Rice Genome Mapped 102
rampant_gerbil writes: "Apparently a company called Syngenta has sequenced the entire genome of the rice plant. Here is a link to the corporate press release. As the story points out, "Rice is the model for the other grasses, including corn and wheat," so this sounds like quite a milestone.
Now if only they would engineer some nacho cheese flavor into those rice cakes..."
Re:What about the vegies (Score:3)
I think microbial rennet is considered vegetarian, despite being an enzyme of animal origin. I know that cheese made with can be labeled kosher.
spanked with clue stick (Score:2)
Masses _already_ feed themselves. That is why they are masses. The thing to be careful of is that you don't introduce new more efficient forms of, say, rice- that require a well to be drilled, that require fertilizer and herbicides and the whole agribusiness infrastructure of the _American_ industrial farming system.
And these GE variations on rice DO require these things.
Just because masses in the third world subsist feeding themselves on indigenous crops does not mean they can afford to buy five pounds of Monsanto herbicide and drill a well to water the hungrier crops. The evidence is, you tell the farmers very persuasively that they will have 100X the rice, they buy into it, are given the rice to start off with, can't afford to maintain an industrial farm, go several lakhs in debt and die.
The idea that this is a good or benevolent thing is, to say the least, curious.
Put it this way: I daresay a lot of intelligent, educated, professional slashdotters are continually on their guard, aware of the various instances in which vast companies try to outwit them and put them in a dependent position- whether that's with software APIs, license agreements, terms of service for services, whatever. Most slashdotters are probably aware that it is necessary to be at least mildly vigilant, or you get hosed and other slashdotters laugh at you and call you a sucker.
What justification is there for requiring poor subsistence farmers in India and other countries to be comparably well educated, wary, and informed on agricultural technology? What justification is there for expecting _them_ to 'know better'?
And again, masses feed themselves. That is _why_ they are masses. Places like Somalia become hells of starvation for _political_ reasons, such as freemarket gangs with guns seizing all the food. These are not agricultural problems...
Re:But... Monsanto gave away the rice genome (Score:3)
Seems this wonderful technology is causing farmers to go bankrupt, commit suicide, sell off their kidneys to survive, not to mention the idea is to make a Wonderful Perfect Monoculture. Can we say 'incredibly, criminally stupid'? I would love to think that people can learn to associate focus-group tested spiffy names like 'golden rice' with the reality that this is a straight-out power grab that will _wreck_ large portions of the world, sabotage their economies and make them slaves to Monsanto, the 'benevolent provider' of the wonderful 'golden rice'. Read the article, "assistance" means video trucks sent into villages to convince farmers to switch over wholesale to the new crop- first one's free kid! and this spells the death of the farmer. Read the article!
I'm sorry, in many ways I think this is more genuinely evil than anything that (for instance) Microsoft has done. MS tries to leech off rich yuppies and control what you think and how you communicate. Monsanto is _killing_ poor farmers by conning and lying to them.
Now moderate me down, because I chose not to 'moderate' my opinion this time and say 'but gee, I'm sure they're all good people'. There's a limit.
Re:They're forgetting something (Score:4)
It's hardly hypothetical. Loads of farmers in places like India have gone from being subsistence-level (not 'hungry', just 'poor') to being bankrupt with a pile of fancy seed and unable to make the payments on the infrastructure. At first they tended to commit suicide but apparently selling off kidneys has become a more popular option, at least to start with- death is probably still the end result.
It's not the food, not at all- it's the freaking process! You can't convert subsistence farmers to USA-style agribusiness. They can't afford crop dusters...
riceboys (Score:1)
maybe now we can find out what is wrong with those guys that put coffee can exaust pipes, big spoilers and yellows stickers on thier honda civics and think they can beat a mustang
Re:They're forgetting something (Score:1)
Apparently you do have something against christians...you called them stupid.
Actually, I think I agree with what he said. He said "...those stupid christians in office." To me, that means those stupid people who are christian and use it as an excuse for their views of things. Religion is a shitty choice of things to use to justify a view that otherwise might be considered a bit out there.
I am a christian and I have nothing against genetically modified rice or crops or whatever. I don't have a problem with artificial insemenation (sp?), in vitro fertilization, or genetically modified people (clones included). But one should be ready to face the consequences of such actions. A lot of christians believe that damnation is a consequence of some of this stuff. Seems like a pretty harsh consequence... if I knew an action of a friend was going to have some major consequences, I'd probably talk to them about it.
I personally find that the idea of eternal punishment for a finite infraction to be a very intolerant, and very sick idea. What justifies permenent suffering for limited fault? Perhaps murder, but I very much doubt that making a slightly different plant is a valid reason.
Doesn't monsanto or someone have modified corn and grain? I believe, and I could be way off here, that they just use it as livestock feed. But we are still ingesting this indirectly.
AFAIK, their modified corn & grains are eaten by humans, directly.
The thing about genetic engineering is that what is done is that the genes that decide what proteins that a organism produces are changed. It's not that the DNA of the plant (or animal, etc) is ingested in a way that it is incorperated into the DNA of that which eats it.
Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Re:They're forgetting something (Score:1)
I thought not.
grasses eh? (Score:3)
ahhh, the wonders of modern science
I see 2 bad things about this... (Score:1)
Also, there is talk about making seeds that are only good once. So farmers have to buy seeds each planting season. Poor countries would be indebt forever.
Well, we just have to wait and see.
-Brook Harty
--
It's kind of fun to do the impossible. -Walt Disney
most anti-open source effort so far (Score:2)
results to public databases as all previous
sequencings have done, include the human.
They will make small piece availabe to academic
investigators who request. However, it can be
had to knwo what you want.
Re:What about the vegies (Score:1)
Interesting and Informative post, BTW.
Re:They're forgetting something (Score:1)
And people are getting desperate enough to farm out organs when their land's no longer profitable.
here's what we in the big fancy internet world call "search engine results" :
wow [google.com]! it's like a miracle.
Re:... to solve the world's food shortages? (Score:1)
Look, your fears seem real, but they are based on precautionary demagougery. To wit, do you imagine we fully understand chemistry? And do you acknowledge the potential for some VERY nasty compounds, yes? But just because the potential exists to cause massive harm, doesn't mean we shouldn't learn. And the ONLY WAY to learn about these matters, is to DO.
What precautions that are reasonable and prudent, are being taken. Nothing more can be done, until we know more. And the only way to know more, is to do. If we KNEW what precautions to take, we wouldn't have to do the work, would we?
But this nonsense of a "chain reaction".. please.. More detail.
Re:What's LOOM? (Score:1)
That's a reference to the "Monkey Island" adventure game from Lucasarts. They had an adventure game before that called "Loom", and in "Monkey Island" one of the pirates wears a pin that says, "Ask me about Loom".
Re:They're forgetting something (Score:1)
They have been smoking geneticlly engineered crap for a long time and they smoke more than americans.
So... (Score:1)
Re:What about the vegies (Score:1)
Now I know that there are all sorts of secondary, tertiary & so on, food (and other) products, which didn't directly require an animal to die on my behalf, but that's not the point of my post here. If genetic engineering puts a flavor in a plant product, that happens to be just like the flavor of a meat product, you still have to consider that you're only eating a plant that grew out of the ground, not an animal.
Scribes out of work (Score:3)
I'd still be impressed to see someone engrave the entire rice genome onto a single grain of rice. Long-grain will be accepted.
Personalized rice (Score:1)
Re:They're forgetting something (Score:1)
I seriously doubt, if a more abundant and hardy breed of rice is created to feed the world's hungry, that many third world inhabitants are going to turn down food on the basis that it's "unnatural".
I seriously doubt, if an expensive patented gene technology will ever find its way into the stomachs of the world's hungry. Or was this an open-source project?
/.'s slump (Score:2)
Eh? Must be a slow day at slashdot. Rice Genome. Good grief.
Re:Mod this up to 5!!! (Score:1)
Re:other way around (Score:1)
--Scott
Re:They're forgetting something (Score:1)
I am a christian and I have nothing against genetically modified rice or crops or whatever. I don't have a problem with artificial insemenation (sp?), in vitro fertilization, or genetically modified people (clones included). But one should be ready to face the consequences of such actions. A lot of christians believe that damnation is a consequence of some of this stuff. Seems like a pretty harsh consequence... if I knew an action of a friend was going to have some major consequences, I'd probably talk to them about it.
Right now I don't have a clue what the consequences of eating genetically modified rice are, so I can't be ready to face them. And as for modifying people...I'd probably avoid that one too. Probably. If I knew that my kid had some kind of disease that could be 'cured' with genetic modification, well, maybe I would do that.
Doesn't monsanto or someone have modified corn and grain? I believe, and I could be way off here, that they just use it as livestock feed. But we are still ingesting this indirectly.
Re:They're forgetting something (Score:1)
Dorking around with corn and grain or whatever could have the same affect.
I'm not going to harp on religion much here, but come on: "Religion is a shitty choice of things to use to justify a view that otherwise might be considered a bit out there." Please.
Re:They're forgetting something (Score:1)
Oh please. Knock this crap off. You just might get taken a little more seriously if you tried using reason instead of emotion to make your points.
The only alternative to being a farmer is suicide or selling off your own body parts? I'm not a farmer, but I have a specific job, and if for some reason I couldn't do that job (even if it was because of some Evil Greedy Corporation) I wouldn't say "Damn. What a gyp. Now I have to sell my kidney."
Re:UNCLE BEN (Score:1)
Another guy who argues with emotion instead of reason. Would you still be against abortion if it happened in some more pleasant manner? I don't think you would. And if not, then you shouldn't be using this as your argument, because it has nothing to do with your stance.
Re:UNCLE BEN (Score:1)
Re:most anti-open source effort so far (Score:1)
I know what I want. I want you to not post using all bold.
Re:... to solve the world's food shortages? (Score:1)
Another good reason for colonizing other planets. Experiment all you like. As long as you don't develop rice that can build a spaceship and conquer Earth, you should be OK.
Re:... to solve the world's food shortages? (Score:1)
Do not be alarmed, Huma...uh, Buddy. We^H^H They don't exist. No insects have mutated in sentient beings poised to take over the world as soon as you drop your.... I mean as soon as We drop Our guard. Really. Take it from me. Honest. Here, have some rice.
Background on Syngenta and their Work (Score:1)
I doubt anyone (or very few) have heard of Syngenta, but I worked for their former named company so here's the scoop.
They were just incorporated on Jan 1, 2001, as the result of the merger of 2 Novartis divisions and Zeneca. Novartis/Sengenta is an agriculture company (not really biochem) that specialize in herbicides and seed treatments for farmers.
I'm wondering if this is a workup towards a "resistance gene", like the one that Monsanto inserted into a strain of corn to resist their Roundup herbicide.
Novartis has dozens of herbicide products covering everything from wheat, corn, fruits and vegetables, turf, and flowers. All those plants and all those products make for some funky gene splicing.
Why? (Score:1)
GNU for Biology? (Score:3)
I would much rather see something like this placed in the public domain, or better yet until a GNU-type license! Which brings me to the point of this: Is there anything like the GNU license for biological products?
Re:They're forgetting something (Score:2)
It's rather like the case of drug side-effects, except for the fact that, once you let a GM plant 'into the wild' it's almost impossible to recall it. By the time you find out that a plant is really bad to have in existence in the wild, the seeds and pollen could be far beyond the fields they're planted in.
The CBC has an in-depth report [tv.cbc.ca] about a lawsuit stemming from the problem of rogue seeds. (These plants, thankfully, don't seem to be malignant.)
`ø,,ø!
Re:GNU for Biology? (Score:2)
Companies are in gold-rush mode, right now, rushing to be the first to reach (and patent) various benchmarks in the research process. The long-term fear, however, is that -- once that is done, the more specific (and useful) research in those areas is going to be effectively choked off as only one company has any incentive to do any research in that area.
For us consumers, the apparent result is feared to be slower practical research with the results being far more expensive than they need to be because nobody else is likely to be doing any research in that same general field, and university researchers have to pay royalties/sign non-disclosure agreements to even do basic research.
`ø,,ø!
Re:GNU for Biology? (counter-example) (Score:3)
The apparent purpose of the lawsuit is to create a chilling atmosphere for other people so that they'll be afraid of using a seed if they even think that it could be one they claim ownership of. (up to this point, they've been relying on contracts with farmers that restrict them from using monsanto seeds without paying a fee. Unfortunately seeds don't know anything about contracts (the farmer in this case has not signed any sort of contract with the company.
The extreme case for this sort of lawsuit would be where a company claims 'ownership' of a human genetic mod. Can you imagine the idea of a company claiming royalties for your children?
`ø,,ø!
The dangers of sequencing chinese food:- (Score:2)
Rich
Re:grasses eh? (Score:3)
Mod this up to 5!!! (Score:1)
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
Domain Names for $13
Re:They're forgetting something (Score:1)
You dont think its got anything to do with money, does it?
Re:GNU for Biology? (Score:2)
Granted companies should be able to patent things to recoup money, that's what the patent system was created for. However, you are entering far different territory than steam engines or computer parts when you allow companies or individuals to declare they have sole rights to a sequence of amino acids. I'm not advocating eliminating the patent system as a whole, just the biotech aspect of it, something which didn't exist when the USPO was created. I would replace it with government funding; allow the citizenry, through their tax dollars, to fund biotech research. Yes, that's already done, but nothing says it can't be increased. I wouldn't want to see things such as gene therapy become so expensive that most people can't afford them if they need them. To see where it can head, just look at the pharmaceutical industry; companies "recoup" their research costs simply by charging outrageous prices for their products, which consumers have little choice in paying. They often need these drugs to survive, but the patent means no competition, so the companies can basically price them however they want.
As for the explosion of scientific advances that we've made over the last century, I think just as much (or more) is owed to several factors beyond company greed. One is the snowball effect; certain discoveries beget other discoveries, like quantum physics influencing everything from the evolution of computers to quantum chemistry. Another is the nature of the scientific professions themselves, which connects an individuals prestige, financial, and professional success to their scientific work.
--
Re:GNU for Biology? (Score:5)
--
New rice product! (Score:2)
Just announced. Tastes just like steak (lobster flavor out soon), contains all the required vitamins and minerals. Only 2 calories.
5 cents per pound.
Re:GNU for Biology? (Score:1)
I guess you could apply for a patent that 1+1=2 and sue people for using that truth.
--
Re:GNU for Biology? (Score:1)
The theory behind the algorithm is complicated but the actual implementation is *extremely* simple. It's just basic modular algebra on large numbers.
If I developed a proof, using public funds, that a(b + c) = ab + ac, should I disallow others (who have indirectly paid for its development) from freely using it?
--
oh boy (Score:2)
One question remains: (Score:1)
... to solve the world's food shortages? (Score:1)
or glow-in-the-dark rice. that would rule.
Re:Other genomes mapped recently include... (Score:1)
off-topicish, but id disagree. e.coli is used extensively for genetic research. inserting dna into e.coli's bacteria allows for much of the genetic research in vitro today. splicing vectors in and out allows you to research what genes in humans, and other animals, are responsible for production of certain proteins, etc.
being familiar with its genome would only serve to strengthen such research.
Re:GNU for Biology? (Score:1)
Re:MMMmm... (Score:1)
E.
www.randomdrivel.com [randomdrivel.com] -- All that is NOT fit to link to
Re:grasses eh? (Score:2)
If it manages to propagate quickly enough, it provides a perfect workaround for all those pesky laws about schedule 1 narcotics. Let's see the guvmint try to outlaw lawns. Nobody would have to mow their lawns anymore, either. All the stoners would be doing it for free.
As for making stealth weed, you'd first need to know exactly what chemicals the tests look for, then try to find some chemical that will still have the same psychoactive effect but won't be detected. Trouble is, the tests would probably change to look for the new chemicals in a few months.
Re:Genetically modified anything is... (Score:3)
> Charging people money for something that could potentially solve a world problem should be criminal.
By that logic, every farmer who has ever sold a bushel of corn or wheat should be in prison.
If you want to go and spend a couple million dollars on gene sequencing equipment, pay a few dozen scientists living wages for a year or two, and not ask for any money in return, go ahead. Really. The world can only benefit from it. Maybe we should start a non-profit organization to promote public domain genetic research. But if you don't have several million dollars to blow, then you're gonna want some return on that investment.
Many recent patents on biotech, genetics, and technology in general are absurd at best. That doesn't mean the whole idea of making a profit from investment and hard work (yes, some of the people involved actually put forth a hell of a lot of effort) is fundamentally evil. Outright exploitation, as we see so often today, is definitely evil.
Our patent system is fucked up in a big way, and some people exploit that to eliminate anything that might keep money away from them. But just because a company tries to make money from doing genetic research doesn't make them evil. Just because a company files a patent doesn't make them evil. Exploiting already impoverished people would make them evil. Restricting scientific research would make them evil. So far, I don't see the company in question doing either one of those. Until they do start exploiting people, or using the patent office to stifle science, or anything else generally shitty, I won't get too angty at them.
Still quite ignorant (Score:2)
Since I've commented on this before, all I will say in passing is that I take it to be the equivalent to having successfully transcribed the alien equivalent of the dead sea scrolls. Now they got to figure out the language and find out what it is saying.
I suspect that, like all good code, the educational part will be in the comments.
A similar situation was the speculation about Egypt before the rosetta stone. The fantastic phantasies that were spun are incredible. And it turned out to be very different from what they imagined. So the scientists have a big job ahead of themselves.
as a side note, I do not think that they should be able to patent anything from that gene sequence until they can explain in full detail what each encoding means and how it encodes what it does.
Re:What about the vegies (Score:1)
-----------------
It's not really funny, unless someone doesn't get it
A Model? (Score:1)
Re:GNU for Biology? (Score:1)
Re:Why? (Score:1)
A couple things, I'd say, they would look at doing:
- Disease resistance (for obvious reasons)
- Can be grown in less/salt water, as a lot of water is needed to grow rice.
ugh (Score:3)
NEWS: cloning, genome, privacy, surveillance, and more! [silicongod.com]
An Interesting Development (Score:2)
Now with a company claiming to have mapped the genome of rice, will they try to restrict use of genetic modification to those who pay royalties for use of "their" genome? Before you pass judement on this line of thought, you may want to consider the fact Potrykus wants to provide his rice at cost or lower to ensure the people who need it are able to afford it. In today's cutthroat legal world, I doubt a company (or more specifically their lawyers) would idly stand by and watch someone give away something they could sell for profit.
For more information, see this article in Time [time.com].
Re:GNU for Biology? (Score:1)
__________________________________
all misspellings were intentional.
UNCLE BEN (Score:1)
Apologies: drunk
Re:UNCLE BEN (Score:1)
What about the vegies (Score:3)
-------
Drink Coffee - Do Stupid Things Faster And With More Energy!
Re:What about the vegies (Score:1)
This method has already been used to circumvent the US export regulations and create the international version of PGP.
Re:You know what I hate about Slashdot? Read on.. (Score:1)
Don't f... with mother nature. (Score:1)
Sure it's neat to just remove a few unwanted features or maybe add a few. But who can predict what small changes will have in 20 years. And then it might be to late because the original has been lost in time. Has happened before with animals where they now try to breed it back to the "original version."
Does all the mean that we wil have people coming out in their little ships chaining themself to the next big shipment of rice. And if they do, will anyone care, I think not. Personally I'd rather be watching TV.
--------
Re:GNU for Biology? (Score:1)
Re:UNCLE BEN (Score:1)
Re:... to solve the world's food shortages? (Score:1)
Please guys..._don't_ mess around with things before you _really_ understand them.
Re:... to solve the world's food shortages? (Score:1)
But we should _at least_ try to find out how large the risks are. When building the atom bomb people knew that this will be a powerful weapon, able to rub out a whole continent. But at that time they new how the atom worked and they were pretty sure that the bomb would not lead to serious side effects which they did not know about before.
That's not the case with genetics. We don't know much about how genes _work_. Changing a few might lead to serious chain effects and we don not even know the probability for this to happen.
It's like knowing one line of code which initializes a variable to a specific value and changing it's type from long to short. You'll never know which side effects this will have to your _programm_.
Please don't get me wrong. I'm strongly science oriented and I'd be the last one who wants to halt science advancement. But that ones scares me a bit, so I guess it's really worth discussing it...
cheers
mike
Re:... to solve the world's food shortages? (Score:1)
But I pretend to know that it's quite easy to change ones dna just by eating the right pills. So let's get back to that rice example. Let's say we'll change a few genes of the rice dna to make it stronger. We do know that it will make it stronger, but we do not know what other side effects this will have. It might work one of the mentioned pills for an insect which eats the manipulated rice and might cause the insect to mutate. This does not have to be bad, maybe the insect will just change its behaviour and some birds who rely on these insects as a food source will not be able to find them anymore because they changed their behaviour. Well those birds will have to change too, or they will die out.
That's nothing really drastical, one would say that happens in evolution "every day", and I'll have to agree on that one.
But aren't similar types of genetic engineering used to develop dangerous bioviruses? Is the chance that the manipulated rice will cause some other life forms to change and in the end produce some hazard virus really that low?
I'd really love to get cleared up on this from anyone who did more work in this area than I did...
I HOPE not... (Score:1)
Oh yeah, that would be great. Especially for all of us out here who are geeks as a direct result of childhood irritable bowel syndrome and an inability to digest milk products.
Here's my story. Sixth grade...start getting the good ol' green apple quickstep really bad for no reason. By eighth grade I had no social life because I was afraid to go out with anyone I didn't know very well because of how embarassing it could be if I disappeared in to the bathroom for a good twenty minutes. It wasn't until ninth grade that I discovered that in actuality it never would have gotten that bad if it hadn't been for milk.
No, it doesn't sound bad. But look at it this way. Everything with the least amount of a milk product in it, even something like butter flavor (in Kellog's Rice Krispie Treats), or milk protein, or whey...and that means virtually everything prepared in a food chain restaurant or a factory...was causing me to have painful, embarassing diarrhea. And since I hadn't known what was causing it, and had no way of predicting when it would happen, I was constantly anxious about it; this anxiety increased tenfold when I was doing stuff with friends, or doing something public. Or, in class. Anxiety triggers irritable bowel syndrome. And irritable bowel syndrome triggers anxiety. So it got worse and worse until I finally went to see a gastroenterologist (and it turns out that no, it's not an allergy, just a bad reaction--a very bad one). Luckily, things have gotten better now that I'm a junior in high school, and I can have a social life. But still no milk. Stupid *explitive deleted* pizza... And never will I be able to lick whipped cream off of my lover.
Well, anyway. I imagine that if they were ever able to make rice milk flavored, many, many people would die before it was over, and there would be far fewer nerds sitting at home reading slashdot because they couldn't have a social life due to an undiscovered case of irritable bowel syndrome combined with a milk allergy.
Just my 8192 cents.
Aciel
aciel@speakeasy.net
Re:I HOPE not... (Score:1)
Aciel
aciel@speakeasy.net
Re:They're forgetting something (Score:3)
Of course, feeding the poor offers little financial gain, so they likely won't much care about the wishes of the penniless.
---
Re:UNCLE BEN (Score:1)
You want decent pro-choice arguments ? look here [elroy.net]
Re:GNU for Biology? (Score:1)
Re:Don't f... with mother nature. (Score:1)
Other genomes mapped recently include... (Score:1)
Cholera [core.org.au] (I assume mapping the genome is the same as decoding it ? I am not sure on this one)
I suppose we can just sit back as people decode anything within reach - Still I don't like it when we(humans) mess with the building blocks of life - I'm sure we'll stuff soemthing up.
--
Re:Other genomes mapped recently include... (Score:1)
I didn't mean to imply that research with the bacterium is bad. I concur (I wasn't aware that e.coli was used as a host for the gene vectors as you pointed out) it may be a very useful research tool. I was referring to the articles mention of the fact that e.coli "in the wild" often pics up bits of genetic material from it's host (which no doubt is related to what you mentioned) and hence makes it hard to identify & treat. Just a clarification of my point - I understand what you mean =)
--
Re:They're forgetting something (Score:1)
-The oh so nervis one
Re:GNU for Biology? (Score:1)
-The oh so nervis one
Re:What about the vegies (Score:2)
More of Cow, not enough of Gardenia
The Cow shaped animal will have no hair, but rather a thick leafy green skin rich in Iron and other nutrients. Near the end of this hybrid there will be a hole, known as an anus, which will periodically release a perfume like (but methanous) scent.
More of Gardenia, not enough of Cow:
The Really stalky looking plant will have a centralized circulation system. The flowers that bloom from this plant hybrid will smell somewhat, farmlike. During photosynthesis in this animal, rather than C02 being converted into 02, 02 will be converted to C02. Also, it is an urban legend that if you come up late at night with 2 or more people, you can tip these plants over if they are not paying attention.
that is your biology lesson of the morning.
Re:GNU for Biology? (Score:1)
I'm not saying that the Patent Office always makes great decisions about what patents to hand out. They could really use an audit of all of their policies to bring them in line with the fast-paced technology-centric world we live in today.
However, to say that those out there spending billions of dollars making scientific discoveries shouldn't be allowed to recoup some profit (which is what patent elimination would do) is a drastic position. Company greed to make a buck off discovering things has fueled the explosion of scientific advances that we've made over the last century.
It's easy to snipe at things that we don't like about our society, and criticism of practices will make us stronger if we figure out superior ways of doing things - but unless you're prepared to offer a better and complete system of commerce and government, maybe you should avoid proposing to dismantle capitalism and its required protections (patents, copyrights) just yet.
Re:But... Monsanto gave away the rice genome (Score:1)
Yikes, what an extraordinary piece of communist literature that is!
For anyone inclined to believe this statement:
Seems this wonderful technology is causing farmers to go bankrupt, commit suicide, sell off their kidneys to survive
I encourage you to follow the above link and read it. That level of hatred of capitalism and free markets thrives in this world, and it's scary. It's scary because the people with all that hatred exaggerate the extent of the problems and their causes. It's scary because the only solutions that these people offer are the dismantling of capitalism and free markets, and a dramatic shift toward communism.
Communism failed, people. Despite tremendous opportunities around the world, communism totally and utterly failed. Why oh why are people still making excuses for it and trying to sell it to us again in a new shiny box?
Risks of "Enhanced" GM Rice et al (Score:2)
We see any number of stories saying how wonderful it would be for rice and other plants to be enhanced using genetic modifications, but I wonder what might be the possible negative effects of proposed GM modifications:
There might be a net gain from creating GM plants for certain applications but I think publications writing about absolutely "wonderful" new GM plants should try hard to give a balanced discussion of risks as well as of benefits.
Re:Genetically modified anything is... (Score:1)
No, farmers sell corn to make a living, and most of them cannot even do that. The government pays a lot of farmers NOT TO farm becuase if there is too MUCH corn the market prices on it will drop! If you think i'm full of crap go do some research and you'll find some very interesting things.
I do not mind companies making money, if it sounded that way I apologize. My problem is companies patenting things they never made, DNA, they were just the first ones to sequence it. So what. Aspirin was never patented becuase it was Natural and by wording anything that comes from nature cannot be patented. Their claim is that the DNA is natural but the sequence of it had to be researched and therefore a patent can be made on the specific sequence, which does not make any sense.
I'm tired and rambling, but you do have a good point, I agree that making money from investment is good, just dont let money be the guiding factor in anything that can become potentially dangerous.
Lord Arathres
But... Monsanto gave away the rice genome (Score:3)
Re:GNU for Biology? (Score:1)
Re:You're a fucking idiot! (Score:1)
The problem in feeding the world isn't with growing enough food as much as it is with disributing the food we have efficiently; there's already enough food grown to feed the world over. Growing more food locally decreases the numbers of people that go hungry because local food is more easily distributed. If large scale distribution could be improved, perhaps a faster solution to this problem could be reached.
They're forgetting something (Score:2)
Vitamins and Jenny Craig (Score:1)
MMMmm... (Score:1)
Re:MMMmm... (Score:1)
"____: The only beer that is TRULY good for you"
Most vegetarians oppose GM foods, anyway (Score:1)
But there is no world food shortage! (Score:1)
I just thought I'd add that the countries with the most malnutrition, for the most part, have food production surpluses-- they grow more than enough food to feed their country, but which is more profitable to export to rich countries where people have several times more food than what they need.
Good for the environment, ok for you... (Score:1)
Well, assuming that most nations adopt a sane stance to genetically engineered food (like that's going to happen), then this would be a Good Thing. Rice is incredibly easy to grow and a large percentage of the world population is already accustomed to eating it.
How about a strand of rice high in all major vitamins and minerals? This would go a long way to help out with feeding the masses in third-world and so-called "body" nations.
--
Re:Sick of handjobs? (Score:1)
--
Just as an obvious observation... (Score:2)