Slashdot Mirror
Scotts Testing Genetically Modified Grass
Caseyscrib writes "There is an article on Yahoo! News that talks about how Scotts is testing a genetically modified version of creeping bentgrass, popular on golf course greens and fairways, that will be resistant to a common weed-killing chemical. Environmentalists have long opposed bioengineered crops of any kind, and fear that '...if it was to escape onto public land, we wouldn't know how to control it.' It is now in the final stages of approval."
welcome our new genetically engineered creeping bentgrass overlords.
I can think of several ways of controlling such grass.
1) Pour gas, light match
2) Use barriers that most people already use to stop plant growth.
3) Shovel.
In all seriousness, sounds like those afraid of controlling it are just spreading FUD. If we can modify grass to resist weed killer, who says we can't also make it vulnerable to something environmentally friendly like cooking oil?
What do you do, lie on to for a while, and seee if tries to swallow you
Scott makes towels. Scotts makes lawn products.
Oh no! How are we going to stop the smooth, soft, vibrant grass that they use on golf courses from overtaking our lawns!?
Please. I beg you. Dump some of this on my lawn.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
I'm all for getting a grass strain that will also work in my yard. I'd perfer a short grass that didn't need much mowing and also have weed prevention. That seems like it would be a hot seller, but then again Scotts also sells seed, fertilizers, weed products, etc. I have a feeling that they wouldn't want it to be availiable to the common man. If they did, they'd probably charge an arm and a leg for it.
--
Retail Retreat
If this stuff spreads off the golf course, does the maker come after you for a patent violation?
Not to trivialize the issue of bioengineered crops, but to focus on it misses what's probably the more important point... this particular "crop" is designed to allow even more use of toxic chemicals that are poisoning the water supply. It's a big step in the wrong direction. If they're going to bioengineer grass, it should be with the purpose of reducing the need for chemicals in mind.
We already know what havoc creatures can create if they are moved from their original home and place in a new environment. Yet we are willing to create new species and set them loose into the world without so much as a concern for what the impact on the environment might be? Once that grass spreads beyond the golf courses and invades the yards of peoples' homes, how are they supposed to kill it without killing their own grass. We are so quick to pass judgement on genetically engineering animals, but when it comes to plants (which can cause just as much damage to the environment, if not MORE) we are willing to modify them in any way possible and place them out into the world? It's sick. Any form of genetic engineering should be banned until more is known about it's effects and the ethics of it can be worked out.
So they can pour that weed-killing chemical with no fear of damaging the golf course. But, what about me? I haven't been genetically reengineered, I guess that too many chemicals around may affect me somehow.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Reminds me of Colleurpa Taxipholia, a genetically engineered version of seaweed for use in fishtanks to withstand different temperatures, and was superior to all other seaweed.
Only problem is that it escaped into marine life and is currently taking over many areas of the sea, killing all marine life in its path (cannot be eaten as it is poisonous to most). Because of its superior nature there isn't an easy way to stop its spread, and it continues to grow.
Sounds like a similar scenario anyways.
Basically two problems:
/Tobias
1. Modified grass spreads and become "Superweed".
2. Modified genes spread to other species, either by hybridization or vectors such as bacteria. (Agrobacterium tumefaciens as an example)
This is what opposers are afraid of.
Warning: This sig contains a small bug. ==> *
I want a genetically-modified grass that:
(1) never needs mowing
(2) runs Linux
(3) fires warning lasers at door-to-door solicitors (may include the religious type)
(4) emits pheromones to attract gorgeous women
(5) each blade serves as an access point for a wireless network
(6) emulates all known video game consoles
(7) kills all insects upon contact
(8) blocks spy satellite scans
(9) makes julienne fries
The coolest voice ever.
I'm a lefty environmentalist, and I oppose this, but not for the reasons you might think. I also work in biotech, and unlike many of my fellow environmentalists, I believe strongly in the potential of genetically-modified plants. There are an enormous number of applications that could be of significant benefit to humanity:
And instead they're concentrating on making golf courses greener? WTF? Golf courses will have weeds, and bare patches, and, you know, a little of bit of something that looks kind of natural. If you don't like it, fine, go play on Astroturf. I'm a lot more concerned about people being able to eat than I am about some rich guy's putting green.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
"We've been here since the 1970s. It would be un-American to be scared away," Harriman says.
Say WHAT?
I was fairly indifferent to both sides of the argument until I read that little gem at the end of the article.
What in the world does being American have to do with any of this? What, in Mr. Harriman's opinion, is considered "American"? The goal of making money at any cost, without losing much sleep over considering consequences to the environment or to the society? That's what he seems to be implying... I'm not American, but if I were, I'd probably be outraged at a fellow American making a statement like that.
ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
Uhura thought those tribbles were cute and harmless, until they overran the ship and ate all the grain. What will we eat when this relentlessly pleasant grass overtakes all our crops?
The human race will not end in a dark nuclear apocalyptic wasteland, but rather in a cheerfull, neatly-kept lawn, covering the entire land mass of the planet.
Perhaps, but unlike SCO or MS FUD, this FUD has a basis in reality, or at least the Uncertainty and Doubt portions do: We are not certain what the environmental effects of this grass will be. We are not certain how other organisms will interact with it. We are not certain what large-scale effects on the ecosystem (ie, us) will have. Ecosystems are terribly, terribly complex and grass is a crucial part of them.
Because it's not that simple. They changed a gene that turns off sensitivity to a specific chemical in the weed killer. We don't know what else that gene change did. We don't know how it affects the grass's metabolism (or whatever you call the plant version of metabolism).
To put it in computer geek terms: it's like deciding to change a couple of variables and functions in your C library and recompiling, only imagine a C library that's about a trillion times more complex than libc. Could it work fine? Yes. Could it destroy your entire system? Doubtful, but conceivable. Could it have unforseen side effects? Almost certainly. Would you do it without large-scale, intensive testing? No. Would you do it without a damn good reason? Definitely not.
We haven't done the testing on this because we can't create a control ecosystem. And as much as I love golf, it doesn't count as a "damn good reason".
All's true that is mistrusted
By this reasoning, man would have never left the caves, developed agriculture, or gone into space.
Man did those things because the possible gains outweighed the possible pitfalls we could do a lot of things that would be incredibly stupid like kill half the worlds population with nukes, do you think we should? Technology!=progress, with great power comes great responsibility(and an even greater temptation to misuse that power)
In Soviet Russia Slashdot cliches use you
By an assistant greenskeeper: "The amazing stuff about this is, that you can play 36 holes on it in the afternoon, take it home and just get stoned to the bejeezus-belt that night on this stuff."
The annoying thing about this is that it is not engineered to be resistant to pests. It's engineerd to be resistant to Roundup, made by Monsanto. There are lots of other such "Roundup Ready" products, including canola, corn, and soybeans.
The result of this is that farmers and now greenskeepers can douse their fields and fairways with Roundup. The Roundup ready plants survives this chemical shower, and everything else dies.
The problems with this are:
(1) The environmental impact of all this (extra) Roundup being released.
(2) The fact that growers become dependent on Monsanto for Roundup. Monsanto is, in effect, genetically engineering conditions that will lead to a monopoly.
(3) The selective pressures that this will put on all the pests that Roundup is supposed to control. In the same way that staph bacteria have evolved reistance to antibiotics in hospitals, the increased use Roundup will probably lead to the evolution of Roundup resistant superpests.
Obviously Monsanto is more concerned with profiting than the long-term economic and environmental health of the country.
I'm not against genetic engineering per se, but this approach seems to be fraught with pitfalls.
A Saskatchewan farmer has been taken to court by Monsanto because his fields had some of their genetically modified canola. The canola seems to have blown in from neighbors fields and ditches. The case has gone to the Supreme Court of Canada but I haven't heard the outcome.
--RANT-- Monsanto makes SCO look like Boy Scouts. The sad thing is that lots of farmers support them and this makes them harder to fight. Let's put it this way; I wouldn't drink the milk in Florida because of the (Monsanto) drugs that get into it. Fining Monsanto has about the same effect as fining Microsoft.--/RANT--
http://www.percyschmeiser.com/
Repeat after me: Agent Orange is in no way related to RoundUp.
Agent Orange is a mixture of 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxyacetic acid and 2,4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (reference).
RoundUp is glyphosate: N-(phosphonomethyl) glycine (reference 1, reference 2).
"Max, come over here. French-Canadian bean soup. I want to pay. Let them leave me alone." - Dutch Schultz
Read the article again. The "problem" currently is that groundskeepers can't simply dump huge amounts of herbicide everywhere since the grass will die. This grass lets them dump huge amounts of herbicide everywhere to kill the normal weeds.
Yeah, I'm jumping for joy over this. I was just thinking the other day that there isn't enough herbicide being dumped on the ground right now.
All's true that is mistrusted
I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree with your conclusion. You are correct that there are experts that know far more about the subject than we do. You are also correct about the AI researcher knowing more about AI than the secretary or mechanic. However, in both cases I think that the non-expert has a right to consider the possible consequences of a technology, and determine whether they feel the dangers outweigh the benefits.
There are always dangers to implementing a new technology, particularly one that may be difficult to purge if its consequences are undesirable. While I support the cautious use of genetically engineered plants, there is a real concern of loosing control of those plants if we are not careful.
The analogy to making changes to a C library are quite valid. When we make substantial changes to any system, we need to be careful to have a pretty good idea what the side effects might be. This is true of new code, of new medications, and of introducing new plants to an ecosystem. We shouldn't let fear of the unknown paralyse us, but neither should we dive headlong into unknown waters without first taking some precautions.
Atanamis
Their closed-source version is a variant of better dog food.com where they don't just sell you the dogfood. The dog can only eat BDF.com dogfood *and* you only lease the dog *plus* you only can get poodles (and they'll sue you if poodle puppies show up in your neighborhood). The problem that Montanto is trying to solve isn't "how can farmers improve crop yields and reduce weeds?" Monsanto's problem is "How can we lock farmers into using our weedkillers?"
Think of it like a bug patch. Imagine we find a major vulnerability, solved by upgrading some software. The open source method might be to make that software available for people to patch into whatever software they're currently running. The closed source version would be to 1. Sell new software that works with the patch 2. Sell the patch, 3. Insist that all old software is dangerous and outdated and should never be used in business. (4. and then later on when a new worm comes out, a huge percent of programs can be hit all at once due to the monoculture).
With Andean potato farmers this is exactly what happened. You have farmers who've developed hundreds of different potato varieties over the years: buttery tasting ones, meaty tasting ones, ones that grow in drought / shade / various altitudes... and these potatoes could be susceptible to a particular pest (quite likely one or more of their varieties already had resistance: another story). A major North American company came in saying "Hey, our potato + pesticide combination is resistant to the pest. Buy both from us, then you'll have no problems. By the way our potato is patented- don't think about crossbreeding it." At the same time they launched a major advertising (FUD) campaign in major potato buying markets saying "Hey, our potato is the best most modern potato. Don't buy anything else." So farmers couldn't just patch their own potatoes- they had to buy into the product / product cycle upgrade of the NA company. Sounds familiar?
Or look at "golden rice." Who can argue with preventing blindness from vitamin deficiencies? Do you want Blind Babies??? But is upping the vitamin A content of rice the best method to get vitamin A to people? What about veggies which already contain high quantities of beta-carotene (yams? carrots? Other richly-colored veggies and fruits?). The royalty payments for Golden Rice could instead pay for a variety of other seeds. And if you do want to up the A content of rice, should people get to choose which varieties get upgraded?
And sometimes they're breaking standards while they're at it, (think like what VeriSign did recently with their redirect). For example, BT is a bacteria /toxin used by organic farmers for decades to kill certain insect pests. At the previous rate of use- as a spray- there was a very, very low probability of insects developing resistance. Decades of use hadn't produced it. Now that BT has been spliced into crop plants, the widespread planting of monocultures of BT crops means BT resistance is increasingly likely. As this happens the non-organic farmers can move onto other pesticides. But the organic farmers whose old standard- BT sprays- will also become useless have no backup. There was no system set up to compensate these farmers from their soon to be broken standard. Nor was their any "royalty" paid to these farmers who'd discovered BT in the first place.