Sequencing the Weed Genome 315
GNUman writes "Maybe soon we'll be able to genetically modify humans so that a specific action (e.g., tapping your nose, pinching your ear) triggers the release of THC directly from your own cells. From the Nature blog post: 'At last, the field of genomics has something to offer Cheech and Chong. DNA sequencing hit a new high last night with the midnight release of the Cannabis sativa genome. The raw sequence was posted on Amazon's EC2 public cloud computing service by a young company called Medicinal Genomics, which aims to explore the genomes of therapeutic plants.'"
Re:Now all we need is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes they are, because higher yield is a myth
Wrong [oregonstate.edu]. Wrong. [wustl.edu] Wrong [cornandsoybeandigest.com] I could dig up more from my bookmarks, but it's late here and you get the point. You might be thinking of the study titled 'Failure to Yield' [ucsusa.org] a study claiming that GMOs actually had lesser yield (although it was based on data showing an increase). Actually, yield gains in developed countries are relatively low, only like 3-5%. But that is because pesticides already pushed yields to the limit. If you replace pesticides with resistant GMOs, it isn't that much difference (but make no mistake there still is a difference). Where Bt GMOs really shine is in developing countries where they might not always have access to pesticides. There, the difference can be dramatic. And of course in the case of viral resistant GMOs or fungal resistant GMOs they can make the difference between an industry continuing to exist or disappearing (without GMOs there would be no Hawaiian papaya industry and I've read some very promising information about GMOs with anti-fungal proteins).
the plants are killing insects indiscriminately (see honeybees)
The cry proteins used in the Bt GMOs are actually very specific, much more so than the pesticides they replaced. Do you have any evidence (besides some anti-GMO nutter's rantings) that Bt plants are in any way responsible for CCD, which need I remind you occures even in countries where GM crops are banned?
Also, familiarize yourself with terminator gene
I've done genetic engineering before, so I'm already pretty familiar with that thanks. Terminator technology was developed to prevent unwanted gene transfer. You know, that thing the anti-GMO groups are always complaining about. ISo, a safeguard to prevent that would make them happy, right? Ha! These people are harder to please than anti-vaxxers. They just put a nasty spin on it and freaked out even more! In other words, damned if you do and damned if you don't.I know what you (the agricultural layman) must be thinking: how horrible to keep farmers from saving seed. But you miss something very important: no one really does that anyway (besides those growing heirloom crops, the smae people the terminator gene would protect). Back in the early 1900's pretty much every farmer realized that if you use hybrids, superior crops but whose seeds do not possess genetic uniformity (making them unsuitable for seed saving), you could get higher yields. The gain was so much that it justified the cost of buying new seed every year. So, ever since then, farmers bought their seed from seed companies. Almost a hundred years later, GMOs get the blame. Makes no sense, but that's the anti-GMO movement for you. As an aside, some people are working on GMOs with apomixis traits, meaning the seeds are basically clones and as such the hybrid vigor would be preserved thus eliminating the need for seed vendors. But anyway, the terminator trait, despite the ill will directed toward it, is more misunderstood than dangerous. Course you could say the same thing of every other GM crop.