% less water, and creates 87% less greenhouse gas emissions.”
But let’s take a closer look at the burger’s ingredients: “Water, Textured Wheat Protein, Coconut Oil, Potato Protein, Natural Flavors, 2% or less of: Leghemoglobin (Soy), Yeast Extract, Salt, Konjac Gum, Xanthan Gum, Soy Protein Isolate, Vitamin E, Vitamin C, Thiamin (Vitamin B1), Zinc, Niacin [Vitamin B3], Vitamin B6, Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), Vitamin B12.”
Almost all of these ingredients are highly processed. Textured wheat and potato proteins are processed foods that take energy to manufacture. The SLH in the Impossible Burger is extracted from GM yeast, which is fermented in large vats in an industrial setting. The yeast must be grown in a nutrient-rich broth made of chemically synthesized ingredients that are themselves industrially manufactured.
The vitamins in the burger are another example of highly processed ingredients. The vast majority of vitamins are not natural extracts from foods but are synthetic. They may be produced by chemical synthesis or from biological processes using algae, bacteria, or fungi (including yeasts). The bacteria may be selectively bred or mutated for higher production using mutagenesis agents like chemicals or UV light, or they may be genetically engineered.² For example, vitamins B2 and B12 can be produced using genetically engineered bacteria in a fermentation process.³
Energy-hungry, materials-hungry
All these industrial processes are expensive. Crucially, they are also energy-hungry and materials-hungry. And that’s without considering the environmental footprint of the pesticides and fertilizer applied to the non-organic crops that go into making the Impossible Burger.
Taking into consideration the whole complex manufacturing operation, how much greenhouse gas is generated in the synthesis of all those highly processed ingredients? How does the Impossible Burger’s environmental impact compare with grass-fed organic beef production? Or with the production of non-GMO plant-based burgers like Beyond Meat’s, which is marketed based on its non-GMO status?
These are key questions, which Impossible Foods has failed to address. By simplistically confining the notion of environmental impact to the presence or absence of cows in its burger, it completely misses the bigger sustainability picture. And in that bigger picture, a burger consisting of a novel, potentially unsafe protein produced from GM yeast, mixed together with a host of ingredients that are chemically synthesized or brewed up in fermentation vats, does not sit well.
Pesticides
The agrochemicals applied to plants from which ingredients for the Impossible Burger are obtained may in turn bring another layer of health risks. The greatest risks may come from mixtures of chemicals, which have not been tested for their combined and cumulative effects. But a close look at just one chemical, the herbicide glyphosate, is enough to raise concerns.
Non-organic wheat fields are sprayed with herbicides based on glyphosate – named by the World Health Organization’s cancer agency IARC a “probable carcinogen”.⁴ In some cases, glyphosate is sprayed on the growing crop just before harvest, potentially leading to high levels of residues in the harvested crop. Glyphosate has been found at widely differing levels in processed foods containing wheat – and the more highly processed the product, the higher the levels seem to be.⁵
While the levels ingested from glyphosate-contaminated foods are claimed by the industry and regulators to be safe, there is a growing body of evidence indicating that the so-called “safe” daily intake level for glyphosate set by regulators may in fact be potentially toxic.⁶ The Impossible Burger – as well as meat-based burgers – may contain residues of glyphosate that will add to the consumer’s daily intake level.
What the public wants
In conclusion, the claims made for the Impossible Burger’s health and environmental credentials are at best questionable and at worst highly misleading. But the more fundamental point is that this burger, the product of poorly tested novel and synthetic ingredients and GMOs, represents the opposite of what an increasingly food-aware and environmentally conscious public wants: pure, minimally processed natural ingredients, free from GMOs, transparently sourced, and produced with as few chemical and synthetic inputs as possible.
References
1. Prescott VE, Campbell PM, Moore A, et al. Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity. J Agric Food Chem. 2005;53:9023–30. doi:10.1021/jf050594v
2. Survase SA, Bajaj IB, Singhal RS. Biotechnological production of vitamins. Food Technol Biotechnol. 2006;44(3):381–396. http://www.ftb.com.hr/archives/76-volume-44-issue-no-3/388-biotechnological-production-of-vitamins. Accessed April 26, 2018.
3. zu Berstenhorst SM, Hohmann H-P, Stahmann K-P. Vitamins and vitamin-like compounds: microbial production. In: Schaechter M, ed. Encyclopedia of Microbiology. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Elsevier Inc.; 2009:549-561.
4. International Agency for Research on Cancer. IARC Monographs Volume 112: Evaluation of Five Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides. Lyon, France: World Health Organization; 2015. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol112/.
5. Food Democracy Now! and The Detox Project. Glyphosate: Unsafe on Any Plate: Food Testing Results and Scientific Reasons for Concern. Clear Lake, IA, USA: Food Democracy Now! and The Detox Project; 2016. bit.ly/glyphosateFood.
6. Mesnage R, Defarge N, Spiroux de Vendômois J, Séralini GE. Potential toxic effects of glyphosate and its commercial formulations below regulatory limits. Food Chem Toxicol. 2015;84:133–153. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2015.08.012
Claire Robinson is editor at GMWatch, a public news and information service covering GM foods and their associated pesticides. Michael Antoniou, PhD is a research group leader and teacher in molecular genetics at a leading London university.