Slashdot Mirror
Sequencing the Weed Genome
GNUman writes "Maybe soon we'll be able to genetically modify humans so that a specific action (e.g., tapping your nose, pinching your ear) triggers the release of THC directly from your own cells. From the Nature blog post: 'At last, the field of genomics has something to offer Cheech and Chong. DNA sequencing hit a new high last night with the midnight release of the Cannabis sativa genome. The raw sequence was posted on Amazon's EC2 public cloud computing service by a young company called Medicinal Genomics, which aims to explore the genomes of therapeutic plants.'"
Somebody needs to make a version of weed that causes cancer
They have that. It's called tobacco.
And then use the corn to make Cheetos and kill 2 birds.
Dandelions. That way either - 1) They find some way of eradicating dandelions effectively, or 2) Hey, free pot dandelions everywhere. Either outcome would be acceptable.
btw, the drugs name you were looking for was marinol and it doesn't have the benefits of cannabis because it lacks cbd's/cbn's. That's precisely why the US government only allowed studies to be done with hemp laced with marinol to show that it wasn't a good medical treatment.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
that they have verified that
1.) They are certain that heredity is solely controlled by genes.
2.) They are certain that DNA is the sole mechanism for passing on genes.
3.) That looking at DNA sequences is a productive method of finding causes of things.
Personally I believe that they are uncertain in (1), uncertain in (2) and that (3) is not true. DNA is a waste of time with regards to 99.99999% of human behaviour.
WTF have you been smoking? Even if 1 and 2 are not completely true, there is enough about us programmed into our genes that it's still a useful thing to know. Human behaviour is part nature part nurture, not exclusively one or the other, and I bet the nature part is more than the 0.00001% figure you cite. Understanding the nature part can help us understand the nurture part better, so it's not a waste of time.
People have been doing that for many years with the common hop vine (Humulus lupulus) which is also a member of the Cannabaceae family. Grafting hop vines onto a good Cannabis rootstock yields a scion with strobili that are visually indistinguishable from an ordinary hop flower. Unfortunately, the product is not very potent-- the best outcome is maybe 1.5-2% THC (and only trace amounts of other interesting compounds) which is terrible compared to the 10-20% THC that you can get from a well-managed C. sativa or C. indica flower. Also, the graft process is very finicky, the scion does not grow as well as an ungrafted vine, and your resulting plant is annual (like Cannabis) rather than perennial (like Humulus.) The hops you get are not terribly useful for beer-making, which is pretty much the only use for hops. (Some people like to make a sedative tea from hops, though I doubt that would be a good delivery method for the THC, since it's not water-soluble.) One other major "gotcha" is that the Cannabis plant matures much faster than hops, and the production density is hundreds of times better for Cannabis than Humulus.
Interestingly, there is some published scientific literature (see Crombie) that claims this grafting process does not work. However, I wonder, because Crombie talks about the hops "leaves" even though the only useful part of the plant is the flower (or properly, the "strobile.") The research I mention above has not been published, though the "1.5-2% THC" value I quoted has been measured by GC-MS. And, of course, there are just tons of anecdotal evidence from amateur gardeners that support either opinion.
I'll let someone else do the genetic research, but I think it may eventually be possible to engineer an algae that eats sunlight and poops THC. Wouldn't that be fun!
I'm not sure how these arguments are related, but I like my "High Voltage" and "Corrosive" labels, thank you very much. Some warnings exist for a reason.
The issue with drugs is that, when legalized in large quantities, they tend to lead to the same situation that happened with opium. That is not good for society as a whole. Alcohol is bad enough, but putting hallucinogens and other drug chemicals into plants that do not naturally have them is a bad thing. At best it makes drugs far too easily availabe, at worst it brings the country to its knees.
Drugs are a complicated issue, as I would like to think that freedom to choose is always best, but the simple fact is that a vast majority of people will abuse the privilege. People still smoke and even choose to start smoking, despite the warnings, despite the taxes, despite all common sense to the contrary.
I have seen the damage that even "weak" drugs can do when they become the center of someone's life. We need to end all the "War on X"s, but blanket legalization is not a good thing. Maybe pot should be legal, but with crack and heroin, that is never going to happen. There needs to be some balance, and as it stands, we're far too much towards the prohibition side. The administrative costs (police, court, prison, appeals, legislation, investigation...), the infringements upon civil rights, and the seriously questionable gain is just too much. However, THC-laced vegetables is far too much towards the stoned-out society side.
Like I said, it's not a simple issue, and trying to make it into one by running around saying "your fucking business" isn't going to convince anyone. That's the kind of attitude that causes pot to be so stigmatized in US politics. Learn civility, it's the only way you'll ever get what you want in life.
Great Intellect...
Yes they are, because higher yield is a myth
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong I could dig up more from my bookmarks, but it's late here and you get the point. You might be thinking of the study titled 'Failure to Yield' a study claiming that GMOs actually had lesser yield (although it was based on data showing an increase). Actually, yield gains in developed countries are relatively low, only like 3-5%. But that is because pesticides already pushed yields to the limit. If you replace pesticides with resistant GMOs, it isn't that much difference (but make no mistake there still is a difference). Where Bt GMOs really shine is in developing countries where they might not always have access to pesticides. There, the difference can be dramatic. And of course in the case of viral resistant GMOs or fungal resistant GMOs they can make the difference between an industry continuing to exist or disappearing (without GMOs there would be no Hawaiian papaya industry and I've read some very promising information about GMOs with anti-fungal proteins).
the plants are killing insects indiscriminately (see honeybees)
The cry proteins used in the Bt GMOs are actually very specific, much more so than the pesticides they replaced. Do you have any evidence (besides some anti-GMO nutter's rantings) that Bt plants are in any way responsible for CCD, which need I remind you occures even in countries where GM crops are banned?
Also, familiarize yourself with terminator gene
I've done genetic engineering before, so I'm already pretty familiar with that thanks. Terminator technology was developed to prevent unwanted gene transfer. You know, that thing the anti-GMO groups are always complaining about. ISo, a safeguard to prevent that would make them happy, right? Ha! These people are harder to please than anti-vaxxers. They just put a nasty spin on it and freaked out even more! In other words, damned if you do and damned if you don't.I know what you (the agricultural layman) must be thinking: how horrible to keep farmers from saving seed. But you miss something very important: no one really does that anyway (besides those growing heirloom crops, the smae people the terminator gene would protect). Back in the early 1900's pretty much every farmer realized that if you use hybrids, superior crops but whose seeds do not possess genetic uniformity (making them unsuitable for seed saving), you could get higher yields. The gain was so much that it justified the cost of buying new seed every year. So, ever since then, farmers bought their seed from seed companies. Almost a hundred years later, GMOs get the blame. Makes no sense, but that's the anti-GMO movement for you. As an aside, some people are working on GMOs with apomixis traits, meaning the seeds are basically clones and as such the hybrid vigor would be preserved thus eliminating the need for seed vendors. But anyway, the terminator trait, despite the ill will directed toward it, is more misunderstood than dangerous. Course you could say the same thing of every other GM crop.
You could make an evolutionary argument that a medicine which has coevolved with our species, been ingested by billions of people over millions of years, and has been taken by people from most different genetic groups around the world, has been better tested, and proven safer, than something someone came up with in a lab and tried out on a few mice, and wants to push on consumers for profit.
Korma: Good
Marijuana is carcinogenic
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
You've been lied to by the government... again. Smoking pot does increase your risk for COPD, but as the linked articl says, pot may actually help prevent cancer.
Free Martian Whores!