Anti-Biotech Morons

[RichardR]

San Fransisco - June 8, 2004

The noise of helicopters has been evident since about 6.30 am this morning as (presumably), the press etc monitor the chaos created by the morons protesting the San Francisco biotech conference. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2004/06/08/state1129EDT0036.DTL)

Do you think any one of these protesters has the slightest clue about the issues related to genetically modified (GM) foods? Or if any one of them has ever faced hunger in their lives? I doubt it. Doesn't stop them though.

As if that isn't bad enough, according to that Chronicle article, "the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is scheduled to consider a resolution praising demonstrations against the biotech industry." Praising the demonstrators! At least our Mayor says he is in favor of biotech business and is trying to make it easier for biotech companies to move to SF. Good job (his defeated Green Party opponent in the recent election), Gonzales didn't get the job, then. I guess he and the other "Green" morons who don't have a clue would prefer the jobs went elsewhere. Corporations are bad, right? And Greenpeace is opposed to GM foods "no matter what the benefits", so why consider what the science says?

I am reminded about this "Wired" article on Lysenkoism and Suicide by Pseudoscience. (http://wired.com/wired/archive/12.06/view.html?pg=4) It applies to these idiots as much as it does to Bush.

[jj]

Originally posted by RichardR
I am reminded about this "Wired" article on Lysenkoism and Suicide by Pseudoscience. (http://wired.com/wired/archive/12.06/view.html?pg=4) It applies to these idiots as much as it does to Bush. [/B]

Do these people also protest against standard, normal crops in the field? They exchange genes, too.

[headscratcher4]

I would suggest that Europeans who grow tomatoes, for example, are environmental criminals. They are not a native European spieces, and god knows what was ecologically displaced so that they could have pizza!

inchoherent rant done now....

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by jj
Do these people also protest against standard, normal crops in the field? They exchange genes, too. I raised this issue some time ago, asking "Isn't ALL food genetically modified?" Even if they weren't GM'd by man, the strawberries on your plate doubtless bear little resemblance to the ones your ancestors ate fifty thousand years years ago. The wheat that went into the cake, even if not GM'd by man, would be genetically different from the wheat that grew wild in the fields ten centuries ago. And the cream that finished your strawberry shortcake came from a cow that even if not GM'd by man, would be genetically different from a cow of a thousand years ago.

So why the fuss over food GM'd by man? The only difference is that when man GM's food, if the result could cause a slight rash in one out of ten thousand people, it's destroyed. Whereas Mother Nature (who loves us, don't you know) happily gives us poison ivy, botulism, anthrax, e coli, cholera, smallpox, bubonic plague....

Humans are a lot more careful about what we put out into the gene pool than Mother Nature. But GM food is BAD!!!

Argghhh :mad:

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
I would suggest that Europeans who grow tomatoes, for example, are environmental criminals. They are not a native European spieces, and god knows what was ecologically displaced so that they could have pizza!

inchoherent rant done now....

Let's see. Spaghetti and meatballs with tomato sauce. But tomatoes are indigenous to the Americas and spaghetti is a Chinese invention.

As for meatballs, those involve cruelty to animals not to mention the danger of mad cow disease and/or trichinosis.

Sorry Guido! :p

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by BPSCG
So why the fuss over food GM'd by man?

Corn (maize) is all GM'd by man.

It does not grow wild anywhere and never did. The ancestral species teosinte is not a viable crop at all, though hunter gatherers may have had it in their diet.

The question is whether it was GM'd by ancient Mexicans or by modern USAians.

http://waynesword.palomar.edu/images/teosin2b.gifhttp://agronomy.ucdavis.edu/gepts/pb143/lec05/teosdstr.gif

[RichardR]

Sorry, but this is happening 300 yards from where I live, and it's really irritating.

Contrast SF Mayor Newsom's enlightened approach: (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/06/08/BAGMG72FS91.DTL)

Mayor Gavin Newsom, eager to create more jobs in San Francisco, told the thousands gathered in the city Monday at the biotech conference that City Hall is ready to embrace the emerging industry with open arms.

"You need parking requirement changes, we'll take care of it. You need tax incentives? You got it. We're going to target this industry,'' Newsom said.

"Whatever you need,'' he added, "I'm here to tell you, 'We are open for business in the city and county of San Francisco.' ... Whatever it takes to bring San Francisco back to the forefront of this incredible industry, I'm here to deliver.''

… with supervisor (ie local politico) Ammiano's stupidity. He wants the city to:

take a hard look at the potential benefits and pitfalls before moving forward -- everything from transporting hazardous materials and zoning considerations to the effects on the local economy.

What a douche.

[RichardR]

Oh my bad, the protesters have an alternate vision. Here it is: (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/07/BAGAB70FSL1.DTL)

In the heart of San Francisco's shopping mecca on Sunday afternoon, activists gave away their vision of a better world: free massage, body painting, organic chocolates, plants and other gifts.

About 500 people thronged the "really really free market" in Union Square -- part carnival, part swap meet, part be-in -- that espoused the principal of a "gift economy," or things given away without the expectation of return.

That philosophy, activists said, stands in contrast to the "free market" -- economic systems that operate according to the principle of supply and demand -- that puts profit ahead of the environment, human rights and other values.

The market in Union Square was part of a weeklong series of rallies, teach-ins, forums and street theater to protest the four-day BIO 2004 international convention, which began Sunday.

And here's me thinking there wasn't a viable alternative.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Originally posted by jj


Do these people also protest against standard, normal crops in the field? They exchange genes, too.

In a sense, yes... morons caused this:
http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/sept01/merrill.html

as a protest over certain breeds of cotton wood... that are conventionally created hybrids.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by jj:
Do these people also protest against standard, normal crops in the field? They exchange genes, too.

Try as I might to convey this message here and elsewhere, it just doesn't get through. People don't want to accept that "foreign DNA" is an oxymoron, that arguments put forward against GM equally apply to conventional breeding i.e., novel recombination events, and that the absolute safety of food can never be guaranteed.

Originally posted by Abdul Ahrazed:
As for meatballs, those involve cruelty to animals not to mention the danger of mad cow disease and/or trichinosis.

Don't get me started on animal "cruelty" and meat. Discussing that at length on the skepticism forum.

Corn (maize) is all GM'd by man.

Ditto wheat. (http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/instruct/mcclean/plsc431/chromnumber/number7.htm)

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Corn (maize) is all GM'd by man.

It does not grow wild anywhere and never did. The ancestral species teosinte is not a viable crop at all, though hunter gatherers may have had it in their diet.

The question is whether it was GM'd by ancient Mexicans or by modern USAians.
Okay... so are you trying to claim that corn is dangerous...?

My point is that human GMing is safer than natural GMing. Imagine if scientists had unleashed something like bubonic plague upon the world. There'd be mass lynchings. But nature does it and nobody thinks twice.

[jj]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide


In a sense, yes... morons caused this:
http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/sept01/merrill.html

as a protest over certain breeds of cotton wood... that are conventionally created hybrids.

That's appalling. Those kooks ought to have to finish out their lives hand-pollenating GM poplar trees. :(

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by BPSCG
Okay... so are you trying to claim that corn is dangerous...?

My point is that human GMing is safer than natural GMing. Imagine if scientists had unleashed something like bubonic plague upon the world. There'd be mass lynchings. But nature does it and nobody thinks twice.
Exactly!! But humans are mad scientists Doncha know! These are "frankenfoods" Doncha know!

People do not understand what DNA is and that it is the same whether you are fish or strawberry. DNA is like the alphabet. String different letters together to make different "words" that make up your traits. They are all still the exact same letters though.

They seem to think there is a difference, and different is bad.

Look at when they made "apple-pears". People freaked out!! I remember that from the eighties, and all they did was mix some plant parts together. They didn't even go right to the dna to get those.

Hmmm, so we make food that is more nutritious and safer to eat, yet people would rather buy stuff that rots faster because "nature made it"??

I really lost all respect for Greenpeace on this one.

[Loon]

I don't have much of substance to add, except that GM foods and biotech are real hotbutton issues for me. Anybody who opposes them pretty much gets stuck with the designation "moron" in my mind.

There are very few issues I feel so strongly about. Though I suppose there might be a good reason to oppose GM foods. It's just that no one has really discovered it yet.

[athon]

[devil's advocate]

The issue is more complicated than this, folks. And while none of you are incorrect, I do feel that the whole 'selective breeding = genetic modification' argument is flawed and brings our side down.

The anti-GM argument is centred on the fact that never before has nature seen the exchange of specific genes across such large distances of phylogenic branching. We can swap genes between fish and tomatos, for example. This raises ethical concerns as well as increased possible unforeseen interactions between the organism and its surrounding ecosystem.

Secondly, it can be done without the benefit of time. In selective breeding, unwanted side-effect traits can observed more easily in an organism. It's like having enforced multiple trials. Creating a GM crop, and noticing after three generations that there are unwanted side-effect traits (once a multitude of seeds have been sold across the globe), makes the whle process that bit harder to control.

Another concern centres on the ability to insert herbicide resistant traits, enabling larger quantities of pesticides to be used on the crops. Insecticide traits might be of advantage (b.thierugiensis toxins for instance), but to date not many have been as successful as hoped.

Lastly, it is common to insert an antibiotics resistance gene into the plasmids used to transfer traits during the process. These stay with the plant, and are of concern should these resistance traits be picked up by random bacteria.

Now, please undertand this post is not 'anti-Gm'. I deplore the way they ignorantly attack the science behind it, stupidly destroy crops (what do they think? Major GM companies are going to replace them with more trials? Or they send out the product without the trial anyway? Duh!), and refuse to address the issues behind the science.

But we cannot afford to jump in blind, either. This is a fabulous field which does have potential. But like any new science, we must explore all of the problems before we embrace it. And this is still in its infancy as far as I'm concerned.

[/devil's advocate]

Athon

[Benguin]

Also the argument that GM crops are going to help the hungry is not accepted by anti-GM people.

They (quite correctly) observe the likes of Monsanto are businesses motivated by profit and not altruistic organisations. Benefits in helping the world's poor avoid starvation and/or malnutrition would be merely a by-product of any developments they release.

Thus far the only GM we've had in the UK has been to permit much more potent pesticides to be used, presumably to increase yields.

The problems of starvation in the third world have nothing to do yields, there is no global shortage of food ... it is distribution that is the problem. Malnutrition might be helped (inserting genes so, say, rice delivers more nutrients) but, again, that isn't what GM is being used for at this stage, so using it as an argument in support is speculative.

[headscratcher4]

They (quite correctly) observe the likes of Monsanto are businesses motivated by profit and not altruistic organisations. Benefits in helping the world's poor avoid starvation and/or malnutrition would be merely a by-product of any developments they release.

Yes, they are business, like all farmers who work for themselves (as opposed to soviet-style farm economies, which generally end-up starving or depriving their populations in the name of the "people"). As businesses interested in profit, they aren't interested in starvation. Starving farmers don't buy product. Successful farmers buy product, new technologies, etc.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by athon:
The issue is more complicated than this, folks. And while none of you are incorrect, I do feel that the whole 'selective breeding = genetic modification' argument is flawed and brings our side down.

The anti-GM argument is centred on the fact that never before has nature seen the exchange of specific genes across such large distances of phylogenic branching. We can swap genes between fish and tomatos, for example. This raises ethical concerns as well as increased possible unforeseen interactions between the organism and its surrounding ecosystem.

I beg to differ. However this is certainly how the layman might see things, and it is imperative that take time to educate people on this.

It is important to emphasise that there is no such thing as "foreign DNA". As Eos pointed out DNA is identical across phylogenies, thus "foreign DNA" can reasonably dismissed as an oxymoron. I fail to see what ethical concerns there might be. It's not natural? Neither is agriculture. We're playing God? We always have. How do you think that both the Chihuaha and Great Dane trace their ancestry to the wolf?

The second point is that many of the arguments against GM plants can also be levelled against conventionally bred plants. What scientific basis is there for presuming that conventional plants wouldn't and don't interact in an unforeseen fashion with their ecosystems?

Secondly, it can be done without the benefit of time. In selective breeding, unwanted side-effect traits can observed more easily in an organism. It's like having enforced multiple trials. Creating a GM crop, and noticing after three generations that there are unwanted side-effect traits (once a multitude of seeds have been sold across the globe), makes the whle process that bit harder to control.

I fail to see how unwanted side effects would be more easily observed in conventional crops. If anything the opposite is true, since GM crops are more stringently regulated than conventional ones.

This review (http://intl.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/full/126/1/8#SEC5) speculates that much of the food we currently eat would be withdrawn from the shelves, if assessed using the regulations governing GM. Farmers have bred crops for similar traits that GM introduces i.e. pest resistance, increased yield etc. The potential for introducing undesireable side effects into plants is greater with conventional breeding, because the potential for novel recombination events is correspondingly greater, and the potential for these to reach the consumer undetected are also greater, because conventional crops simply aren't regulated to the degree GM crops are. How many people are aware of the lenape potato, withdrawn after it was found to contain unaccceptably high leves of solanine, or the strain of celery that induced rashes in agricultural workers? Imagine if these strains had been produced by GM? I reckon we'd never hear the last of them in that case.

Another concern centres on the ability to insert herbicide resistant traits, enabling larger quantities of pesticides to be used on the crops. Insecticide traits might be of advantage (b.thierugiensis toxins for instance), but to date not many have been as successful as hoped.

AFAIK very encouraging results have been observed in India and China with cotton.

Lastly, it is common to insert an antibiotics resistance gene into the plasmids used to transfer traits during the process. These stay with the plant, and are of concern should these resistance traits be picked up by random bacteria

This has been adressed in a very recent thread. In short it's a non-issue. The potential for transfer of antibiotic resistance genes from GM crops to bacteria is very slight, and in a world were overprescription of antibiotics is a major concern not something to lose sleep over.

But we cannot afford to jump in blind, either. This is a fabulous field which does have potential. But like any new science, we must explore all of the problems before we embrace it. And this is still in its infancy as far as I'm concerned

But we're not jumping in blind. The problem is that many anti-GMers want to halt the process, full stop. Why else would they be burning research centres? To be honest, I can't recall any anti-GM organisation distancing themselves from this kind of behaviour (although I stand to be corrected on that score).

Originally posted by Benguin:
They (quite correctly) observe the likes of Monsanto are businesses motivated by profit and not altruistic organisations. Benefits in helping the world's poor avoid starvation and/or malnutrition would be merely a by-product of any developments they release.

So what? Is there something intrinsically immoral about a company making a profit and helping the world's poor in the process? Nor is eliminating malnutrition the only potential application of GM. The most encouraging results have been seen in cotton, a cash crop. Shocking as it may seem third world farmers are in it for the money as well.

The problems of starvation in the third world have nothing to do yields, there is no global shortage of food ... it is distribution that is the problem. Malnutrition might be helped (inserting genes so, say, rice delivers more nutrients) but, again, that isn't what GM is being used for at this stage, so using it as an argument in support is speculative.

But who exactly has used that argument? IIRC no less a personage than the CEO of Monsanto has repudiated the idea that GM technology by itself will eliminate world hunger. Methinks you may pepetuating strawmen erected by the anti-GM lobby.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Benguin
They (quite correctly) observe the likes of Monsanto are businesses motivated by profit and not altruistic organisations. Benefits in helping the world's poor avoid starvation and/or malnutrition would be merely a by-product of any developments they release.


Better that millions starve than that somebody gets rich feeding them?

What are people who grow food for a living (farmers) motivated by?

[Benguin]

I think you missed my point, I was carefuil not to suggest any moral problem with Monsanto being profit motivated. Of course they are, like any business.

It is the suggestion that this technology is going save the starving millions I was saying is at question. Firstly, the drivers behind it are not going to be motivated by that, secondly it hasn't been demonstrated how it will solve the actual causes of starvation in the third world and finally the technological development is not heading in that direction.

I know that most of the people you were referring to come from the idea that 'all business is evil', but try to read what I said without inserting assumptions.

I'd be quite pleased for someone to get rich and the starving millions be fed, I am just pointing out that, at this stage, the starvation argument is perceived as a strawman.

But who exactly has used that argument?

RichardR implied it in the initial posting.

Do you think any one of these protesters has the slightest clue about the issues related to genetically modified (GM) foods? Or if any one of them has ever faced hunger in their lives? I doubt it.

I agree it is a strawman, I disagree where it originated. IIRC It came from the PR firm Monsanto originally appointed when trying persuade people of the benefits of GM. A bit like the terminator gene stuff originally being a popular pro-GM argument about how GM couldn't damage the environment because .... etc

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Benguin
I think you missed my point, I was carefuil not to suggest any moral problem with Monsanto being profit motivated. Of course they are, like any business.


OK not you, but what I said was no strawman. I believe much of the anti-biotech movement has just such a motivation, combined with anti-USA, anti-capitalist and anti-technology-in-general bias.

Of course in the case of the EU it's none of these really, but economic protectionism. Maybe a bit of anti-USA bias too, but not primarily.

[Benguin]

At EU level, very probably. But the EU and US governments both need to have a proper serious think about agriculture policy wrt overproduction and subsidies.

I think at national level opposition is very vocal from Green groups, who seem to be sadly intertwined with anarcho-lefty groups.

What you said wasn't a strawman, it was the argument that "obstructing this technology is obstructing something that will save the starving millions" I was pointing at.

I'm all for environmental and ethical concerns, I just find myself driven away from supporting them because of their affiliations with daft and unrealistic theologies. David Ike, anyone?

[RichardR]

Originally posted by athon
We can swap genes between fish and tomatos, for example. This raises ethical concerns as well as increased possible unforeseen interactions between the organism and its surrounding ecosystem. Has this ever been done for tomatoes that are sold to the public?

Originally posted by athon
Secondly, it can be done without the benefit of time. In selective breeding, unwanted side-effect traits can observed more easily in an organism. It's like having enforced multiple trials. Creating a GM crop, and noticing after three generations that there are unwanted side-effect traits (once a multitude of seeds have been sold across the globe), makes the whle process that bit harder to control. But GM technology means we know exactly which genes are being transferred and so we are more likely to know what to test for.

Originally posted by athon
Another concern centres on the ability to insert herbicide resistant traits, enabling larger quantities of pesticides to be used on the crops. Herbicide resistant crops such as roundup ready are resistant to the herbicide roundup. Roundup is a biodegradable herbicide – within a few days it degrades to benign compounds, unlike the chemical herbicides used on non GM crops. Farmers have to pay money for roundup and so will only use what they have to

Originally posted by athon
Insecticide traits might be of advantage (b.thierugiensis toxins for instance), but to date not many have been as successful as hoped. I didn't know that. Doesn't mean they should be banned, though.

Originally posted by athon
Lastly, it is common to insert an antibiotics resistance gene into the plasmids used to transfer traits during the process. These stay with the plant, and are of concern should these resistance traits be picked up by random bacteria.This was recently discussed here. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41451) Summary – they use antibiotics that have outlived their practical use. Nearly all strains of pathogens they used to kill are now resistant to them.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Benguin
Also the argument that GM crops are going to help the hungry is not accepted by anti-GM people.

They (quite correctly) observe the likes of Monsanto are businesses motivated by profit and not altruistic organisations. Benefits in helping the world's poor avoid starvation and/or malnutrition would be merely a by-product of any developments they release. This is just Ad Hominem. The motivations of Monsanto have nothing to do with whether GMOs are safe or not.

Originally posted by Benguin
Thus far the only GM we've had in the UK has been to permit much more potent pesticides to be used, presumably to increase yields.

The problems of starvation in the third world have nothing to do yields, there is no global shortage of food ... it is distribution that is the problem. Malnutrition might be helped (inserting genes so, say, rice delivers more nutrients) but, again, that isn't what GM is being used for at this stage, so using it as an argument in support is speculative. Another 2 billion people are coming in the next 20 years and it will be a problem then. And increased yields will be required if we don't want to chop down all the forests for farmland.

And surely, the reason that Golden Rice "isn't what GM is being used for at this stage", is because of opposition by anti-GMO groups. They want to ban all GMOs, remember?

[headscratcher4]

No one that I know of who supports continued research and development of GMOs seriously argues that it will feed billions. What they do argue is that it is part of the technological, political, economic, structural, agricultural mix of policies and practices that MAY provide some answers to the looming population problem. Indeed, not even Monsato seriously argues that GMOs will solve global food problems, they merely posit that it is PART of the solution.

WHy? Because there are going to be an additional 2 billion mouthes to feed in twenty five years. Because most of the usable land is already undercultivation. Because, given conventional and organic farming methods now employed, it is hard to see how yeilds can be expanded to meet the need. Because we don't want to chop down all of the rain forrests to creat marginal agricultural lands. Because urbanization globally continues to eat into the best agricultural lands, and on and on.

The real point of GMOs, is to use every tool that we can to avoid looming population and agricultural disaster.

[Rob Lister]

This is an interesting thread but, you know what, it doesn't matter.

The whole debate is academic. The genie is out of the bottle. The genie grants wishes to any that ask. Disparaging the genie only means you, personally, refuse to ask anything of it. Others will because --- well, the will because it is a genie and it grants wishes. I want a plant that..., I want a crop that..., I want a dog that..., I want a child that...

Trying to grab the genie and stuff it back in it's bottle is like trying to trap a bead of mercury under your thumb; like hearding computer programmers or cats, it just ain't going to happen. The best you can do is to apply incentive as to the direction you'd like to see them go.

GM crops are certainly here to stay in the good ol' U.S. of A. Soon too in the U.K. And this is really only the extreme top few molecules on the tip of the GM ice burg.

[Benguin]

This is just Ad Hominem. The motivations of Monsanto have nothing to do with whether GMOs are safe or not.

I would agree if the argument you originally put hadn't included the comment about hunger ....

The real point of GMOs, is to use every tool that we can to avoid looming population and agricultural disaster.

No problems with that, it just takes a massive leap from there to accuse people who oppose GM of deliberately opposing something that will help the starving millions.

It could, it might, but we don't know if it will and that wasn't what it was for anyway.

I actually find it difficult to see how any GM advance could help feed an extra 2 billion, unless we make seaweed that tastes like bananas or something. Who knows. It's pure speculation.

And surely, the reason that Golden Rice "isn't what GM is being used for at this stage", is because of opposition by anti-GMO groups. They want to ban all GMOs, remember?

It's a nice idea, but it's more hype than substance (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3122923.stm). And, in any case, the very fact it is likely to bring benefits has caused many traditional GM opponents to back down on this (http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns9999408).

[Ladewig]

Another point in favor
In addition to increasing yields on current farms and increasing vitamins in staple crops, there is also a movement to increase farmland by allowing crops to grow where they never have before
BBC story (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/genes/gm_genie/risks_and_benefits/human_health.shtml) Canadian scientists have created a tomato that grows in water nearly half as salty as the ocean. The sodium ions in salt are toxic to plants because they interfere with their metabolism.
But the modified tomato contains a gene that makes it gather ions inside large cell spaces called vacuoles where they can’t harm the plant. The salt-storing takes place only in the leaves, not in the tomato. This ensures that it will look feel and taste the same as a tomato grown in normal conditions.


Another point againstA brand of BT corn was found to express a toxin that scientists thought might cause allergies because of its molecular structure. So the US Environmental Protection Agency decided only to approve the corn as animal feed.
But in September 2000, traces of the corn were discovered in taco shells. All US corn exports suffered badly and the brand of corn was taken off the market.

One point of the anti-GMO crowd that hasn't been mentioned is laws which allow GMO foods to be sold without labelling referring to their modifications. If one were allergic to fish, then knowing that salmon genes were transferred to a tomato would be useful information. I understand that the chance of this specific transferred DNA creating proteins that would trigger allergic reactions is very, very small, but it is not zero.

I am very much in favor of GMO crops. On the other hand, I do not believe that all of the protestors are deluded luddites.

[Ladewig]

like herding computer programmers or cats, it just ain't going to happen.

I disagree. Both of these tasks can be accomplished if one has the right foods.

[athon]

Ok, some really good points. Let's see if we can address some of them.

Originally posted by Shane Costello

It is important to emphasise that there is no such thing as "foreign DNA". As Eos pointed out DNA is identical across phylogenies, thus "foreign DNA" can reasonably dismissed as an oxymoron. I fail to see what ethical concerns there might be. It's not natural? Neither is agriculture. We're playing God? We always have. How do you think that both the Chihuaha and Great Dane trace their ancestry to the wolf?

While DNA itself is conserved as a chemical code across all species, genes themselves aren't so. German words and English words both use the Greco-Roman alphabet, and even have some words that share the same routes. But those words occasionally have different contexts in each language. While I'm not usually one for analogies, there is similarity between this and genetics.

Maybe there isn't 'foreign DNA', bit this oversimplifies the matter. There are control genes in different species that play different roles, interact differently and effect different genes in different circumstances; and coding genes that can be affected by different control genes again depending on the circumstances. We are learning just how complicated these interactions are as we continue to unravel the roles played by different genes.

Genetic Engineering and GM can be a useful product of this information, but one we have to understand fully.

The second point is that many of the arguments against GM plants can also be levelled against conventionally bred plants. What scientific basis is there for presuming that conventional plants wouldn't and don't interact in an unforeseen fashion with their ecosystems?
I fail to see how unwanted side effects would be more easily observed in conventional crops. If anything the opposite is true, since GM crops are more stringently regulated than conventional ones.

True, and this happens often when introducing exotic plant species into new environments. In a way, this further backs up my argument that says when we introduce new factors into an ecosystem, we should be aware of as many of the consequences as possible.

Conventional crops and exotic plants have something of a studied history behind them. A fair bit is known about how they interact with their ecosystem. Changing genes, especially across species barriers, is a novel concept, and one which has only been observed over several generations. Again, I'm not suggesting GM is a bad idea -- just one that needs those stringent rules and large amounts of trial-based research.

/snip/ Imagine if these strains had been produced by GM? I reckon we'd never hear the last of them in that case.

True. No argument here, and one I happen to agree with. There is still a lot of fear with GM crops, don't forget, due to ignorance.

As far as the trials in SE Asia regarding pesticide genes in crops, I have not read about them, and would stand corrected if you could point them out. Up until last year, however, the few trials I was following were not as encouraging as the companies were hoping.

This has been adressed in a very recent thread. In short it's a non-issue. The potential for transfer of antibiotic resistance genes from GM crops to bacteria is very slight, and in a world were overprescription of antibiotics is a major concern not something to lose sleep over.

Not exactly a good argument though. Yes, the whole over-use of antibiotics is an issue, and a major one at that. But it's a bit like saying 'war kills millions every year -- lone murderers only a few, so let's not bother about them'. It is still something that needs to be kept in mind when dealing with GM crops. The chances of gene transfer might be small, but on a massive scale it only takes a single successful transformation procedure to produce a new VRE.

But we're not jumping in blind. The problem is that many anti-GMers want to halt the process, full stop. Why else would they be burning research centres? To be honest, I can't recall any anti-GM organisation distancing themselves from this kind of behaviour (although I stand to be corrected on that score).

Without good government regulation, many companies could easily be tempted to forgo testing and sell less than safe products unto the market. Informed government regulation is the answer, although the 'informed' part is where arguments lie.

I agree fully that many anti-GM'ers want to halt the science fully. And this is ludicrous. But the science has to be understood much better than it is before we can claim it to be the answer to the world's problems.

Athon

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Benguin
I would agree if the argument you originally put hadn't included the comment about hunger ....
I disagree. No matter what I might claim, if the response is that Monsanto is motivated by profit and not altruism, my argument has not been refuted. You have attacked the motive of the company not the claimed benefit of the product. They need to show that the product is dangerous, not that the producer is interested only in profit.

Btw, I was not accusing you personally of ad Hominem, I realize you were just presenting the position many anti-GM people hold.

Ironically, I believe this type of ad Hominem is known as "poisoning the well". Pretty funny considering they're environmentalists. ;)

Originally posted by Benguin
No problems with that, it just takes a massive leap from there to accuse people who oppose GM of deliberately opposing something that will help the starving millions. Not that massive a leap: (http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Zambia-GMFood-UN-US30oct02.htm)

The World Food Programme (WFP), a UN agency, complains that its work to assist the millions of hunger-affected Zambians has become "more difficult" due to the continued ban of GM food in the country. The Zambian government today announced it would not change its decision to ban the import of GM food, not even for hunger relief.

(snip)

The heated debate following Zambia's decision not to change its GM food legislation has however left many wondering about the stubbornness of Zambia's President Levy Mwanawasa and environmental groups not to allow GM foods as millions are left hungry. American consumers are shocked and write opinion letters to non-American media complaining against what they perceive as "anti-US propaganda". The outrage is understandable, given that US consumers eat GM food on a daily basis "and have taken no harm of it".

[Hunter]

Erm, hi folks, just a quick question.

I've been hearing that Monsanto (and this may just be balderdash, but I'd like to know more) has been using so called "terminator genes" in their seeds sold to farmers in India and SE Asia. The problem supposedly is that these terminator genes spread to neighboring fields and promptly kill off those crops...with the end result being that the poor farmers must buy seeds from monsanto..every single year.

I must admit that the story sounds suspect, but since I know so little on the issue, any information would be appreciated.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Hunter
Erm, hi folks, just a quick question.

I've been hearing that Monsanto (and this may just be balderdash, but I'd like to know more) has been using so called "terminator genes" in their seeds sold to farmers in India and SE Asia. The problem supposedly is that these terminator genes spread to neighboring fields and promptly kill off those crops...with the end result being that the poor farmers must buy seeds from monsanto..every single year.

I must admit that the story sounds suspect, but since I know so little on the issue, any information would be appreciated.

The word "balderdash" doesn't begin to describe it. This is the kind of sh*t that the anti-GM crowd knows to be untrue, yet continues to spread because it helps make their case...the "Big Lie" theory of political action.

Monsanto doesn't own any "terminator" technology. Indeed, what has been called "terminator" genes by GM opponents was developed in a joint effort by the USDA and a relatively small seed company in Georgia. For a time, Monsanto negotiated to buy the seed company -- which would have given it partial patent ownership over the technology -- but the deal fell through.

So-called terminator technology doesn't exist in the market place. It isn't being sold anywhere. It hasn't been submitted for regulatory approval. It only exists in the lab.

What is it? It was created by the US Department of Agriculture as a control machanism and as a method of protecting patented gene technology. Specifically, the technology would mean that you would get one plant per seed. THe plant would grow up sterile and not produce seeds that would germinate. In this way, if you had a plant that a company endowed with a patented technology -- say improved yeild potential -- the farmer couldn't steal the patented technology from the seed company by saving seed.

The farmer, to take advantage of the improved yeild potential, would have to buy the seed every year from the seed company. THe marketing theory for the seed company is that if it provides greater yeilds, better insect control, better weed control, etc. and farmers are able to grow more, better crops and make more money, than they will justify giving up saving seed and buy the seeds from the seed company on an annual basis.

Nothing about the technology forces the farmer to give up saving seed. Farmers need only plant non-sterile crops and save the seeds to continue their traditional or conventional ways. All the technology does...like a copy-right -- is prevent a farmer from stealing those patented seeds.

Now, the plant is designed to be sterile (i.e. to terminate itself). So, there is no problem of genetic or pollen drift. The plants in the next field wouldn't be under any kind of threat from these seeds BECAUSE the seeds are sterile.

If there was a problem with the seeds -- alerginicity, or something else -- their would be no flow to other plants because the seeds are sterile. A potential environmental problem would end with the life of a given plant, because the plant is sterile.

The anti-GM crowd has falsely argued that this is some sort of sin against traditional farmers because it prevents farmers from saving seed...i.e. you can't save seed from a sterile plant. What it would have done is give farmers choices, grow crops with certain postive traits that are not terminator crops and save the seed, or trade over and grow crops with presumably value-enhancing traits that would bring more profit and not save the seed.

Farmers, even in the third world make this choice all the time -- for example, if they can afford it, they buy insecticides to give their crops a better shot at survival -- even though they have to spend money to do so, and spend money every year presumbably.

The technology, as I said, has never been approved or marketed in any country in the world.

The fear mongering over this technology has been nothing short of breath-taking.

In the end, the bleeding hearts about subsistence farmers is rich people's agnst. No one wants to be a subsistence farmer. ALl farmers strive to grow crops that will do more than simply feed their family. Indeed, only feeding your family is a farming failure. You have to feed your neighbors, etc. The point is, farmers make choices in order to enhance their earning potential. These seeds would just have added to those choices -- a trade off from saving seed for theoretically the better yeilds or other postive traits promised by the terminator seeds.

Further, if the seed couldn't be shown to produce benefits, they'd never sell...farmers, contrary to the speculation of anti-GM do-gooders aren't fools. Why would they invest in seeds they can only use once UNLESS they could see that the positive traits would off-set the value of saving seed?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Athon:
While DNA itself is conserved as a chemical code across all species, genes themselves aren't so. German words and English words both use the Greco-Roman alphabet, and even have some words that share the same routes. But those words occasionally have different contexts in each language. While I'm not usually one for analogies, there is similarity between this and genetics.

And the similarites between the two languages are such that a lot of words can be understood by speakers of either language! Don't forget that gene sequences can be very highly conserved across species barriers.

Maybe there isn't 'foreign DNA', bit this oversimplifies the matter. There are control genes in different species that play different roles, interact differently and effect different genes in different circumstances; and coding genes that can be affected by different control genes again depending on the circumstances. We are learning just how complicated these interactions are as we continue to unravel the roles played by different genes.

Genetic Engineering and GM can be a useful product of this information, but one we have to understand fully.

But why focus on genetic engineering? Surely the argument has greater relevance with conventional breeding? With GM you're inserting no more than a few genes. Conventional breeding can involve the introduction of entire genomes (see my wheat link). By the standard being applied should a moratorium be applied on conventional breeding. on the basis that we don't fully understand the processes involved?


As far as the trials in SE Asia regarding pesticide genes in crops, I have not read about them, and would stand corrected if you could point them out. Up until last year, however, the few trials I was following were not as encouraging as the companies were hoping.

I'm a bit pushed for time at the moment, but I'll dig up the links ASAP.

Not exactly a good argument though. Yes, the whole over-use of antibiotics is an issue, and a major one at that. But it's a bit like saying 'war kills millions every year -- lone murderers only a few, so let's not bother about them'. It is still something that needs to be kept in mind when dealing with GM crops. The chances of gene transfer might be small, but on a massive scale it only takes a single successful transformation procedure to produce a new VRE.

RichardR has linked to the relevant thread. The argument is sound because it's backed up by research. All things considered this really is a non-issue.

Without good government regulation, many companies could easily be tempted to forgo testing and sell less than safe products unto the market. Informed government regulation is the answer, although the 'informed' part is where arguments lie.

And I provided examples of how less than safe conventional strains made it to unto the market. Again, I don't know of anyone on the pro-GM side who argues that testing shouel be foregone.

Originally posted by Ladewig:
One point of the anti-GMO crowd that hasn't been mentioned is laws which allow GMO foods to be sold without labelling referring to their modifications. If one were allergic to fish, then knowing that salmon genes were transferred to a tomato would be useful information. I understand that the chance of this specific transferred DNA creating proteins that would trigger allergic reactions is very, very small, but it is not zero.

Well, I'm fairly certain that a tomato containing salmon genes isn't on the market. FDA regulations do not require the labelling of GM food as such because studies have shown that GM crops and foods are not substantially different to their "natural" equivalents to merit this. The FDA evaluates each GM strain or crop on an individual basis. If it concluded that a tomato containing a fish gene could provoke allergic reactions then it would require labelling of the product. Remember that specific salmon genes wouldn't necessarily cause allergic reactions. The allergans in fish would be encoded by a small number of fish genes. If one of these were transformed into a tomato, then the FDA would likely require the tomato, and all products containing the tomato, to be labelled as such.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Well, I'm fairly certain that a tomato containing salmon genes isn't on the market. From The Canadian Statistical Assessment Service: (http://www.canstats.org/readdetail.asp?id=644)

Finally, the frightening sounding fish-gene-spiked tomato has made the rounds in many discussions about genetically modified foods. Might you have already ingested one without even knowing it? No. The story of the fish-gene veggie stems from a real 1991 experiment in which researchers attempted to develop a frost-resistant tomato by having the tomato express a flounder gene that produces a cold resistant protein. Although many picture the operation as a surgical implantation of fish material into a tomato, the gene in question did not actually come from a fish in any physical sense. It was merely a synthetic gene the scientists made using the information they had gleaned from the flounder’s genetic sequence.

In any case the experiment failed, and the fishy tomatoes certainly never made it to the market, though you’d never know it from the number of times flounder-filled tomatoes come up in the genetically modified food debate
The more I dig into this the less regard I have for the anti-GMO groups.

[Benguin]

Originally posted by RichardR
[B]
I disagree. No matter what I might claim, if the response is that Monsanto is motivated by profit and not altruism, my argument has not been refuted. You have attacked the motive of the company not the claimed benefit of the product. They need to show that the product is dangerous, not that the producer is interested only in profit.

Btw, I was not accusing you personally of ad Hominem, I realize you were just presenting the position many anti-GM people hold.

Ironically, I believe this type of ad Hominem is known as "poisoning the well". Pretty funny considering they're environmentalists. ;)


I actually agree with them that the global starvation arguement is not supported, see the quote from Monsanto's chairman earlier.

I disagree with their naff reasoning that it can't have any benefits because it came out of the evil military-industrial corporate hegemony (or whatever). I don't think Monsanto were thinking about global starvation when they developed this, and they've said as much. It wouldn't matter at all if it weren't for the fact that pro-GM campaigners tried to use global starvation as the support for their position. I doubt Monsanto or any of the scientists had anything to do with that, more likely some over-simplistic politician or PR person.



Not that massive a leap: (http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/Zambia-GMFood-UN-US30oct02.htm)


Yes, I'm just back from Africa, I know about this debate. Africa has a long history of receiving extremely bad agricultural advise and incredibly damaging 'food aid' from the west and has become deeply cynical about the whole subject.

Try this for another side of the issue ... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3016390.stm)

And not a bad article on the real problem (http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/develop/africa/2003/0123surplus.htm)

I'm not advancing this as any kind of evidence or argument in opposition to GM, merely opposing the use of the argument in support of GM as the evidence does not exist.

[athon]

Originally posted by Shane Costello


And the similarites between the two languages are such that a lot of words can be understood by speakers of either language! Don't forget that gene sequences can be very highly conserved across species barriers.

Ok, but if a sequence is conserved across two species, why would you transfer it? If it doesn't exist in one species, and you wish to place a coding sequence into a crop that does not possess it, how can you initially be certain that it does not have a different effect?

As for non-coding sequences, we are only just beginning to understand how complicated that issue is. Granted, it has not been attempted yet in commercial GM (to my knowledge, but I could be shown wrong), but the temptation will surely arise to use an amplifier sequence or play with promoter regions to increase yields. At the moment it is rather crude manipulation of coding sequences that produce extra growth.

It is definately not a simple 'take gene A from species A and it will do the same thing next to gene B in species B'. Initially the industry thought it would, and with early GM in bacteria it was as simple as that. But eukaryotic organisms are proving to have a lot of tricks to get past.

Again, I should remind you I am not anti-GM. I'm just saying, we shouldn't fall into the same traps as them by screaming the opposite, saying how purely amazing and beneficial GE is rather than how foolish and destructive it is. It has incredible potential, but we have to be aware of potential risks on all fronts.

Athon

[The Don]

[South Park] Genetic engineering helps us to correct God's terrible, terrible mistakes - Like German people [/South Park]

[anor277]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't all the human insulin available to diabetics today derived from bacteria to which recombinant DNA techniques have been applied? I cite this as an example of a "good" genetic modification.

[athon]

Originally posted by anor277
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't all the human insulin available to diabetics today derived from bacteria to which recombinant DNA techniques have been applied? I cite this as an example of a "good" genetic modification.

We've been playing with bacterial genomes and plasmids for a couple of decades now. We're even close to creating completely artificial bacteria (genomes designed from scratch). That'll be an exciting day.

Athon

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by athon:
Ok, but if a sequence is conserved across two species, why would you transfer it? If it doesn't exist in one species, and you wish to place a coding sequence into a crop that does not possess it, how can you initially be certain that it does not have a different effect?

Well the gene may be active in one species but inactive in another, the difference being in the activity of regulaory elements. Initially you wouldn't be certain that it wouldn't have a different effect, hence the reason for field trials and a regulatory framework. At the risk of sounding like a broken record this should actually an argument in favour of GM. Conventional breeding involves the transfer of entire genomes, while GM involves the transfer of no more than a few genes. The potential for "different effects" is far greater with conventional breeding.

As for non-coding sequences, we are only just beginning to understand how complicated that issue is. Granted, it has not been attempted yet in commercial GM (to my knowledge, but I could be shown wrong), but the temptation will surely arise to use an amplifier sequence or play with promoter regions to increase yields. At the moment it is rather crude manipulation of coding sequences that produce extra growth.

I believe it's already being done. I'll have to do a bit of googling but I worked with transgenic apple plants for a while. These had been transformed with a phytohormone gene with a bacterial promoter, with the ultimate effect of prolonging shelf life.

It is definately not a simple 'take gene A from species A and it will do the same thing next to gene B in species B'. Initially the industry thought it would, and with early GM in bacteria it was as simple as that. But eukaryotic organisms are proving to have a lot of tricks to get past.

I think it depends on the specific gene and the trait it influences. Some traits are complex, and influenced by a number of genes, other traits are simple and influenced by the expression of single genes. It's not true to say that early GM in bacteria was simple. Horizontal gene transfer of genes between bacteria is a natural phenomenon, so splicing bacterial genes in bacterial genomes is an easy process in vitro. However in the case of human insulin the human insulin gene (eukaryote) was spliced into an E.coli strain (prokaryote). This is not an easy process, since prokaryotic genomes lack the promoter sequences required by eukaryotic genes.

[athon]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Well the gene may be active in one species but inactive in another, the difference being in the activity of regulaory elements. Initially you wouldn't be certain that it wouldn't have a different effect, hence the reason for field trials and a regulatory framework. At the risk of sounding like a broken record this should actually an argument in favour of GM.

That was my initial point (I hope we're not arguing the same thing from two different angles here...I hate that :) ). GM can provide enormous benefits, but only when nasty surprises have been accounted for.

Conventional breeding involves the transfer of entire genomes, while GM involves the transfer of no more than a few genes. The potential for "different effects" is far greater with conventional breeding.

You've said this a couple of times, and it's one thing I don't quite agree with. Conventional breeding requires two similar genomes to coordinate in the process of fertilisation to produce a viable zygote. You are not 'inserting' an entire genome into a sequence, but rather providing the required other half of a genome needed for a full 2n organism to exist. I think I know what you're saying, however. But I don't agree that there is a greater potential for unwanted effects, unless you account for an unexpected mutation (which has not been specifically induced, c.f. GE). But even then, this argument would be difficult to prove on either of our sides without ample evidence, which I don't think exists.

I'll have to do a bit of googling but I worked with transgenic apple plants for a while. These had been transformed with a phytohormone gene with a bacterial promoter, with the ultimate effect of prolonging shelf life.

Yeah, I've encountered the same with banana transgenics. But that was never commercialised, and I haven't come across anything else that has gotten onto the market. But, it's a matter of time.

It's not true to say that early GM in bacteria was simple. Horizontal gene transfer of genes between bacteria is a natural phenomenon, so splicing bacterial genes in bacterial genomes is an easy process in vitro. However in the case of human insulin the human insulin gene (eukaryote) was spliced into an E.coli strain (prokaryote). This is not an easy process, since prokaryotic genomes lack the promoter sequences required by eukaryotic genes.

Sorry, that was badly written on my behalf. I was meaning bacterial GE was relatively simpler, when compared with modern efforts. It was still seen as being something like playing with lego, and while today we look back and see early efforts might have seemed like it, these days we see complicated cascade effects which make the game a little trickier.

Athon

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by athon:
That was my initial point (I hope we're not arguing the same thing from two different angles here...I hate that ). GM can provide enormous benefits, but only when nasty surprises have been accounted for.

So how is GM intrinsically different from conventional breeding in this respect?

Conventional breeding requires two similar genomes to coordinate in the process of fertilisation to produce a viable zygote. You are not 'inserting' an entire genome into a sequence, but rather providing the required other half of a genome needed for a full 2n organism to exist. I think I know what you're saying, however. But I don't agree that there is a greater potential for unwanted effects, unless you account for an unexpected mutation (which has not been specifically induced, c.f. GE). But even then, this argument would be difficult to prove on either of our sides without ample evidence, which I don't think exists.

You haven't been reading my links! Go back to where I gave a link on the development of wheat. Plants do not obey the diploid (2n) rule. Plants can be triploid (3n) and tetraploid (4n). The development of modern bread wheat involved an increase of ploidy, that is the acquisition of an entire genome.

Sorry, that was badly written on my behalf. I was meaning bacterial GE was relatively simpler, when compared with modern efforts. It was still seen as being something like playing with lego, and while today we look back and see early efforts might have seemed like it, these days we see complicated cascade effects which make the game a little trickier.

Transforming eukaryotic plant genomes with eukaryotic genes is a lot simpler than transforming eukaryotic genes into prokaryotic genes.

[Eos of the Eons]

One point of the anti-GMO crowd that hasn't been mentioned is laws which allow GMO foods to be sold without labelling referring to their modifications. If one were allergic to fish, then knowing that salmon genes were transferred to a tomato would be useful information. I understand that the chance of this specific transferred DNA creating proteins that would trigger allergic reactions is very, very small, but it is not zero.

I haven't seen this addressed much.

You have to look at what the gene codes for. If the gene makes the skin tougher with fish dna, then there is no chance whatsoever that a person who is allergic to fish has to worry about. It is now a tomato gene expressed in a tomato with all the tomato properties.

Knowing a fish gene is now in a tomato would hopefully show how it doesn't affect people who are allergic to fish when they eat it.
But we all know there will be people who will be scared. Unduly.

Look at it this way. Say they put a cat gene in a dog to make the dog's fur the color the cat's was.

I would have no qualms touching the dog even though I'm allergic to cats. It is dog fur still, grown by a dog.

That sequence of genes is now the dog's sequence of genes. All genes are the same whether you are a bacterium or a tree or a slug, or a bug, or a blade of grass, or a human.

Adding one little trait to something else is not enough of a change to make it so much like the dna donor that a person will react to it they way they do to the donor.

A half dog, half cat I would be worried about. You can't do that though, unless you have all the time in the world to change that many genes manually and still make it work to make a whole dog/cat.

[Eos of the Eons]

This is not an easy process, since prokaryotic genomes lack the promoter sequences required by eukaryotic genes.


I don't think most people have a clue how complex genetics is. This is one example. Who the heck is going to know what a "promoter sequence is?"

Suffice it to say that the GM scientists actually are extremely educated and really do know what they are doing.

[athon]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Transforming eukaryotic plant genomes with eukaryotic genes is a lot simpler than transforming eukaryotic genes into prokaryotic genes.

Sorry, just one interesting point I thought of while reading this.

You're obviously somebody who works in the field of GE (or at least something that involves molecular biology) now, right? And you're seeing it as a rather straight-forward science where most interactions can be foreseen in spite of the fact that recent advances have, if anything, shown us that the field is much more complicated than we used to think.

Myself, I was in the field about seven years ago, when there was an air of 'the concept is simple enough'. We knew about non-coding sequences, and suspected how they worked, but had little grasp of just how far-reaching many of the interactions went.

It seems a little ironic that I'm arguing that we should tread lightly, and you're suggesting the games of GE has always been played, so we have less to worry about than everybody makes out.

Anyway, I did read your links on plant genome exchange (sorry -- I didn't have time earlier, and should have said as such. Come teach a few of my classes -- that should free some time. haha), and I do see your point.

But I interpreted it differently to you. If an entire genome is accepted, there is an increased chance that the organism will not function due to incompatiblities (more genes that can negate effects etc.). That's why it is so rare in nature. Just inserting one gene will increase the chance the organism could still remain viable, but there is also the increased chance that it will create effects in areas separate from is anticipated, whilst still enabling the organism to survive.

I'm still strong in my belief that we should remain aware that genetics is a complicated field. And when the genie is out of the bottle, breeding in the fields, it's too late after a few years to say 'Hell, we didn't expect the genie to do that'.

Athon

[The Don]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
A half dog, half cat I would be worried about. You can't do that though, unless you have all the time in the world to change that many genes manually and still make it work to make a whole dog/cat.
I believe the correct term for such an animal is actually a CatDog (http://www.nickelodeon.com.au/toonroom/xtoonroomcat.htm)

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by athon:
You're obviously somebody who works in the field of GE (or at least something that involves molecular biology) now, right? And you're seeing it as a rather straight-forward science where most interactions can be foreseen in spite of the fact that recent advances have, if anything, shown us that the field is much more complicated than we used to think.

You're in danger of erecting an unintended strawman. I agree with everything you say, but I don't see how it's pertinent to GM, but somehow irrelevant to conventional breeding.

But I interpreted it differently to you. If an entire genome is accepted, there is an increased chance that the organism will not function due to incompatiblities (more genes that can negate effects etc.). That's why it is so rare in nature.

It appears to be a fairly common occurence in plants, nor does an increase in ploidy seem to have any effect on plant vigour. Bread wheat has lasted the course fairly well.

Just inserting one gene will increase the chance the organism could still remain viable, but there is also the increased chance that it will create effects in areas separate from is anticipated, whilst still enabling the organism to survive.

Allow me to summarise your argument If I may. You appear to be arguing that the process of transforming a genome with a novel gene would disrupt the genetic sequence of said genome, possibly having far reaching effects. My point is that recombination already occurs as part of the normal cell cycle at meiosis. The potential for genomic disruption is ever present, and indeed cancer is one of the most visible results of that.

I'm still strong in my belief that we should remain aware that genetics is a complicated field. And when the genie is out of the bottle, breeding in the fields, it's too late after a few years to say 'Hell, we didn't expect the genie to do that'.

In which case it's misguided to focus solely on GM. Conventional breeding is governed by the same complicated field of genetics. A link I provided earlier pointed out that if the regulations governing GM were applied to conventional food, quite a lot of what we regularly eat would be deemed unfit for huma consumption. Don't worry, the genie is under very close scrutiny.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by The Don

I believe the correct term for such an animal is actually a CatDog (http://www.nickelodeon.com.au/toonroom/xtoonroomcat.htm)


:D I've always wondered how they get rid of their waste products? I don't see any type of anus or anything!