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.'"

Comments

Re:Now all we need is...

[dzr0001]

And then use the corn to make Cheetos and kill 2 birds.

Re:What about cannabis inidica?

[Jmc23]

Hows the kool-aid taste? I haven't found an effective NSAID for my jra in the past 25 years. Cbd's and cbn's work but i don't want the high which is exactly why i posted what i did. Please try to not spread your ignorance.

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.

Re:Just to check

[jamesh]

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.

Re:Natural? uranium is 'natural'... weak argument

[biodata]

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.