Slashdot Mirror
Genetically-Modified Everything
BreadMan writes "The Economist has an interesting article about how the use of GM (genetically modified) plants extends well beyond the food industry. Altered trees that make better paper, insect-resistant cotton, potatoes that contain the right kinds of starches. An interesting read to see where the industry is going in light of problems with having GM foods on the dinner table. There's more industrial uses for agricultural products than you'd think of right away, so this may be a lucrative use for GM technology."
Just ask Gregor Mendel.
You misspelt 'hemp'
GM plants can be VERY beneficial if modified correctly. This crop can be used as a fuel source, replacing oil-based gasoline. Get the yield high enough my GM'ing, and it becomes a great replacement - less pollution, more energy independence on any country capable of producing crops, and an industry that may finally get agriculture off the government dime.
I'm a little concerned about how the goal of most GM projects, that I know of, is to modify something so that it most benefits humans. Isn't that a bad idea? I mean, I know we're at the top of the "food chain," and we're clever and everything, but the world works because of cycles -- life and death; mutual symbiosis in one capacity or another. What if we modified everything and then we were suddenly rendered extinct? I have a feeling that if scientists tried to figure how to make a given organism more beneficial to its entire environment, they would come up with no major alterations.
I don't thing GM things are any more or LESS dangerous than nuclear research. If we allow corporations to do as they please, they will find the easiest way to maximum profits.
This did not used to be so bad. But today the shortsightedness, or rather the self centeredness of the modern executive can be very dangerous to the publics health and the publics wallet.
I'm not against GM products, on the contrary. As population pressures grow in a seemingly exponential way we are going to need these things to survive. The planet can only do so much on its own.
But it's bound to happen eventually. We just need to be aware of the risks and weigh them against the benefits.
Forget about designer fruit...
There are bacteria that can generate small amounts of hydrogen gas. If genetic engineering can make these bacteria much better at this function, we will have very good renewable energy source.
Not only is it a lucrative market
First, lets alter genetics to eliminate the source of greed that drives everyone to fuck with everything they can. Maybe I'm the only one, but sometimes I think things are getting out of hand.
there wouldn't be worries about the altered genes entering the natural ecosystem because of the sterility.
And Microsoft produces bug-free code. No amount of engineering can produce "worry-free" systems.
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
Yes, we all believe you really were a geneticist. I mean, look, you almost spelled your former job title correctly! And "daffodils" you got wrong, in two different ways!
Your story makes absolutely no sense (why again were you splicing the genes of a daffodil with that of algae) and why was a beer maker doing GM work on chickens in the early 80's.
Nice try though. I'm sure you'll get up to about +4 Interesting until some mods actually ready your little tale.
I've just signed legislation that'll outlaw Russia forever. We'll begin bombing in five minutes.
Hemp makes stronger paper than wood pulp, and a pair of hemp jeans on average lasts three years while cotton-based denim jeans last about two years (on average). Hemp clothe also blocks UV rays (which cotton does not). Hemp also does not have any insects that bother it so does not need insecticide. Hemp grows in the exact say soil conditions as tobacco plants, and as grows quite well in cotton plant conditions. Hemp also does NOT contain any THC (the 'active' ingredient in marijuana): you would have to smoke about an acre of hemp to get the equivalent of the hit fron one 'joint'.
Or we can take unknown risks with genetically modified plants that are probably patented and owned by the company that "designed" it.
One of the main reasons why hemp became illegal is because William Lionel (sp?) Hearst had wood pulp mills that could go out of business if hemp became popular, so his chain of news papers starting associated hemp with marijuana, and helped to make both illegal. (Hearst is also the guy who tried to get the file "Citizan Kane" shredded.)
Perhaps we should re-examine our options before we go running to technology to try to solve problems of our own making?
Just a thought.
Aren't cats already permacute large feline cubs? Bred by Egyptians to keep granaries clear of rodents? (I was told this was the reasons why cats like to run through closing doors and jump into boxes). And dogs are permacute wolve cubs adapted to various roles (retrieving, searching, attacking, guarding etc...).
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Shape mountains,
Create lakes,
Create 100% radioactive test envioronments
Observe radiated species mutations
Study human health.
Nukes are REALLY USEFUL THINGS. Industry's just chomping at the bit, looking for ways to make money off of em, too.
And just to get your children's thoughts rolling with the possibilities, we [of slashdot staff] will be hyping the uses of nuclear landscapes [for free].
Socially irresponsible? Inconsiderate? NOT AT ALL! We'll test it out in miniature scale, first, by giving sticks of radiated dynamite to monkeys, and releasing them in your city.
Thanks for the hype slashdot. No. I'm NOT disgusted.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
That's not GM posing a threat, that's patent law and patent enforcement getting out of hand again. This is Slashdot, we should be able to differentiate between the technology and the poor policy decisions and laws surrounding it.
Yep. Until we get the patent laws fixed, GM plants carry that very real threat. It's not the plant's fault, and not the fault of the techniques which created it, but the threat is no less real for all that, and it definitely goes with the plant..
See what I've been reading.
Point, set, match and game.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I'm not religious, so I'm not saying "Don't play God", but it is the height of arrogance for scientists to say they understand genetics sufficiently to control GM. Some GM stuff in labs can perhaps be controlled, but once modified geness are released into the RealWorld they are very difficult to control. The risk of doing bad things is great. We already see the effects of cross contamination of crops etc.
Funny how you say that they don't understand genetics, yet that is what they do for a living. I would venture a guess that they understand it just a wee bit better than YOU do. I also find the GM argument to be odd that people will say "You have to prove that it isn't harmful". To which scientists provide evidence that shows no harmful effects in studies. For some reason, that doesn't seem to be good enough. Sure, there is limited concern because for most of us, it is somewhat of an unknown. The idea of GM things are a little scary to us. But this is what they do. Your subject suggests that they don't understand their life's work. That is ridiculous.
You could almost liken it to the GPL. Don't release your software under the GPL, you don't know the ramifications of doing so. Don't treat GM products the way MS treats the GPL.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
GM foods have been controversial partly because of the power that patented foods would give to companies like Monsanto. I fear these other organisms would be the same way...
A prev. poster likened this to open source and closed source and in this regard he is completely right (though it was modded funny rather than insightful) but it is worse than closed source software because it is aimed at replacing vital commodities with intellectual property rights.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
EU's laws against GM are unreasonable. I'm not saying people shouldn't be concerned about what they eat, but to there isn't anything special about GM food. Nothing is totally safe and perfectly understood, even nature itself.
Fine, but put the blame where it belongs: the law, not the technology.As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Please tell me this was a joke.
We on this planet really know so little about genetic crap...
Well, no, **YOU** really know so little.
Sadly, the case with GM is that it will be prevented by the hysterical uninformed and fearful ignorant masses. Just the same as with energy. We could have a world of efficient and modern nuclear power, but, no, everyone, even the supposed smart geek set, has to sit in their caves and wail at the moon and not open their eyes.
You all only listen to the whispers of agenda-driven boogeymen, and ignore the hard data of the truly informed. This is the shitpile world you deserve. I just wish I didn't have to deal with it as well.
I now return you to your dark, demon haunted world.
--- Ban humanity.
Lovely in theory, but the sole purpose of very first GM products on the market was to allow the manufacturer to sell more herbicide!
Not only that, but they then have the temerity to go and prosecute people who's fields have been contaminated by their products for patent infringement. They should be made responsible for clearing up gene flow. After all the bloody stuff is now immune to the conventional herbicides.
Deleted
This would be fine if the old standard model of genetics were true: one gene, one protein. It's actually not true, eg. humans have 30K genes, 100K proteins. Gene expression depends on the environment within the cell. And it may get whackier than that...the current Scientific American has an article on genetics, claiming that the non-coding DNA that we thought had no function, actually controls gene expression via RNA...authors say our understanding of genetics could drastically change.
So now, without fully understanding how it all works, we're inserting a gene with expression we understand, into a completely different organism, different cellular environment. And in fact, when we do so, the results are frequently not what we expect. Sometimes the differences are obvious; how do we know for sure whether there are unobvious differences?
Seems to me that until we actually understand genetics in full, and can reliably predict outcomes, we should be a mite cautious about this. (Even then, it would help to know more about ecology.)
Btw, there's another route...some people are getting results as good as GM, by using genetic information for very selective breeding. Less worry about bizarre side effects that way, since you're using genes native to the organism.
Let's try a simple example. Gene A is responsible for causing Plant to:
1. Be more resistent to Disease X.
2. Hindering industrial processing (for whatever we happen to be processing the plant for).
3. Not grow tall.
GM Plant has been modified to ensure Gene A does not exist. GM Plant is farmed. GM Plant cross-polinates with Plant in the wild. After a few generations, large numbers of hybrid trees exists. Plants without Gene A start to crowd out plants with Gene A because Gene A keeps plants from growing tall and they cannot get enough sunlight. Most plants with Gene A cannot compete. Now, the majority of plants do not have Gene A.
A disease comes along, which only plants with Gene A can fight off. Within a few years, massive numbers die off.
See the problem. Hypothetical, but illustrates the problem. And what limited studies we're doing cannot reveal what happens when we let this loose in the environment, where once it's loose, it's loose. We can't count on being able to rein this in after the fact. We can't just shut off the supply of GM organisms. Once it's out there, it's out there. An unsafe drug may be stopped; sure, some of it may pass through in our urine or feces; some of it may be dumped; it's there; that's the reason why we all care about clean air, water, etc. But a GM plant may reproduce (by itself or with other plants) and the organism takes on a life of its own.
Sure, that can happen in nature with or without human interaction or the GM aspect, but we sure are asking for it with the GM aspect!
What happens if the non-GM plants become extinct before the disease appears?
Sure, if we're smart, we have stores of seed from before it was modified, but do we have stores of seed from all the different varities than may be affected? How can what we have stored contain as much genetic variation as the whole population? It still means we may have to do something about the GM variety...