Gene Leakage 267
Mike B writes "A leading UK scientist says he thinks genes from
genetically-modified (GM) crops will inevitably escape into other plants.
"What would happen, for instance, if a gene that conferred resistance against insects escaped?
Suddenly we have no insects. With no insects you have no ecology, no ecosystem, no pollinators, no flowers, God knows what. "
"
Farm Backgrounds? (Score:1)
(Don't laugh. Mark Andressen came from a farm.)
But that is the problem..... (Score:1)
Good luck stopping it. The only way would be to kill them all off instantly. Miss one - it adapts.
...phil
Life finds a way... (Score:1)
Be the horseshoe crab not the trilobite!
Hey where did the experts come from (Score:1)
You'd be surprised at the backgrounds of some
But this has always been the debate, hasn't it? Should we "discontinue" science because some people are worried about the consequences? (cf Dolly, etc)
I recently read an article about Watson (of DNA fame) where he argued that this approach (of stopping science because we are nervous) is misguided, because we can't understand how to control the consequences until we understand how the technology works. It's going to be done eventually by someone, so why not figure it out now?
But that is the problem..... (Score:1)
Scientists have been looking for insecticides for many decades. With the passing of chemical pesticides like DTT, farmers are having little defense against pests. These new insect-repellent genes are the new "insecticides" for the future, if we learn to use them correctly. This means that we *don't* allow insects to adapt.
Of course it never works as planned, but that's how it should work in theory
Rubbish? (Score:1)
The general point in the article is valid, surely? Science is notoriously bad at predicting and identifying its own evolution: the mutation and development of its innovations.
As for the fragility of life: well, the Great Barrier Reef managed to last 4 billion years, but given the effects of global warning, it's probably got 50 years left. I suppose you'd expect it to evolve, though...
Risk assessment and by what right (Score:1)
Insect resistance doesn't have to jump to other plant species to cause a problem. Look at this scenario:
Certainly, that is unlikely. However, is it so unlikely that it is worth the risk? Consider that the population at risk has no real say in weather or not the risk is taken. Consider also that we have very little data regarding the spread of engineered traits. Most of the data we do have comes from corperate research with a strong vested interest in a particular conclusion (this includes university research with corperate sponsors).
Who benefits from taking the risk? The farmer, the seed producer, and potentially, the consumer. I argue that the seed producer recieves far more benefit than the other groups. This is because other less risky pest control measures exist which cannot be patented (such as releasing preditor insects). The farmer and consumer benefit from those methods without assuming the risk of starvation, but the seed producer does not.
In the event of a famine, the seed producer still wins because at that point, any seed they produce that may alleviate the crises can be sold at a premium price. The farmer and consumer will have no choice but to pay whatever is asked. Furthermore, the decisionmakers within the seed producer are less likely than the average consumer to suffer the consequences of a food shortage (a simple socio-economic reality).
Based on those facts, until more IMPARTIAL research is done in a well controlled and contained environment, for the consumer and the farmer, it's a sucker bet. For the seed producer, it's just about a sure thing.
Next question, by what right do the seed producers expose me (and the rest of the population) to a risk like that when they and not me (and the rest of the population) will gain the primary benefit?
So close, and yet so far... (Score:1)
Your example of the Coyote is totally fallacious. Here in the UK, we have no wolves or bears, and very few medium-sized cats - directly because they were killed off by humans - they have not evolved to be stronger. I'm not trying to say that humans are evil because of this, but that nature is not predictable.
In your last paragraph you essentially trust in hope that nature will overcome anything we throw at it. Indeed you are right, nature will continue, the planet will evolve - but into what? These new bugs; what will they be, how will they behave? Will locusts swarm across places they never swarmed before? Nobody knows. And the fact that we don't and can't know worries me.
There's a fallacy at play here. . . . (Score:1)
The problem is not that insects will or won't be able to eat. If I plant a field of insect-resistant tomatoes, then I will have several (or many in the US) acres of insect-free land. Thus, bird, rodent, spider and lady-(bird|bug) -free land. And the natural cycle in the area will be destroyed.
Have Americans really not learned the lesson of the mid-western dust-bowl?
Not Likely (Score:1)
Living on a farm you will have noticed how around each field (particularly oil-seed rape) there exists a virtually wild 'mutation' of the stuff that behaves exactly like a weed. People are worried about this stuff. The genetically modified oil-seed rape cross-pollinates with the wild oil-seed rape.
Duh!
P.S. Steve Jones isn't exactly the sort of scientist who will find it hard to get a grant.
What is so great about this comment? (Score:1)
--
Rubbish (Score:1)
If having an insect resistance gene were in the overall scheme of things beneficial to every plant on the planet, chances are they would have those genes. The truth is that insects would rapidly evolve to counter such a change (as mosquetos have adapted to chemicals such as DDT).
People must realise that life did not survive on this planet for 4 billion years by being fragile.
--
Out of subject (Score:1)
--
Rubbish? (Score:1)
--
slippery slope? (Score:1)
The so-called "killer bee", now invading North America, as far North in California now as Santa Barbara County.
The result of a genetic experiment gone wrong, is now transforming the entire population of North American Honeybees (which weren't native to North America in the first place, they came from Europe), into Africanized bees.
Lots of news programs have wonderful material for "scare stories" but life goes on. In reality, at most, a few people (probably no more than a dozen worldwide) will die each year from Africanized bee attacks. Far, far less than die from lighning, or hurricanes, or tornadoes, or tainted food, or handgun accidents.
Life goes on.
Destroying the planet (Score:1)
So close, and yet so far... (Score:1)
I just think that what we're today, calling "engineering", will be laughed at 1000 years from now.
Evolution beats what we're doing today.
The same thing was thought of DDT (Score:1)
. . . and what did we end up with?
Tougher bugs.
I think nature is bunches more smarter than we give (her) credit for.
You arrogant humans (Score:1)
Genetically modified food (Score:1)
I hate to break this to you, but I just came back from a 1 week trip to London, and frankly, I think the meat there sucks.
I know, I know, I'm not supposed to eat beef in the UK. Mad Cow disease. But man, a better imitaion of shoe-leather, I have never tasted. YUK!
I'm VERY happy to be back in the states.
(Although I wish I could find Stella Artois here in America. Good Belgian beer).
He's got it backwards (Score:1)
Doctors acting as glorified salesmen for the pharaceutical companies (great when insurance pays for it all). Parents whining about their kids' earaches, forcing "prophylactic" prescriptions of antibiotics for viral infections. Prescriptions not fully administered through their course, or improperly administered.
Too low a dosage, (forgetting to take that afternoon pill), or stopping the course early is what encourages bacteria to develop a resistance.
Also, feeding antibiotics to livestock in mass quantities on a regular basis is a textbook example of how to literally engineer a resistant strain unintentionally.
I know this discussion was off topic, but I felt that the example of "antibiotic-resistant bacteria" as a point that mankind "tampers too much with nature" was a bit off, and needed some correction.
Evolution, resistance and the Irish Potato Famine (Score:1)
There IS hope on the antibiotic-resistant bacteria front. It seems that word IS getting to responsible physicians.
Several weeks ago, I took my daughter in for an earache. Many parents, in that desperate situation would plead with the doctor - "please, give her SOMETHING!".
This doctor stated quite bluntly, this is a viral infection, antibiotics will not help, tho they may prevent a bacterial infection from occuring from the swelling and inflamation caused by the viral infection, it's not likely to be of any use. Take her home, give her ibuprofin for the pain, it should go away in a day or two.
It did.
I sincerely hope that there are more doctors like that out there. Unlike my nephew's pediatrician, who had him on Antibiotics nearly continuously for a year and a half, and had to keep changing types because at one point, the infections develped a resistance. Half the time, it was viral infections anyway. . .
Cha-ching!$$$
Genetically modified food (Score:1)
Nobody wants to un-invent anything. People are against the application of the inventions. And, contrary to your claim, there are many inventions that cannot legally be used. For example: DDT, biological/chemical weapons, land mines, police scanners etc.
If GM foods were illegal, what do you think, Monsanto goes underground and supplies the black market with soya? You've got to be kidding.
--
Genetically modified food (Score:1)
People in Europe desperately want these regulations, that's why they are there. Governments couldn't care less. Also, the idea of beef and even milk from hormone-treated cows is absolutely disgusting to the average European; if you mention it at a dinner party, people will stop eating. This is not something protectionist governments made up.
Note also that the Invisible Hand only works if all market participants have full information. However, Monsanto et al. are even against labeling GM foods. Soja is ingredient of virtually every processed food.
Back to the original article: the professor's example of insects dying out seems a little contrived. My major concern would be that plants which are engineered to resist a particular herbicide will encourage higher usage levels of that herbicide, which selects for resistant weeds just as in the well known penicillin desaster.
--
Genetically modified food (Score:1)
The GM-avoiding customer however doesn't want to be screwed and therefore demands a ban on GM'd foodstuffs. The governments listen to this majority.
--
Early experiments (Score:1)
What's worrying about this is when you look at the early science in almost every avenue. Take for example medicine. Initially we started off drilling holes in peoples heads - primitive, but it worked after a fashion - those people's heads didn't hurt any more - but they had slightly bigger problems!!! Then look at early nuclear reactors... I don't really need to elaborate on that point.
The problem is, changing genes has a _lot_ longer lasting effect - changed genes don't just stop at one plant - they continue into the next generation. It's fine to say that "we wouldn't have gotten this far..." (not quoting you - just something I've heard), but we've never mucked about with the innards before. Look what happens when you mess with the number of protons in an atom. Whooaaa - suddenly you've created a radioactive beasty with one tiny tiny change. I think mucking with DNA is about the same - we change one thing because we see it has effect X, but we forget about side effect Y.
And the human genome project is only 10% complete... Don't think doctors aren't already investigating human DNA modification - they are.
Matt.
Oops (Score:1)
MODERATORS!!! (Score:1)
Early experiments (Score:1)
People like yourself dismiss GM foods (and genetic modifications in general) as being the same as evolution
We're not talking about natural selection here - very specifically we're talking about un-natural selection.
Matt.
Not Likely (Score:1)
Jones may not have a hard time finding a grant because he's saying what some people want to hear...
The death of bio-diversity (Score:1)
I wouldn't be surprised to find out the real motivation behind the "terminator" (nice loaded
word there) gene is to allay fears of bio-engineered crops "escaping".
Hey where... (Score:1)
Terminator seeds (Score:1)
Old news... (Score:1)
You arrogant treehuggers... (Score:1)
There's a fallacy at play here. . . . (Score:1)
So close, and yet so far... (Score:1)
I disagree. (Score:1)
Japan, China, and India for example are for the most part very good at planning many generations into the future, and considering all those nagging what-if's. (much to the chagrin of the US.)
--
What is the point of GM food? (Score:1)
This situation will persist until we Americans do away with our WWII government completely like the most of the rest of the world has.
--
Oh, the horror!! (Score:1)
With really cool hair I might add, especially if you're of East Asian descent.
(I know that has nothing to do with "gene leakage", but I think that's the most probable way GM plants will propogate themselves.)
Sorry, I'm rambling.
--
Adbusters (Score:1)
Seriously though, I subscribe to Adbusters, and I think it's the nuts. But I wish it would contain more factual articles and less Ivan Stang style rants.
That, and they seem too self-absorbed to ever try to organize or join any substantive protest beyond defacing billboards.
--
You arrogant evolutionists... (Score:1)
Humanity would survive if I went and killed all my neighbors too. That doesn't make it an ethical thing to be doing.
--
Close to the mark (Score:1)
Mitochondria were originally primitive bacteria (Score:1)
I thought that should be "this stuff has amazing parallels to parallel computers." After all genes are nothing more that a set of codes with multiple pointers interacting with a self modifing tendencies! :-)
--Karl
The Obvious Looming Bio-Catastrophe, NOT! (Score:1)
Although I am not an expert in biology, I suspect the calculation would be something like this. How many genes are there in the plant? How many genes are transfered on average? How frequently does a transfer occur? How frequently does a transfered gene get passed onto the next generation?
If you consider the probablity of transfering any gene from the GM plant, you might find that a transfer does occur within a reasonable length of time. On the other hand, if you ask the probablity of a specific gene crossing over would be extrodinarly small and has an expectation time on the order of geologic time.
Consider for the moment that there are a large number of plants that are already too toxic for insects to ever eat. Take the case of tabacco which has potent toxin (which people love to smoke) which only a handful of hardy insects can eat. The crop is grown is large quantities accross great areas of land. Yet, we don't worry about the genes for that nicotine crossing over to all plant and wiping the insect population out. Thus the conditions already exist and have existed for centuries. So the argument that just because one plant is immune to most insects that the entire ecosystem is going to collapse is not just far-fetched, but in the realm of science fiction.
There are much greater threats to our ecosystem to be worried about that this one.
--Karl
The Obvious Looming Bio-Catastrophe, NOT! (Score:1)
Consider the construction of the anti-insect argument. In that he proposed that some gene will cross over from a modifed plant to the entire ecosystem thus resulting in the complete destruction of all insects. Then asks the reader to consider the consequences. He then says that this is an unlikely event but possible. (The reader is left to assume that some lesser event is therefore more probable and we are all on the road to disaster when that is untrue.)
The argument is bad in a number of ways. First of all there would not be a anti-insect gene inserted in plants. A gene would have to be something useful like anti-leaf eating insects. That gene even if it crossed over to all plants through natural hybreds (which is impossible for all plants and unlikely even for natural cousins.) Thus the only insect affected would be those that eat the leaves of that plant and those that eat the those insects. But wait a minute that bees are not leaf eaters. And those of the insects that we are thinking of having disasterous results living without. Thus even without the plant eating insects most planets would still get pollonated. (some specialized planets would die).
Yes, there can be bad consiquences for a GM plant. But there are bad consiguences for many things (take MTBE for example). But we are not heading down some path for instant disaster. The the entire senerio is nothing more that fiction. It is nothing more that a strawman example to scare the uneducated masses. And it looks like you are falling for it.
--Karl
Hey where did the experts come from (Score:1)
Yes, there are certainly some dangers, but the greatest threat is the overruning of the environment with the GM rather that the GM's genes escaping. The ammount of for the transfer of a single gene crossing over is on geologic scales. Yes, horizonal transfers are probable, but that is the transfer of any gene. Consider that probablity of two people having the same birthday in a group of 100. It is likely that 2 will share the same birthday, but the likelyhood of an individual being the one is low. Similarly, the likely hood that a horizontal gene transfer occuring from a GM plant to another plant is probable, while the chance the modified gene traveling is low.
True, we must consider the consiquence and prove that modified genes are not likely to cause problems on other species or give the plant such an edge as to become dangerous. However, to give credence to improbable arguments just makes us all look silly. The most probable events should be of our concern not ones such as this.
I agree that this should be done in the open for all to see. Yet, I would wonder if it already is not underground.
--Karl
Introducing new genes in the genepool. (Score:1)
In the case of the Africanize bee the bees did not simply travel to some point and go on a rampage (there are numerious other animal species where that is the case.) The bees were intentionally brought here and forced to create a hybred bee with the honey bee. The resulting species is just a mean bee (nothing more.) Further, there are other biological vectors including a species of mites (from China I believe) that have been devistating the native bees and thus allowing the Africanize hybreds to spread.
This brings up a definite point. Hybreds in nature are not particularly common. Thus if we saw modified corn to be resistant to a bug (produces a bug birth control hormon), then a number of naturally expecting outcomes will occure. First, most instects will stop eating the crop. (Those that are able to still eat it will eventually become a dominate insect, but that is a later story.) According the professor we should worry about the gene crossing over to other plant species.
However, the cross can not be made in the same fashion as it is with bacteria and penicillin. Plants don't just bump into each other an exchange genes. (Bacteria do!) It requires a cross pollination from one compatible species to another. So we should assume that there is a compatible grass that can be pollenized by corn. However, for this to occur there would be a hybred planet with properies of both. But we don't see hundreds of species with much of the characteristics of corn (with its large kernel sizes) being exchanged. One must conclude that hybreds are therefore very rare. And that the chance of that gene excaping to just one other near by species is also difficult. Yes, the cross over may eventually occur, but for it to spread to the entire ecosystem would never happen as more planets can not be hybredized with all but their closest species.
In essence his argument is that we should worry about some gene we add to cows crossing over to goats. That is a small worry. The greater threat is that the GM planet will take over the environment and dirrupt the ecosystem by itself. (One can make a strong argument that enhanced tabacco plants may pose such a threat as they are toxic to most things already before we modified them.)
I believe this professors arguments are being greatly overblown. There is a threat, but this article presents only scare arguments without evaluation of the actual possible results. (All insects dying is completely impossible.)
--Karl
we don't need this technology (Score:1)
GM crops primarily are designed to enforce a seed monopoly, e.g. "terminator" and "round-up ready".
It another context you might call it "gratuitous incompatibility".
Old news... (Score:1)
That is a good point which I hadn't considered before...
Old news & Off topic (Score:1)
This is old news (like 4 years). I heard this same hypothesis when I completed my MS in Botany in 1995!
This is so off topic for slashdot because 99% of the idiots who read this site don't know enought about genetics or biology or ecology to make it a worthwhile discussion. P.S. Even with a MS in Botany, I don't think I have enough knowledge to contribute to a worthwhile discussion!
Early experiments (Score:1)
That having been said, I fully agree with many posters here that companies like Monsanto don't always work in the public interest, but that's not because of any safety theat, but because such companies dream of a future of dominated by their proprietory products which neither farmers nor academia will be allowed to modify.
Huh? (Score:1)
Genes *do* get passed around quite a bit. Antibiotics are becoming worthless because bacteria (even quite unrelated strains) are sharing resistence genes. But in order to *keep* the resistance genes selective pressure is needed -- and yes, the insane overusage of antibiotics is indeed a cause of such pressure.
And of course gene transfer from viruses has been known (for about twenty years) as the cause of many cancers.
Capitalism and science (Score:1)
Farm Backgrounds? (Score:1)
high school, though I'm taking over the gardening
starting this year. It's a mostly-organic subsitence
farm that has raised pigs cows and chickens (yuck)
in the past.
Farms/rural areas are good places to grow up.
You learn discipline at an early age, and
living in the quiet helps thinking!
He's got it backwards (Score:1)
Besdies which, I find it extremely interesting that Steve Jones is saying this kind of thing.
For those that wondered about his informality, that's because he's a chatty kind of bloke - he's had TV series on Genetics and so on on UK TV.
Genes and OS parallels (Score:1)
These aren't perfect anyway... (Score:1)
They're only partly resistant, and only partly resistant to specific types of insects.
If they jumped, other insects would take up the slack.
Genetic jumps are far more likely to make herbicides obsolete (there are plants engineered to be resistant to, say, Roundup) than to kill off all insects.
-Richard.
slippery slope? (Score:1)
on teaching (Score:1)
"In the Blood" (Score:1)
Almost right (Score:1)
and patents provide the licence required for Monsanto's soya etc.
The danger is that Genetic engineering gives the equivelent of root access to evolution.
Personally I would prefer it if non of the users, Monsanto ICI etc were allowed to crash the system.
Not Likely (Score:1)
"leakage" is inevitable only the consequences are unknown.
Introducing new genes in the genepool. (Score:1)
One recent example was the introduction of the african bee in America. They arrived probably by ship in Brazil, and set out to happily exterminate the local bee population in vast areas of the continent. Last time I heard they were already a plague in the southern areas of United States.
The main point is that the modified genes will probably escape. Genes are rather trick when it come to reproduce themselves. They will go to extremes such as building nuclear weapons and creating technology for space travel.
I agree with the article in that this is the main problem and we should be prepared to deal with it. Your point does not really apply, unless you are prepared to cope with the extermination of whole species of insects. Some of these species may be essential for some other plants to reproduce. Then these plants go away also. Once started, this cycle can go on and on and leave you with very different, no necessarily improved, ecosystems.
You hit the nail on the head (Score:1)
I also thought it seemed to make far more sense to compare GM foods to penicillin and insects to bacteria then comparing GM foods to some penicillin resistant strain of bacteria.
The Obvious Looming Bio-Catastrophe (Score:2)
(_The_Ultimate_Resource_ by Julian Simon is recommended reading.)
slippery slope? (Score:2)
> the exception are very small things with very short periods between reproduction (bacteria/virii) ...
...and bugs...
Life finds a way... (Score:2)
Don't write off the insects... they are more resiliant than you think.
progress (Score:2)
However, I do take exception to companies farting about with stuff they plainly don't understand for no better motivation than to make a quick buck when there is a non-negligable chance that they will completely alter the course of evolution on the planet. I take exception to them spending large sums on political campaigns in order to force GM foods down everybodies throats (as it were). Various initiatives from GM industry are trying to:
1 prevent people even being told whether food is GM or not.
2 impose trade sanctions against countries that don't want it.
3 eliminate restrictions, controls and monitoring efforts.
Maybe that makes me anti-science, but the fact remains I don't trust these companies to fully evaluate the dangers inherent in what they are doing or to have our best interests at heart. When one of the most respected scientists in the field comes out and says that this stuff is dangerous then it seems reasonable to pay some attention.
Genetic algorithms can be improved upon (Score:2)
Let me put it another way. The parameters for natural evolution (particuarly the mutation operator) are not at all optimized. Natural evolution occurs within a very limited set of gene sequences. If you take a pre-optimized solution to a particular problem and add it to an existing GA then you can make huge improvements.
It may well be unlikely that they will produce anything tremendously dangerous, but it isn't like the Shakesperian monkeys. These aren't random combinations but the calculated addition of highly effective solutions from different spheres. For instance, one of things they are doing is combining plant and animal DNA. Plants have far more DNA than animals, there are likely to be some pretty effective strands in there.
Terminator seeds (Score:2)
Undoubtedly the ecosystem would recover, it always does. What we're concerned about here is the chaos it could cause before it recovers. Consider this scenario:
Monsanto releases its bio-engineered soybean plants that are insect-resistant, but have the side effect of having sterile offspring *most hybrids do by design, IIRC). Agribusiness A plants the hybrids, which cross-pollenate with the normal soybean fields of family farmers B - Z. That fall, those farmers reserve 10% of their harvest for seed, and maybe sell that seed to some other farmers in the 3rd world, etc. The next year, all those farmers' fields won't grow, causing a massive shortage of soybeans. From then on, only Agribusiness A can buy and grow soybeans, and Monsanto has agricultural production by the proverbial balls.
Multiply that situation by all the other crops that can be made sterile, and all producers except those who can afford Monsanto's yearly seed subscription go out of business. Poor 3rd world subsistence farmers could starve to death. All that could happen within about 3 years.
--
Rubbish (Score:2)
The point you seem to miss however is that life has gone on but a great may species (and not a few human cultures) have been wiped out. Sometimes that happens because of their own actions.
GM crops do increase the chance we might destroy some part of the ecosystem we depend on, and either kill a lot of people or radically reduce oeveryone's quality of life.
When you hear some of the stories (some of which are probably at least based on fact) of the arrogance of the companies selling these new crops, and their attitude towards local rules on testing, it seems that insufficient care is being taken.
Huh? (Score:2)
The penecillin thing is different - the point was just that we cannot be sure what evolution will do with what we give it (but then many GM crops are infertile). I think Steve Jones' words got a little mangled by his interviewer.
The Obvious Looming Bio-Catastrophe (Score:2)
On the other hand, as out powers over the ecosystem increase, I am uncomfortable with the idea of trusting in as-yet-unmade discoveries to save ourselves if anything does go wrong. Even if it does all work out in the end, a great deal of value may be destroyed in the process. You may not care, and I am not sure I do either, but a lot of people certainly do.
What is so great about this comment? (Score:2)
Excellent rebuttal (Score:2)
That in the long run, all the good ideas - when considered properly, will come to fruition despite the lobbies and the bottom line?
And is that not precisely what we have an opportunity to do right here? Consider the issues, get them out in the sunlight, knock them down, prop them back up and whail on them some more..
Yeah, in the short term all we really have is thought experiments. In the long term, maybe we can walk away with some answers for future directions.
And now and again, we share a heartfelt chuckle:
"Sir the nerds are revolting!"
"They can't help it, they don't get any sun or exercise."
You made my day!
You miss the point (Score:2)
We're learning, slowly; but we're still fixated on the post-WWII mentality of just throwing more resources at the problem rather than truly understanding it.
Consider: Airports are now being designed with uphill and downhill runways, as well as rampped ones. This allows for shorter and safer runways, by using gravity to help slow and speed up the planes, and allow them a steeper climb and descent in mountainous areas.
Homes are being heated by solar and geothermal (where available) energy, to reduce costs and in the long run reduce pollution. In Scandinavia (correct me if I'm wrong) geothermal is used to heat neighborhoods and steam is run beneath streets to keep them free of ice.
About 50% of the phones in Poland are cellular. The infrastructure is very old, and it's much cheaper to put up a tower here and there than it is to run new lines. And you don't have to restring the towers after a snowstorm.
France gets 70% of it's electricity from nuclear plants. Yes, actually it is safe. You just have to be responsible about it. Sometimes the true 'bottom-line' is a little farther then the next fiscal quarter.
This is a wiser use of resources than blasting away a mountain to let a freeway run straight. It's the same mentality that lengthens a road a mile, in order to build a shorter and sturdier bridge. Sure, the Golden Gate is an engineering achievement, and where necessary, we certainly have the means.
But we also have the means to apply our intellect to doing things in accordance with nature, rather than against it.
Engineering is about laziness. So is intelligence. We put a lot of effort into simplifying and conveniencing our lives... A little more will let us not have to worry about acting against the forces of nature - but rather using them to our advantage.
Don't you think that building a home down, rather than up, would be wise? Let's keep the living area below the frost-line, so as to cool and heat less. Let's pipe sunlight down with fiberoptics - maybe even some of that new 'slow glass' for a nightlight. The energy savings might prove adequate to have an elevator instead of stairs. This is just an off-the-cuff idea; I'm sure there are plenty of others.
My point is (Score:2)
As for mystical nonsense - It's not. I am in agreement with you on our potential capacity as a race. But, I feel that the best way to get there is to use the laws of the world to further our endeavors, rather than putting in a lot of effort to overcome them.
You arrogant humans (Score:2)
There you humans go, again thinking it's all about you. It isn't. It isn't about you anymore than it is about the fleas on your dogs back. It isn't even about a Genus, or an Order or a Phylum. It's about life.
You meddle in things you only think you understand, and you speculate on the consequences of your actions, as though your actions were actually significant in the grand scheme of things.
Yes, you change the climate, yes you kill off the weak and inadaptible species. Guess what.. That's why you're here. Evolution has provided you with the ability to modify your environment, and the arrogance to think that it is actually yours to modify.
The world is not yours to modify, save or destroy with your actions. You belong to it, and it will be here long after you are gone. Wether you go to the stars, and leave your cradle behind you, forgotten and covered in plastic and asphalt; or you annihilate yourselves in a spectacular mushroom farm that will leave nothing but cockroaches and twinkies; the world will still be here.
The world, and life, will continue. You are just a piece of the puzzle, just a cog in the evolutionary machine. You are not the appointed guardians of life on your little mudball. You have delusions of grandeur, you are vain and selfish and you lack the instinctive knowledge of worms.
You do not understand balance. You do not realize that, as a part of nature, you must abide by it's laws, or be removed from the equation.
You stand tall and proud, like an oak tree on a sandy cliff. Reveling in your grandeur while the wind whittles the very earth from beneath your very roots. How arrogant you are, to think that you are somehow greater than the nature that bore you.
You build your homes on the windward side of the hill, and wonder why your kids suffer draft induced colds. You build your streets in the valleys and complain when they are washed away in the spring thaw.
You continually butt heads with the nature that made you, and rudely ignore her lessons. She knows you, better then you know yourselves. You breed like rabbits, and overrun her without asking permission. She gave you AIDS to keep you humble and to give you pause to contemplate your place in the scheme of things - and you think you can "engineer" yourselves a cure.
Insolent children, when will you learn that you simply do not have the 5 billion years of experience necessary to guide your own destiny? Your best intentions will kill you, and make roon for a more obedient race.
You must understand this, you must take it to heart and know it in every cell of your soft and delicate little bodies: Learn the House Rules. Abide by them, and conduct yourself in accordance with nature. Give onto her, and she shall benefit you. Insult her and you will be punished. You have been given prophets: Darwin, Newton, Einstein, Tesla, Fuller, countless others. You will be given more. The lessons are there, you must choose to see them.
It isn't ABOUT you - but it is your choice to be here or not. Think twice because you can only act once.
Stating the same thing? (Score:2)
Since we can tailor our environment - we should do so with accordance with natural laws, not contrary to them. Making flying fish won't work.
Someone succeeded in making a chicken with legs where the wings should be. More drumsticks for KFC, but how do you catch the damn thing?
Hey where did the experts come from (Score:2)
Suddenly /. is populated with experts in genetic engineering.
Actually, I am a rocket scientist^H^H^H^H^H^Hmolecular biologist, although I prefer the term 'gene jockey'
We're creating all kinds of combinations that would just never occur in nature (such as mixing of plant and animal DNA).
Sigh. 'Never' is a big word in science. Have you been following any of the sequencing projects? It's looking more and more like horizontal gene transfer (genes moving from one species to another via bacteria or viruses) is a major factor in gene lineages. So, it's quite possible that there's some plant or animal species out there carrying some DNA from the 'other side'.
Who really knows what the effects of introducing radically new gene sequences into the environment will be?
Nobody. Anybody who tells you different is trying to sell you something. However, at some point, there's only so much testing that can be done. You've got to 'ship the product', and trust that your tech support can deal with any problems that arise in the field (no pun intended).
This is something that's going to happen sooner or later (i.e., release of a hacked organism into the Big Room with the Blue Sky). All this effort to stop the release is just going to drive it underground. Then, the release will be done illegeally, without the proper controls, and it will go to hell. The best bet for the environmental groups is not to insist on a block to release, but to insist on more and more oversight of the process.
john, /.
who's glad to see some bio-stuff on
Huh? (Score:2)
Anything beyond yeast? I can't find references to eukaryotic organisms containing plasmids.
ASAIK, only unicellular euks can carry plasmids, and not all of them. You can introduce circular plasmids into metazoans (multicellular organisms) and get gene expression, but they aren't replicated (this is called transient transfection).
People have sucessfully introduced linear DNA molecules into metazoan cells and had it replicate, I believe.
john.
There's a fallacy at play here. . . . (Score:2)
It has recently become clear that genes hop from species to species in nature very frequently.
You're okay with that statement...
For example we carry fossilised viral DNA in our cellular mitochondria -- they were once free-living virus but have now become so symbiotically linked to other species that their genes are indistinguishable from the "human" genome.
But you blow it with this one. We do have integrated retro-viral DNA in our genes. We do have mitochondria, which do have a symbiotic origin (probably). However, they used to be bacteria, not viruses (a big difference!). Additionally, you can easily tell the difference between mitochondrial DNA and H. sap. DNA (assuming you're given a large-ish chunk -- 10 or 20 kilobases), based on differences in nucleotide usage and larger scale gene organization.
Pointless Tech Analogy: It's sorta like the difference between text files across systems. Basically the look the same, but if you look closely (at the line delimiter), you can tell the difference.
john
There's a fallacy at play here. . . . (Score:2)
This may be beyond the scope of this forum...
Prolly -- but what the hey...
I seem to recall that Mitchondrial DNA had other features? Perhaps reverse twisting, or slightly modified bases (beyond methylation or deamination)?
It's circular, like bacterial chromosomes (one of the early indicators that lead to the endosybiotic hypothesis of mitochondrial and *plast origin).
AC- who's having fun tearing up other genetic arguments further down. /., isn't it?
It is fun to get to be a bio-geek on
john.
Genetically modified food (Score:2)
1. There is evidence GM soya causes immune system damage
Do you have a citation for this? I'm not asking just to be an @$$; I'd actually be interested in seeing the data.
2. One of the primary goals of the GM food industry is crops you have to buy from them each year. Right now third world farmers do rather better by saving some seeds and replanting them. This is like windows licensing your crops.
But, as others have pointed out, this isn't really all that different than hybrids, which are also sterile and give better yield. Why is the Terminator Seed so much more hazardous to Third World crop practice?
3. One of the reasons for such tight current control on GM plants is we don't know enough about genetics yet. We are at the same stage in genetics as the early explosives people were. They knew it could do wonderful things but were never quite sure what was going to happen, and likewise if you got it wrong you made a very big mess.
We're considerably further along than that! That's not to say that there aren't reasons for tight controls on release of gene hacked organisms into the environment, but by playing to ignorant fears, the anti-GM factions are making the situation more dangerous, not less.
4. Faced with a removal of their normal target insects and bacteria either move or adapt. If they adapt your genetically modified food is now useless because they've eaten it, and if they move well then you risk destroying another habitat. Also remember the largest target to move onto is Humans.
This is a decent point, and one where the above argument (early days of the field) can apply. We currently don't have a good handle on the networked nature of ecosystems, and tampering with seemingly minor variables can cause emergent effects. However, this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand, it just means we need to be very careful.
In the UK and most of Europe people tend to prefer their food grown to engineered. We don't allow growth hormone in cattle so our meat tastes a lot better, and most UK supermarkets are talking about ceasing to sell any GM foodstuffs.
If people 'prefer' no anti-GM'd food, why are there government regulations to prevent it's sale? I'm fine with the Invisible Hand determining market choice, but there seems to be a bit of a contradiction between your first statement and your second.
john.
Genetically modified food (Score:2)
>> 1. There is evidence GM soya causes immune system damage.
> Do you have a citation for this? I'm not asking just to be an @$$; I'd actually be interested in seeing the data.
This approach scares me. It seems to be very common to require those who are against a particular technology to prove that it is dangerous. It should be up to those wanting to distribute something like this to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is safe, and not be allowed to release it until they do so, thereby putting the burden of proof on those who will benefit. The minimal field trials that are taking place certainly don't do this.
Asking for a citation of a factual statement isn't all that outrageous, is it? The statement wasn't "GM-ed soya might be harmful", it was "GM-ed soya is harmful". A big difference, and all I want is a little bit of proof. Second, proving that something is perfectly harmless over the lifetime of a human animal is a pretty tall order. How do you define harmless?
Additionally, it's sort of a feature of free societies that you can do what you want as long as it's not dangerous to others. So, if you want to stop someone from doing something, then yes, the burden of proof of danger is on you. Otherwise, I could decide that, for example, your computer use is dangerous to me, and demand that you stop it until you prove that it isn't. A silly example? Maybe, but do you see my point?
by playing to ignorant fears, the anti-GM factions are making the situation more dangerous, not less.
As a member of the anti-GM faction (I used to not care until I took some time to find out what some of what was going on), I'd like to know which of my fears are ignorant, and how me arguing against GM food makes things more dangerous, as it seems that there are practically no controls currently.
The point I was trying to make here was that certain fractions of the anti-GM lobby (from what I can see) are trying to demonize the whole practice of modifying and releasing organisms. It's a rather Luddite-like argument -- "There are things man was not meant to know" -- and I think it's dangerous.
Why? Because you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube, and you can't un-invent something. An overwhelming historical fact about our species is that once we've got the power to do something that's potentially very dangerous and disasterous for all concerned, we're going to do it. Given that, strong pressure aganist the testing of these foods (which I've seen in Europe; don't know about NZ) is just going to drive the testing and development underground. It'll be a lot better for all concerned (potentially all period) if the testing and development happen out in the light of day, in an open process. To continue the analogy in your .sig, to GPL the development, rather than use a closed source propitary model.
I've snipped the rest, you make some good points. I just wanted to clear up the two above.
john.
Huh? (Score:2)
The circularized extrachromosomal DNA of bacteria is called a Plasmid. It can be transferred between species and is unique to prokaryotes. Eukaryotic organisms (plants and animals) don't use these types of genetic elements.
Not quite right. Plasmids can and do exist in eukaryotes, such as S. cerevisae (yeast).
john.
There's a fallacy at play here. . . . (Score:2)
I thought that the biggest difference between H. sap. DNA and mit. DNA was that H. sap. _had_ DNA and mitochondria had RNA.
Again, BUZZ!. Thanks for playing, tho.
Both mitochondria and the cell nucleus of eukaryotes (the organisms that have mitochondria) contain DNA. This serves as a template for the production of RNA. In the mitochondria, the RNA stays put, and is translated into mitochondrial proteins. This process also requires the import of proteins that are encoded in the nucleus.
In the nucleus, some of the RNA stays put, and functions in processes such as mRNA splicing and ribosomal RNA modification. Other RNAs are exported out of the nucleus, into the cytoplasm. There, they either do stuff (for example, the ribosomal RNA directs the production of proteins), or are translated into proteins by the ribosome. Some of those proteins are then imported into the mitochondria (see above).
The only (known) RNA-based organisms are virii. For example, the transmissive form of HIV is a double-stranded RNA retrovirus.
john, more convinced than ever that a basic bio tutorial for geeks needs to be done...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:2)
And I agree with the penicillin reference being bad. It just proves that nature will evolve another way to penetrate the resistance eventually.
The penicillin resistance in bacteria is a large part our own fault tho. Extreme overuse of antibiotics is pretty much what has accelerated the evolution of resistance so fast. If we hadnt had farmers pumping animals full of antibiotics all the time it might have been another couple of centuries before the resistant strains would start appearing.
GM is NOT safe... yet. (Score:2)
It's not common code across platforms being used to create the same code. You've got more than ribosomal compiler issues. The DNA to Protein complialtion sequence involves feedback loops on pretty much every level. You think that the NT 2000 kernel is complex? You AIN'T seen nothin'. You're transferring genes across not just Kingdoms, but superkingdoms. DNA that has not been able to work in two organism for Billenia, suddenly is creating novel proteins in an altogether new environment.
What's really at issue is companies pasting genes from one species into another, and then everybody in genetic engineering doing things like using a common promoter for the gene. Single point of failure. Not a pretty sight. Any Unix Security person recognizes the danger of that. And Biological Auditing will put NSA auditing to shame. Your seal of approval is survival. Making crops dependent upon our GM is extremely dangerous. There's very little place for diversity. Monocultured crops put out by Monsanto and the like (read about Terminator seeds: Plants that will NOT have viable seeds, Terminator 2 (Traitor) seeds: Plants that NEED Monsanto PROPRIETARY pesticides/ chemicals to survive, and the Irish Potato Famine) You think the SPA is bad? Seed companies have hotlines to report people who use 2nd generation seeds. Yup. Licensed GM products. I see a slippery slope here. You're welcome to speculate. We're going to Need the FSF and GNU here.
30 years down the line. All insects are resistant to 100s of pesticides. All major food staples like rice, wheat, and soybeans come from farms licensed to use either Dupont or Monsanto seed (assuming they don't duke it out, and Microsoft hasn't bought them out.) What are you going to do? Grow your own? It won't survive. Not a CHANCE. Now have these companies standardize on Windows 2005. Add a failure to meet the target for when the insects adapt to GM strain #31, and we become Ozymandius.
Further along this line is a serious problem with the current GM paradigm. You find a gene for resistance to a bug, by promoting a natural pesticide, so you splice it into the plant. Amazing! A field with this plant survives predation by a certain insect. Well, actually, 99% of those insects can't eat that plant, and that 1% is really insignificant. The second generation of those insects is ALL resistant to that pesticide. So once that strain of insect spreads, the entire world has effectively lost the ability to use that gene's pesticide. Why do companies do this? Because companies like Monsanto and Dupont can afford to create new pesticides every 2 or 3 years.
Wouldn't you know it, some people are allergic to some proteins. Chances are, with any food, somebody is allergic to it. You use a process of elimination to find out what you're allergic to. You put a GM (genetically modified) plant on the market, don't label it GM [consunion.org] (like the companies want) and God help you figuring out what's sending you to the hospital.
FDA approval for GM products currently consists of giving the FDA a seminar on the safety of the product. The honor system. How about splicing genes from the poppy into wheat? All our studies indicate people are happy with it.
Now I'm NOT saying that we shouldn't research genetics. This isn't meant as a luddite rant. Science is based upon blind faith in the future. That doesn't entail blind ignorance of the 4 billion years that got us here, what it means to survive and be a part of 4 billion years of evolution. GM should be done with extreme caution, and with monumental levels of supervision. One last note, there are two industries that have been refused insurance by EVERYBODY: genetic modification, and nuclear power. Nuclear power in the US has been dead/ in a holding pattern since 3 Mile island and Chernobyl. Do we NEED an equivalent before we take action?
I hope not, but just in case, I'll be damned if I don't go down fighting for my species.
So close, and yet so far... (Score:3)
We introduced penicillin into places it had never been before in order to confer resistance to diseases on humans. And it worked for a bit, then the diseases we used it on built up an immunity to penicillin, and now we've reached the point where it's starting to be ineffective, because the only bacteria still alive are immune to penicillin. What we've seen isn't penicillin genes "escaping" into other molds, it's the bacteria evolving to circumvent the penicillin.
Take the coyote as another example. Western ranchers have been trying to exterminate them for about as long as there've been Western ranchers. Shooting killed the slow ones, trapping killed the stupid ones, poisoning killed the weak ones, and the fast, smart, strong ones that were left produced fast, smart, strong puppies, until now, far from being endangered, they've expanded their range to include places like New York City. Given the forced pace of evolution they're sure to be subjected to there, they'll probably be driving taxis and lifting tourists' luggage in airports and bus stations before long.
That which does not kill you makes you stronger. Evolution beats engineering.
I don't think we need to worry about the bugs. They were here, essentially unchanged, long before there was anything even vaguely human-like on the planet, and they'll probably be here long after we're gone. If we make plants immune to bugs, we'll just end up with bugs that eat plants that are immune to regular bugs.
Hey where did the experts come from (Score:3)
There is a big difference between selective breeding, natural selection, hybridization and genetic engineering. We're creating all kinds of combinations that would just never occur in nature (such as mixing of plant and animal DNA). I would say the burden of proof should be on the companies producing GM crops to explain why there is no way nasty side effects can crop up.
The GM debate in the states has been cleverly framed so that people questioning the safety of GM crops are painted as uneducated and anti-science. (By safety I mean long term effects of existence of modified genes, NOT the danger that the food might be bad for you - that's easily tested). There's an instant aura of rationality that can be obtained by dismissing allegations of possible dangers as nonsense. Who really knows what the effects of introducing radically new gene sequences into the environment will be ? These are sequences which would never arise naturally. There may well be no danger, but would you happily allow life forms from another planet into our eco-system (hey, its probably harmless), or would it make you kinda nervous.
hysterical environmentalists (Score:3)
The amount of pollution in the air is increasing yearly. Do you think this is a scheme to put the Green party in government?
I can't get over this notion that environmentalism is a political movement. Do capitalists live on another planet? Their mountains of trash and waste are as close to them as to the hippies and tree huggers. This is not a political issue.
The Obvious Looming Bio-Catastrophe (Score:3)
Behind it lies the dubious economics of growth and consumption as practiced and preached by the G-7.
It can be summed as simply as this (from Adbusters.org):
Economists need to learn how to subtract
Until you reduce demand, you cannot stop the cycle of consumption that is killing the planet.
No you don't! (Score:3)
Only Anglo-American and Russian civilizations have a habit of trying to conquer nature, as per your statement, with Japanese, Chinese, and Indian civilizations much more intelligent about their role with nature...
However, China and India are no less a threat to global war, nuclear holocaust, and other nasty human killing effects than any of the western states. And until they were put down in the WW, Japan was as much a threat as any other nation.
My point still fits your evidence; whatever the threat humans pose to nature, we pose still more threat to each other. China, Japan, and India included.
AS
You people... (Score:3)
But I do wonder sometimes that our worst foe and enemy are... ourselves.
We create the political mess, the infighting, the squabbling and bickering. I can cite optimism to defend the idea that people will outlive whatever nature can throw at it.
I can cite the grandeur of nature to put humans in their place. Either work, it's your own choice on what to believe..
However, despite nature and it's struggles, can we really survive ourselves?
AS
Not to knock all these good comments... (Score:3)
Yes, we're playing with fire here. It's a habit of the human race. Note the ironic application of an old cliche? We're playing with fire.
That's probably how this all got started anyway.
I'm not sure that our priorities are in the right direction...
I'm pretty sure that as a whole, humans are a greater threat to each other than to nature, or than nature to the human race. Nature is reliable in her methods and attempts to deal with us.
We are an evolutionary force of nature unto ourselves, and there isn't anything we can do about it. We can be more careful, certainly, and cautious, and all, but I don't think we mean anything more than minor nuisance, no matter how much we reshape and rework our environment. Whole continents have been rearranged and destroyed, formed and buried under ice, waters have risen and lowered, etc etc, and life has survived and prevailed.
We should worry about what we are doing to ourselves and to each other too.
AS
Genetically modified food (Score:3)
1. There is evidence GM soya causes immune system damage
2. One of the primary goals of the GM food industry is crops you have to buy from them each year. Right now third world farmers do rather better by saving some seeds and replanting them. This is like windows licensing your crops.
And if they decide to stop supplying a country that is dependant on these terminator crops (eg the US interfering in another war) everyone starves to death. Good isnt it.
3. One of the reasons for such tight current control on GM plants is we don't know enough about genetics yet. We are at the same stage in genetics as the early explosives people were. They knew it could do wonderful things but were never quite sure what was going to happen, and likewise if you got it wrong you made a very big mess.
4. Faced with a removal of their normal target insects and bacteria either move or adapt. If they adapt your genetically modified food is now useless because they've eaten it, and if they move well then you risk destroying another habitat. Also remember the largest target to move onto is Humans.
In the UK and most of Europe people tend to prefer their food grown to engineered. We don't allow growth hormone in cattle so our meat tastes a lot better, and most UK supermarkets are talking about ceasing to sell any GM foodstuffs.
Alan