Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech

FDA Closer To Approving Biotech Salmon 204

Posted by samzenpus
from the it's-what's-for-dinner dept.
An anonymous reader writes with a story about the possibility of genetically engineered salmon showing up on your table. "A controversial genetically engineered salmon has moved a step closer to the consumer's dining table after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Friday the fish didn't appear likely to pose a threat to the environment or to humans who eat it. AquAdvantage salmon eggs would produce fish with the potential to grow to market size in half the time of conventional salmon. If it gets a final go-ahead, it would be the first food from a transgenic animal - one whose genome has been altered - to be approved by the FDA."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FDA Closer To Approving Biotech Salmon

Comments Filter:
  • by sugarmotor (621907) on Monday December 24, 2012 @01:26PM (#42382711) Homepage

    "... didn't appear likely to pose a threat to the environment or to humans who eat it" --- what kind of standard is that?

    Then the article states "In a draft environmental assessment, the FDA affirmed earlier findings that the biotech salmon was not likely to be harmful. It said it would take comments from the public on its report for 60 days before making a final decision on approval."

    So first poke a bit here and there, find no problems. Then ask the public if they have an idea what could go wrong !!??

    • by jedidiah (1196) on Monday December 24, 2012 @01:32PM (#42382755) Homepage

      The very concept is just wrongful. It's already a species that doesn't do well farmed. You end up with an inferior product. Taking that a step further and introducing genetic meddling just seems silly.

      Compound one bit of stupidity with another...

      What happens when the patented fish contaminates the wild stock? Will fishermen be subject to the Monsanto effect? Will fishermen need a patent license to fish? Will fish farmers be stuck not able to breed their own fish?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by crmarvin42 (652893)
        FUD
        • by ne0n (884282)
          There's damned good reason for fear, uncertainty and doubt in this case. Precedent set by Monsanto should be a clear warning that these things cannot possibly go as planned. I just hope the FDA gets eaten by a resurrected pack of gender-switching velociraptors before this travesty can grow legs.
        • FUD my ass. FUD is typically propagated by some political or corporate entity to undermine an opposing idealogy or business. In this case, I fail to see any political or business entity that would oppose such a move. I think you might be better off calling us naysayers luddites or technophobes or something. FUD is a tool of enfranchised groups. E.g, people who can genetically engineer fish.
        • by guspasho (941623)

          So every time someone points out why an idea is bad, it's FUD?

          The article states the FDA can't find anything harmful about the fish. We can very easily think of something harmful. Monsanto-like licensing restrictions and lawsuits when the GM fish eventually enters the general population will be very harmful.

          • It is not the FDA's bailiwick to consider the legal framework under which these fish might be marketed. They can only comment and decide based on the biology. Therefore, it IS FUD, since the only concerns raised relate to policy outside of their preview or their control.

            Furthermore, despite all of the hand-wringing by /. and others not directly connected to large scale agriculture, farmers have the choice of which seed to buy every year. They consistently vote with their wallets FOR Monsanto's seeds. Th
        • I volunteered to said company to consume their product for a year to prove is safe. I'm not scared. Here is their quick response!! Thank you for your email. It is refreshing to receive positive and encouraging emails from people like you (who clearly understand that our salmon is safe to eat; we (in the company) have been eating it for years), rather than the insane rants from the clueless people who do not realize that they have been eating genetically modified food (plants) for the past 15 years, and th
      • by Fastolfe (1470)

        The very concept is just wrongful. It's already a species that doesn't do well farmed. You end up with an inferior product.

        What do you mean by "inferior"? Even assuming that the resulting salmon will be less tasty than the unfarmed, wild salmon, if the modified salmon is considerably cheaper, then people may still find that it's a better value. If the product is truly inferior and not worth the price, it will fail on the market and the problem will be solved that way.

      • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Monday December 24, 2012 @02:46PM (#42383281)

        Caught salmon is expensive, and fish stocks are already in a state of near-crisis. If the choice is between inferior salmon or no salmon at all, make do.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by PopeRatzo (965947)

        The very concept is just wrongful.

        Even assuming that the biotech livestock is not harmful (or, in the language of this "research", "is not likely to be harmful" - and there's a fucking standard: "not likely to be harmful" based upon the fact that we're trying to promote this business and not upon the fact that we have determined that it's safe to eat), even if it's not harmful, creating proprietary animals is a fucking horrible idea.

        Let's assume that there are no health risks (which I'm not prepared to ass

        • mod parent up. if people want to do genetic experiments, let them experiment on themselves, not us salmon-eaters.

          Reminds me of a story by the way. A girl I met claimed that she met Jimmy Page and Robert Plant in a bar in Cambridge, MA ("Shay's) and, doubting that she even knew who they were, I told her I didn't believe her. I said, "how did you know it was them?" and she related the following conversation:

          Girl: OMG! Jimmy Page and Robert Plant?? What are you guys doing here?
          Robert Plant: Would yo
        • what fucking good can come from patented (or copyrighted?) organisms?

          This. [acnursery.com] That is Snowsweet, my all time favorite apple. I would choose it over any other variety. Notice the royalty fee and patent? It is a patented organism. It was produced by the same people who developed Honey Crisp, which was also patented (was, the patent has expired). It was produced after Honey Crisp, using the royalties form the Honey Crisp patent. I doubt my favorite apple would exist without patents. What good does patented food do? It generates income for the people who make food better,

          • by PopeRatzo (965947)

            That is Snowsweet, my all time favorite apple.

            So, you're saying that the only way to get good apples is by letting corporations own their genetic code?

            So I guess there has never been a good apple before.

      • Given the fact that it causes vastly accelerated growth, I can't wait to hear about epidemics of pituitary problems, gigantism, and diabetes that follow in human species years after this fish appears in supermarkets. Or perhaps the fish cause havoc to related ecosystems when *one single female fish becomes fertile* and starts to have fertile offspring. This is a fucking piss-poor idea. What the hell is wrong with ordinary fish?
      • When is the correct term, because it will happen, soon more likely than later. Practice has proven that all genetically modified species we have created for human consumption, have moved into the wild and started breeding there. No exceptions. What happens to the wild population, what happens to the species that prey upon salmon, what happens to the rest of the eco system? If those things aren't thoroughly researched, I'd say don't approve (yet). Lets have wildlife conservationists pick a renown research fa
      • by rickb928 (945187)

        Farmed salmon have already contaminated wild stock in the Northeast. the battle is lost. I and every fisherman I know have caught their last Atlantic Salmon in America, and soon Canada will also end sport fishing, I fear.

    • by meerling (1487879) on Monday December 24, 2012 @01:47PM (#42382903)
      It's pretty much the only scientific standard available for food. Nothing is absolute, including your existence, and science recognizes that. Additionally, 'food safety' is a pretty nebulous thing once you've excluded all known toxins. Well, those fish aren't toxic, and the tests haven't found anything else more dangerous than any other salmon. As to long term effect, well, we don't really have long term effects on human consumption of any salmon other than anecdotal stuff, and on the level we interact with the salmon, it's the same as other salmon. If I gave you 10 salmon steaks and one was from a genetically modified salmon, you couldn't tell which one it was. (That's if they were raised in the same environment on the same food. Different water temps and foods can change the texture and taste of salmon, but that's environment, not genetics.)

      As a side note, I like mentioning corn. Do you really think our corn is 'natural'? Have you seen corn from a thousand years ago? I have, it looks like wheat. What we call corn now is a fast growing freakishly huge form that was created by the form of genetic manipulation techniques known as hybridization and selective breeding.

      If you're afraid of eating something just because it's genetics have been changed, you had better stop eating commercial food because pretty much everything we grow and raise has been genetically modified. It's just those were done by slower and less accurate means in the past. It was a method that has even more unintended alterations than genetic engineering and also has to be repeated many many times in an attempt to target the specific change desired while attempting to weed out some of the unintended ones that were introduced at the same time. If you don't believe me, that's fine, go look up breeding and hybridization, you'll find haphazard and unregulated it actually is.
      Now if you have a problem with something specific, like a pesticide being produced by the crop, then you might have something worth looking into. Of course, does it express in the part we eat? How do the quantities compare to 'normal' food we buy? (They get pesticide too, and in larger quantities. How much is still there after you take the food home and have washed it?) Of course, if you are just afraid because something is a 'frankenfood', your fears are baseless and I have to wonder if you enjoyed dying in your zombie apocalypse a few days ago?

      Sorry about my post being a bit disorganized and rushed, I have to hurry up and get some last minute stuff done that just came up. Have fun, and don't have a staring contest with your food, even if the food started it. :)
      • There's a difference between "doesn't appear likely to" and "appears likely not to". There is a whole spectrum of grades of certainty / uncertainty. The one chosen here looks pretty low.

      • by PRMan (959735)
        There's a big difference between people selecting for genes that naturally occur in corn and people manipulating the DNA strands using deep-sea fish DNA to make the corn resistant to frost. I trust that the first can be done without much harm, but the second is cause for alarm, as you could have the corn creating chemicals corn never created before as a byproduct. I am happy to see the FDA involved with the salmon and for some decently rigorous testing to have gone on.
        • by climb_no_fear (572210) on Monday December 24, 2012 @06:31PM (#42384535)
          Actually, natural plants often have higher levels of toxins than cultivated ones but you can easily select for nasty genes with genetic engineering. Nature's chemicals and synthetic chemicals: Comparative toxicology* [nih.gov]

          Two examples from the paper:

          A new potato cultivar had to be withdrawn from the market because of its acute toxicity to humans-a consequence of higher levels of two natural toxins, solanine and chaconine.

          Also cassava root, a major food crop in Africa and South America, is quite resistant to pests and disease; however,it contains cyanide at such high levels that only a laborious process of washing, grinding, fermenting, and heating can make it edible.
          • Sorry, it's late here, I meant "you can easily select WITHOUT genetic engineering"
          • by nbauman (624611)

            A new potato cultivar had to be withdrawn from the market because of its acute toxicity to humans-a consequence of higher levels of two natural toxins, solanine and chaconine.

            My favorite. The killer potato.

      • by adolf (21054)

        As a side note, I like mentioning corn. Do you really think our corn is 'natural'? Have you seen corn from a thousand years ago? I have, it looks like wheat. What we call corn now is a fast growing freakishly huge form that was created by the form of genetic manipulation techniques known as hybridization and selective breeding.

        I like mentioning domestic cows, chickens, and pigs: All of these have been selectively bred in order to produce more of whatever they're producing, and none of them have a whole lot

        • by hibiki_r (649814)

          Most of the things you eat have their DNA fiddled with, in many ways that occur in nature. Heck, chances are you have different DNA in different parts of you, because mitosis doesn't get a perfect result all the time. We also do hybridization across species using natural means: Just look at the fruit industry.

          So, the issue then becomes if the cross-species genetic manipulations are done by sticking a branch of a tree into another, or by letting maize seeds spend time in contact with a slightly manipulated a

      • The difference is thousand years of testing and a few days of testing.

        • That worked great for people with Celiacs. Or people who drink sassafras. [wikipedia.org] Or the Lenape potato. There is a difference between rigorous testing and long term anecdotes. Unless you have reason to believe there is a danger, you're just setting up an unreachable moving goalpost.

      • by guspasho (941623)

        I don't have a problem with GM, it's the corporate licensing restriction and the threat that poses to our food supply and our freedom to manage it ourselves, a la Monsanto lawsuits against farmers whose crops were contaminated with their licensed GM.

    • by fikx (704101)
      that is the same standard used for "regular" salmon, so best we got...
    • With absolutely no idea what the long-term health effects are going to be from human consumption of a modified genetic animal, they're just going to say go for it?? Given that they can't even reliably certify birth control pills... I'm wondering how they could possibly allow for such a significant change to take place. This is the sort of thing you can never take back...

      And given how we're now finding out the honey bee collapse syndrome is a direct result of the Monsanto creations... how can we be cert
      • With absolutely no idea what the long-term health effects are going to be from human consumption of a modified genetic animal,

        Appeal to ignorance. We have no reason to suspect long term harm, and you can claim unknown unknowns about anything. Can you prove that eating triploid seedless watermelons won't kill us all in a few decades? I can't. But I have no reason to suspect that is the case, so my inability to prove a negative won't stop me from eating them.

        And given how we're now finding out the honey bee collapse syndrome is a direct result of the Monsanto creations

        You do realize that CCD is happening even in areas with GE crops, yes? Last I heard the most likely culprit was neonicotinoids and overly stressed hives, possibly with t

  • by bogaboga (793279) on Monday December 24, 2012 @01:28PM (#42382731)

    after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said Friday the fish didn't appear likely to pose a threat to the environment or to humans who eat it.

    ...the fish didn't appear likely to pose a threat ...

    Emphasis mine...

    Not appearing likely doesn't mean "will not!" And these people are playing with tax payers' tax dollars.

    My hope is that they'll label the Biotech products as such at the point of sale, so that the consumer can choose. But the fellas on the other side and their supporters will oppose any such motion. After all they are about making money, Not serving interests of consumers.

    • by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Monday December 24, 2012 @01:35PM (#42382789)
      You do know that many foods that humans have eaten for centuries have been discovered to pose a threat in recent years? I have no objection to labeling foods that have been genetically engineered by modern techniques, but exactly how are you going to define that? I take it you do not eat corn? That is a "Biotech" food by certain definitions of the term "Biotech" (including some of the definitions used by those opposing "Biotech" foods).
      • by Kergan (780543)

        You do know that many foods that humans have eaten for centuries have been discovered to pose a threat in recent years?

        Excuse me for asking, but besides Mercury oxide (which was used as a poor man's sweetener until the early Middle Ages when its toxicity became obvious) and the Fool's Webcap (which kills weeks or months after being ingested, and was thus only identified as toxic in the industrial era), can you name any examples? (It's a genuine question, I'm actually curious to know others, since you mention many.)

      • They are one of the most common food allergies, over 1% of the population is allergic in some form. Some people, it just causes watery eyes and other basic allergy symptoms. In severe cases, it causes anaphylactic shock. For some, the allergy is so strong that inhaling airborne particles of peanuts can cause anaphylactic shock. Given that peanuts date back at least 7600 years (that is the earliest evidence we have of them)...

        Nothing is perfectly safe, that is just life. That doesn't mean we just say "fuck i

      • I have no objection to labeling foods that have been genetically engineered by modern techniques, but exactly how are you going to define that? I take it you do not eat corn? That is a "Biotech" food by certain definitions of the term "Biotech" (including some of the definitions used by those opposing "Biotech" foods).

        Really, your argument is lying. There is a meaningful and substantial difference between breeding for characteristics and direct manipulation of genes. If people want to twist words then new words can be created so that your purposeful ambiguity is entirely eliminated.

    • by crmarvin42 (652893) on Monday December 24, 2012 @02:36PM (#42383229)
      How, pray tell, do you prove a negative? I.e. how do you prove that "GM salmon will never cause harm". If you set the bar impossibly high, then progress will never be made.

      As to the labeling, the USDA guidelines for food labeling are designed to keep people honest about the differences in what are essentially commodities. If the USDA believed that there was a significant difference between GM crops and Conventional crops, then they would approve of a labeling initiative. However, one of the requirements for regulatory approval, is demonstrating that the GM crop is substantially similar to the conventional. Therefore, there is no need for a label, unless the label also makes it clear that the implied difference is insignificant. For example, Milk in the US frequently has a label indicating that no rBST was used in its production, but at the bottom of the label is a footnote indicating that their is no difference between milk produced with or without rBST. It is about battling FUD.

      I'm currently involved in some FDA filings, and the hurdles for getting a new use approved for something already on the market and GRAS are prodigious, I can only imagine the hurdles that they've forced these GM salmon to jump through to show that the salmon do not appear likely to pose a threat.
  • by Shavano (2541114) on Monday December 24, 2012 @01:29PM (#42382737)

    This should not be a big deal for the FDA. It's clearly a safe food product, although I would be a little put off by a "THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS GENETICALLY MODIFIED FISH" label that I think should be mandated.

    The FDA isn't really even competent to judge whether the animals are safe to introduce into the environment. It's not their area of expertise. All they can tell us is if it's safe for people to eat them. It's the EPA that should be concerned about people making frankenfish. And since if they get loose they'd be in international waters, it's a subject for the whole world to decide, or at least every country that fishes in waters where these modified salmon can survive and reproduce.

    What happens if they get released and hybridize with wild salmon? Will hybrid fish be off limits to fishermen? Will the fast-growth genes be weeded out in the wild, or will they spread across the whole wild population? (The former is more likely. If it were advantageous to the species to grow faster, they probably would grow faster.) Is this company going to come after salmon fishers the way Monsanto comes after farmers?

    • by nbauman (624611) on Monday December 24, 2012 @02:23PM (#42383159) Homepage Journal

      It hasn't been a quick decision. The FDA has been considering their application since 1995.
      http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989304575503891676987232.html [wsj.com]

      The critics have raised every conceivable objection to GM food, and none of them has held up. I've talked with scientists on both sides of the issue, including the Natural Resources Defense Council. The critics have made their case. Good for them. That's their job. Every point has been answered. If they can come up with something new, I'd like to hear it. But they haven't.

      I'm no fan of greedy businessmen, but I do believe in scientific progress. They have to overcome the burden of proof to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it's safe, and they've done so.

      People who are several generations away from American (or any) agriculture don't realize that breeding and improvement of animals and plants has been going on for ten thousand years. They've done the same kind of thing with conventional breeding.

      To answer your question, they can't reproduce with wild salmon because they're triploid; they have an extra set of chromosomes.

      Even if they did -- maybe 1 out of a billion -- you'd have nothing more than the normal genetic variations in fish. Growth hormones are evolved to turn on and off in different cycles according to the environment in all kinds of animals. There are already animals with extra growth genes from conventional breeding, like Belgian bulls. It doesn't do any harm.

      Hybrid seed corn, developed by Henry A. Wallace, revolutionized American agriculture.

      It's a small improvement, and not that important by itself, but the problem with the anti-GM movement is that it's anti-science. They're in there with the anti-vaccine people. It comes down to, they don't trust corporations. I don't trust corporations either, but get your arguments right.

      • Triploid? My God, they're mutants!

        What happens if they run into some radioactive water from Fukashima? Has anyone checked on this? Anyone?

      • Is that there really is an extensive, long term, review of this kind of thing. Maybe the first YOU hear about it is when it is nearing final approval. That is your issue, that just means you haven't paid attention. Now that's fine, I'm not saying everyone should track everything submitted to the FDA, but if you care about this enough to get all worked up then you should look in to it.

        These things are a long process. They really do spend a lot of time looking in to it. Now does that mean everything is perfec

    • although I would be a little put off by a "THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS GENETICALLY MODIFIED FISH" label that I think should be mandated.

      I disagree with that. Thing is, there is a lot of information you could add about food. tell me your last meal, and I'll tell you something about those plants you probably don't know. If I want to, I can make it sound scary. Did you know your citrus was produced by radiation? Or that many of your grapes were sprayed with plant hormones? Or that your tomatoes may have had non-tomato genes (despite being non-GE, by the way)? Or that your apples were spontaneous somatic mutations? Or that many of your

  • stop complaining (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Iamthecheese (1264298) on Monday December 24, 2012 @01:37PM (#42382819)
    A hundred years ago it was said miracles of science would feed the world with an unbelievable array of giant, hearty and delicious foods. We're almost there. And we'll get there a lot faster without you kneejerk "anything with altered genes must be bad for you" reactionary luddites.

    Stop complaining and take a moment to marvel at all science has wrought.
    • by gonz (13914)

      "Anything with altered genes must be bad for your" is not an irrational fear of some new device or technology, it is a reasonable default position when considering a potentially irreversible change to the ecosystem and gene pool. Genetic engineering is not equivalent to selective breeding, because it can instantaneously produce radical changes that would normally take centuries to achieve. In many cases, the science is empirical, like a hacker making risky changes to a large code base because he "understand

    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      A hundred years ago it was said miracles of science would feed the world with an unbelievable array of giant, hearty and delicious foods. We're almost there. And we'll get there a lot faster without you kneejerk "anything with altered genes must be bad for you" reactionary luddites.

      They could have made these bio-engineered fish grow bigger than their natural size, but they were more or less forced to genetically cap the growth at "market size" so that escaped fish would not outcompete natural stocks.

    • miracles of science would feed the world with an unbelievable array of giant, hearty and delicious foods. We're almost there.

      I was just talking about this with my daughter at the grocery store. We picked up some Polaner [washingtonpost.com] instead of the Smuckers because of their GMO positions.

      The first GMO's were things like rice that grew Vitamin A so rural Asian children wouldn't go blind. That was good.

      The logical next steps were to make all sorts of food that was healthy, tasty, vigorous, and efficient (able to grow in

      • by dbIII (701233)
        You are blaming governments for the greed of corporations?
        • You are blaming governments for the greed of corporations?

          Corporations are creations of governments. They don't exist naturally (without a government charter). Monsanto is a just bunch of guys yelling into the wind without the Patent system, the Courts, and the guys with guns from the government who enforce that system.

          With the government's backing, they're threatening the species's food supply.

      • The first GMO's were things like rice that grew Vitamin A so rural Asian children wouldn't go blind. That was good.

        Actually, that one isn't even on the market yet. The first GE crop was actually virus resistant tobacco, in China. the second was the Flavr Savr tomato, in the US. Do you think that Golden Rice is a good idea? Then keep in mind that, by and large, the same people opposing the other GE crops you mention are opposing Golden Rice.

        But instead, we got crops that are resistant to pesticides that are applied by the tanker load

        I agree that it sounds bad, but not when you consider things holistically. Those herbicide tolerant crops have increased the usage of some herbicides, but they've decreased the u

    • by manu0601 (2221348)

      Stop complaining and take a moment to marvel at all science has wrought.

      The problem is that science came with a wicked little brother called intellectual property. And now we get patented food.

  • by Fuzzums (250400) on Monday December 24, 2012 @01:42PM (#42382855) Homepage

    If it's clear to me what king of food it it, it's fine with me.
    If you want your future kids to have super human powers or gills, take the chance. Eat it!

    There are numerous examples where commercial interest was greater than common sense. If anyone wants to gamble, PLEASE go ahead, but leave me out of it.

    • by slew (2918)

      FWIW, quite a bit of the fish sold in the US is mislabled already. Nobody seems to be doing much about it.

      This report [oceana.org] details how grim the situation is with non GM fish. There is probably no hope for labeling fish in general.

      * 58 percent of the 81 retail outlets sampled sold mislabeled fish (three in five).
      * Small markets had significantly higher fraud (40 percent) than national chain grocery stores (12 percent).
      * 100 percent of the 16 sushi bars tested sold mislabeled fish.
      * Tilefish, on the FDA’s

    • People have made a lot of baseless claims about the safety of GE food. I've heard them accuse it of causing cancer, diabetes, and infertility. But turning you into Aquaman...now that's pretty bad.

  • And in other news: If it can super size a fish, it might as well super size a snake, a Pfizer spokes man says.

  • by ohnocitizen (1951674) on Monday December 24, 2012 @01:47PM (#42382893)
    They are opening it up for public comment. Americans distrust science when there is no risk at all. If people get riled up over vaccines, genetically modified fish ought to start quite the fire.
    • There's political opposition too, namely from Alaska [washingtonexaminer.com] where they don't want their fishing industry challenged by the new guy. Huzzah for crony capitalism.

  • by kawabago (551139) on Monday December 24, 2012 @01:47PM (#42382909)
    Sea lice from farmed salmon are killing wild stocks off. Just imagine what frankenfish could do to the environment. Giant sea lice that attack swimmers. Overgrown sand sharks now man eaters. Pacific octopus, the worlds largest, could grow into something from Jules Verne imagination. Of course, none of these things are likely to occur. It is the things we can't think of that worry me.
  • by swschrad (312009) on Monday December 24, 2012 @01:56PM (#42382977) Homepage Journal

    do NOT cook in an electric oven. you have been warned.

  • As a kid reading about how they used colchicine, a toxic compound that interferes with cell division--to create polyploid varieties of fruits and vegetables that are much larger than those with the natural chromosome complement. And I realized that surely does qualify as "genetic engineering" of a sort.

    That's just a stray synaptic firing. Please don't read any subtext into that. I'm not saying today's GM is the same thing. I'm not saying frankensalmon are safe. I'm not even saying polyploid vegetables are s

    • We've been doing 'genetic engineering' ever since we domesticated whatever mankind first domesticated. Except for cats, it's been a pretty successful run.

  • ...would produce fish with the potential to grow to market size in half the time...

    I think I saw that movie. Or was it grasshoppers? I don't remember now.

  • Which program would you rather run on your network? One with code that got corrupted at random, or one that had a change made by software developers?

    I think we worry too much about the folly of man. We interact with nature all the time. We've created new organisms by breeding, moved them out of their natural habitat into other areas without any thought of consequences, and things are mostly fine. There are a lot of rabbits in Australia, and a lot of pythons in Florida, sure, but we have done an awful lot of

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Working...