Slashdot Mirror


Bio-Engineered Rice Uses Human Genes

gliph writes "Yahoo news has a piece about a small biogenetics firm that is using genetically engineered rice containing human genes to help fight diarrhea. From the article: 'Ventria's rice produces two human proteins found in mother's milk, saliva and tears, which help people hydrate and lessen the severity and duration of diarrhea attacks, a top killer of children in developing countries.'"

22 of 417 comments (clear)

  1. Condoleeza? by mbaudis · · Score: 5, Funny

    Reading the headline, I was sure this is fake news. Come on, Condoleeza and human?

  2. Madness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Scientists need to learn that just because you can do something doesn't mean that you SHOULD do it. However much it might help the PR of the administration, reengineering Condoleeza Rice to give her human genes is going way too far. This madness has to stop.

  3. Old recipe for stopping diarrhea by Aceticon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Eat uncooked flour dissolved in a little water.

    Eating cooked rice also helps stopping diarrhea. Normal rice, non genetic modifications whatsoever.

    These simple old tricks come all the way from my grandmother, and i've used them often enough to know that they work (either that or it's the placebo effect in action).

    So why exactly do we need frankein-rice for?

    1. Re:Old recipe for stopping diarrhea by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The article mentions specifically it is being developed for developing nations. Whether or not it will be donated, purchased by charities, or sold in more exploitative fashion I don't know.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    2. Re:Old recipe for stopping diarrhea by RajivSLK · · Score: 4, Informative

      In 2002, diarrhea seems to be the6th leading cause of death world wide. The third leading cause in children under 5 (second if you discount children whom do not survive birth).

  4. Product's name: by gardyloo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Soylent Green.

    1. Re:Product's name: by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      On a slightly more serious note, I remember a while ago some mutterings about the suitability (or lack thereof) of GM foods for people on Halal / Kosher diets (I think pig genes in tomatos was the particular exanmple used)

      Are there any moslem or jewish /. readers who would be able to answer whether or not products like this rice could interfere with a religious diet?

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    2. Re:Product's name: by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 4, Funny

      Damn - was scrolling and thought I could make this bad joke first...

      Well, how about the manditory Futurama gag:

      Fry: My god! What if the secret ingredient is... people?!!

      Leela: No, there's already food like that -- Soylent Rice.

      Fry: "How does it taste?"

      Leela: "...It varies from person to person."

    3. Re:Product's name: by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Informative

      OK, I'll bite. Unlike what appears to be the majority of Slashdotters, I actually am a Christian and yes I do go to a church that you would call "fundamentalist". While we don't use that description ourselves, it is accurate. So I think I am qualified to give a non-troll answer.

      Yes, you are being ridiculous. Nobody would consider such rice to be "human". I feel sorry for you because you are either stupid enough to actually think we might think a few human genes makes something human or you are just a sadly misinformed person with regards to how religious people think.

      Personally, while I am not in particular in favor of genetically modified food for reasons that have nothing at all to do with religion, I would not be surprised if some Christians objected to this rice. Not because it is "human" but because the creators are "playing God" or some such nonsense. Personally, I think that God gave us brains to use to make our lives better through advances in science and medicine. If I was going to get on board with genetically modified food, this would probably the be the one I'd support.

  5. Re:Ethics? by Compuser · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And when you do an insulin shot, is that
    also injecting yourself with a part of a
    human? Many drugs are made in e.g. e.coli
    where a human or modified human gene is
    expressed to make a protein, then purified
    and sold. This new approach is just
    packaging the relevant drug/protein in a
    capsule which happens to be a rice grain.
    No ethics problems here.

  6. Re:Ethics? by BigWhale · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ethics - Schmetics! ;)

      You obviously never had a little child with severe diarrhea. Which is sometimes accompanied by a lot of vomiting. So everything you feed to your child goes out. If not in first few minutes upwards than in next few minutes downwards.

      Eating human? Please. There are many genes that are common to many speices. So, 'eating genes' that are present in pig/cow/horse/chicken... and human... Well, you cannibal!

    --
    The Sig, the sig
  7. $ick $cience by STDOUBT · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "...which help people hydrate and lessen the severity and duration of diarrhea attacks, a top killer of children in developing countries" (think of the children!)

    You know what helps people hydrate? Water. Clean water and food can prevent diarrhea. All that money going into genetically engineered crops. Why not fix the socio-political problems of these regions so the infrastructures -> people can become healthy?

    Oh yeah... no profit in that. Hell's gonna be standing room only.

  8. Fertile or unfertile, patented or free by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's the questions. Not whether that rice has super-human powers. Is it fertile? Can the farmer put away some of his harvest for next year to plant a new crop or is the outcome of the rice sterile?

    If it does, is he allowed to? May he actually plant that rice without a new license for next year? No kidding, some (very popular) sorts cannot be used anymore because the company holding the rights (yes, there is rights and patents on food. Go figure) doesn't allow using it anymore.

    This malpractice is getting more and more common to make farmers dependent on industrial seeds.

    So that's the questions I'd prefer to have answered. Not what the wonder-rice could be. I'd be interested in the question what it IS.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Re:Ethics vs survival by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 5, Informative
    When clean water is not always at hand, diseases such as dysentery are easy to catch. Although this rice is no cure, it can help prevent the loss of fluids associated with this disease and help save lives.

    It's not like they're going to ship the rice for the local farmers to grow - from tfa:
    The company says the chance of its genetically engineered rice ending up in the food supply is remote because the company grinds the rice and extracts the protein before shipping.
    And its not like they're going to give it away for free:
    Ventria owns product and enabling technology rights from its internal development effort and by license, assignment, or exclusive option agreements as follows:

            * 5 issued United States patents relating to protein expression and products
            * 4 foreign patents relating to protein expression and products
            * Over 10 filings relating to ExpressTec
            * Over 10 filings for the products, their formulations,
    So, we've got a new method of manufacturing proteins by extracting them from GM rice. US rice farmers are worried that it will affect trade with anti-GM nations. Environmentalists are worried about it for the usual GM worries (cross pollination with wild rices, unknown future side affects, species jumping, etc).

    I think the way to cure dysentry is like many other posters have said, to fix infrastructure.
    --
    There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  10. Long Pole in the Tent: Celliac Disease by ElitistWhiner · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1:133 people in the US have Celliac Disease - inability of the gut to absorb nutrient. #1 symptom = Diarhea. Diarhea wipes out the villi in the intestines, which is your body's system for up-taking nutrients from foods as they pass through the gut. No villi - no nutrients:: You Die.

    I've seen no study to verify mammary colostrum and human tears have any propolactic effect on villi, but paired with rice its a good starter. Celliac Disease causes the body's immune system to adversely react to a protein found in wheat products - gluten. Celliac's are able eat rice without the toxic effects of other grains.

    There is no cure, no treatment, no therapy for Celliac Disease. The only thing that can be done is remove gluten from the diet. The damage to the villi can be reversed in most cases and health maintained with a disciplined gluten-free diet for Life.

    The GM rice/human DNA engineered grain could only reverse the death rate in developing countries if the GM DNA provide an immunity. The villi are delicate structures which regenerate all the time in health people. They are wiped out when anyone gets diarhea. That's what diarhea is, loss of villi, medically.

    If the GM rice passes immunity to the villi, they have a treatment for every 1:133 American's living with the disease. Not bad market.

  11. GM Rice Bubbles: Snap, Crackle and Mom! by ian_mackereth · · Score: 4, Funny
    But you have to admire a breakfast cereal that comes complete with its own milk.

    And if you repeatedly harvest grains with human genes in them, does that make you a cereal killer?

  12. Shut the fuck up. by nugneant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously.

    Shut. The. Fuck. Up.

    It's easy for you to bitch and moan and fear-monger about the ethics of human DNA in some rice, from your computer chair in your air-conditioned first-world home or office. Meanwhile there are people - real, live people - people with thoughts, and feelings, and whose well-being you'd place at first-priority, whose well-being would be your tantamount concern, whose well-being would trump these silly goddamn over-analytical beardo quack ideas and "what ifs" -- that is, if you weren't such a fucking unthinking monster -- and these people are shitting themselves to death. And even though you and I both laughed as kids when we played Oregon Trail and learned what "dysentary" meant, one of us has managed to grow up, and figures it'd be best if we could put a stop to this horrible pain and suffering in the real world. Meanwhile, the other one is playing Armchair Philosopher, talking about lines being crossed and the ethics of eliminating suffering , without knowing the first thing about what he's talking about. Jesus Christ.

    Have you heard about a little invention from the very late 1700s called "vaccinations"? Is this "ethical" in your eyes? Was it "ethical" for Louis Pasteur to inject human beings with (residual amounts of) COW DNA? Or should we have put a stop to this and let smallpox continue to ravage the globe? What about blood transfusions? That's OMG human DNA as well. Or, wait, are you one of those fucking quacker-flappers, like that lady who made an entire campaign out of "HIV does not cause AIDS", then gave AIDS to her daughter (by not taking any preventative measures during pregnancy)?

    Look. I'm trying not to be too much of a -1 Flamebait -1 Troll -1 Confrontational Asshole, but what is your deal? If someone you loved (assuming you are actually capable of feeling empathy, or anything beyond Moral Sense [c.f. Twain, "The Mysterious Stranger"]) was locked in a room, in a hotel you did not own, which was currently on fire, would you worry about the ethics of breaking the door down? Would you tap the fireman on the back as he was about to take an axe to the door, and oh-so-wisely, intellectually bleat^H^H^H^H^H state that it was a violation of ethics to be destroying property that wasn't yours? Would you then put on your Humble Pious Face, with your head solemnly cast down, and proclaim your grief for the impending loss of your wife / child / mother / father? Or does this garbage only spew forth from your mouth when it's other people's children whose lives are at risk?

    So much idiotic diarrhea dribbling out of your mouth - I'm sure this isn't the only completely moronic thing you've managed to come up with in your blessedly short existance. Maybe you could use a DNA injection. I know I'd gladly sodomize you. I mean "innoculate" you - I get those two words confused =)!



    MODS: -1, Whatever me all you want. I prefer not to intellectualize idiocy (such as the Parent post), so if you're going to mod me down for calling bullshit when I see it, mod me down, for calling bullshit, when, I, see... it. </Shatner>

    1. Re:Shut the fuck up. by value_added · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's easy for you to bitch and moan and fear-monger about the ethics of human DNA in some rice ... Meanwhile there are people whose well-being would trump these silly goddamn over-analytical beardo quack ideas and "what ifs"

      What ifs? Is that meant to be imply some negative connotation to perfectly reasonable and serious concerns?

      Here's a whatif, for you. What if we give hard working salt-of-the-earth farmers the chance to save some money and allow them to feed their cows animal protein instead of corn? Never mind the overly analytical issue of feeding herbivores other herbivores, there's livelihoods at risk, economies at stake, and benefits to go around for everyone.

      Sorry, but the history of technological progress is littered with Really Bad Ideas that sounded really good at one time. Mad cow is just the latest, and a Google search will turn up as many as you want. Any radical idea deserves serious vetting, whether it takes the form of catcalls from the /. audience, or academic studies really isn't so important.

  13. Wind Pollination by Crisses · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have a big issue with genetically engineered grains. All grains are wind pollinated. Pollen can travel quite far before fertilizing the female of a compatible plant species. Organic corn growers are already having big issues with this. You can't have heritage grains and pure strains when people are mucking around with wind pollenated plants.

    I don't know how far they have tested this, but medicine and science has had several disasters with medications given to one generation and the disastrous results showing up in subsequent generations. Why can't we stick with things that humans evolved on and eliminate the crud like high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, genetically modified foods, olean, etc? Our bodies don't know what we're eating anymore.

    --
    ---- I'm out of your mind!
  14. so why do you want to hurt them? by penguin-collective · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Meanwhile there are people - real, live people - people with thoughts, and feelings, and whose well-being you'd place at first-priority, whose well-being would be your tantamount concern, whose well-being would trump these silly goddamn over-analytical beardo quack ideas and "what ifs"

    These people are not going to be helped with bioengineered rice. The problems in the third world are political chaos, war, lack of family planning, lack of education, religious fundamentalism, and others. Poverty, disease, high mortality, child labor, homelessness, and migration are symptoms of that. You can't fix the problems by treating the symptoms, and even if the first world made it its top priority to help the third world, it couldn't being to alleviate the suffering. The only way this is ever going to get fixed is to address the root problems.

    Every dollar you invest in attempts at quick fixes like bioengineered rice is a dollar you aren't spending on fixing the fundamental problems. It's actually worse than that: if you give these people crutches like bioengineered rice, they're even less likely to do what's necessary to modernize their infrastructure, and you make them dependent on high-tech products and imports.

    It's well-meaning idiots like you that focus on the short term and keep meddling in those societies (creating corruption and dependency in the process) that are responsible for a large part of the suffering in the third world. Europe and the US developed into modern societies with long life expectancies without such meddling, and these nations can and will as well if we give them access to world markets and let them compete and develop freely.

  15. Ethics and what have you by jandersen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's weird to see how 'ethics' is used as a cheap and easy excuse for not doing the right thing; how can it not be right to save the lives of children?

    But of course, this is not about save the lives of poor children - it is just yet another way to earn money from the poor. If we really wanted to put an end to unnecessary suffering, it would be far more relevant to try ending poverty; it is after all not as if we in the western world couldn't it if we really wanted to.

    However, there is a more sinister side to the debate about genetically modified plants: gene pollution. It works like this: you grow your modified plant, the bees (or wind) comes and takes pollen away, and some of it pollinates wild plants - or the neighbor farmer's unmodified crop.

    In the first case wild plant species now carry the modification, and it may or may not pop up later in circumstances that are very unfortunate. In the second case the farmer's crop is suddenly 'illegal', because it now contains patented genes that he has not paid any ryalties for using.

    Now that's the REAL ethical challenge when it comes to genetic modification.

  16. Re:These symptoms are caused by poverty by RicoX9 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's not just clean water, though that is a big piece of the pie. My parents spent 18 months in Mozambique doing missionary work. Diarrhea kills a LOT of children there. The important part is where it starts. In Mozambique, they don't have effective (or any) mosquito control programs. Nor do they have much access to anti-malarial drugs. As cheap as anti-malarials are, they cost too much for most of the population. Then you have to add to the problem that the hospitals don't have adequate equipment to sterilize everything, so it gets soap and water cleaning.

    The best example I have is the story my dad told me about the security guard at the church (yes 24x7 security or everything would be stolen). This man's 2 year old daughter got malaria from a mosquito bite. The resulting diarrhea made him desperate enough to take her to the hospital. The IV of fluids she got helped, but she died shortly after from the staph infection she got from the needle.

    When my parents went to her funeral, they were SHOCKED at the size of the cemetary. It was for children only. Dad said he'd never seen such a huge cemetary - it was 5 miles across. Every grave marker had a number on it. The marker for the little girl they were there to bury was #278,xxx. That is a LOT of children.

    I don't remember the exact statistics my dad quoted me, but something like half of all children in Mozambique die by the age of 5. It would be even easier to provide mosquito control pesticides (which work quite well next door in South Africa, no anti-malarials needed), and the cheap anti-malarial drugs in bulk.

    I'm no expert, but I'm a parent. I really feel for the people in these countries. It wouldn't take much to improve their situation dramatically. The other side of that coin is the rampant corruption in most African nations, which is a big stumbling block to getting aid to the people. That's a subject for another day though.