Slashdot Mirror
Gene Leakage
Mike B writes "A leading UK scientist says he thinks genes from
genetically-modified (GM) crops will inevitably escape into other plants.
"What would happen, for instance, if a gene that conferred resistance against insects escaped?
Suddenly we have no insects. With no insects you have no ecology, no ecosystem, no pollinators, no flowers, God knows what. "
"
Oh, ya. Roundup. What a delightful invention. All my neighbors use it. Can't wait to see what it does to the groundwater. Of course, we'll all be dead by then. Hope their children enjoy it.
buhuahaahaaahaaaaa
The circularized extrachromosomal DNA of bacteria is called a Plasmid. It can be transferred between species and is unique to prokaryotes. Eukaryotic organisms (plants and animals) don't use these types of genetic elements.
Though you could see something with a transposon I suppose.
Anything beyond yeast? I can't find references to eukaryotic organisms containing plasmids.
Just point of reference for someone who has obviously never studied genetics...
GM has been going on since the dawn of civilization. Cross-breeding, of plants and animals to yield superior plants and animals has been the rule. The methods used now are essentially no different, if just better controlled.
Don't worry about this crap in the article here is the real concern:
Multi Resistant Bacteria. A resistance plasmid in the wake of selection will spread throughout a population of bacteria incredibly fast due to the mechanism of evolution. Furthermore, it is possible to transfer various resistance plasmids from one species to another. Even now there are bacteria that are resistant to almost every antiobiotic produced. This occured in oh what 50 years or so since Flemming introduced penicillin?
That's rapid evolution. It was most certainly caused by a couple of major effects: Overuse of antiobiotics, and the haploid nature of bacteria.
Plants are often polyploid and a single gene insert into their genome is not likely to show any pronounced phenotypic effects. Accidental insertion into a eukaryotic genome that isn't a lethal mutation and instead forces a change in dominant phenotype.... I'd like to see the literature on that one.
(Don't know what this stuff means, the look it up before you start commenting on it.)
Your senario where the genetically enhanced crops making the family farmer's crops sterile, isn't going to happen. All of the farmers that I knew when I was growing up already used hybrid crop seeds. Buying seed for the planting season was just another expense and probably a small one at that. The only ones that could keep the crop and then replant it where the guys that were in a program for growing crops for the ag college or a seed company.
It's not like Monsanto is the only seed company out there, either.
I won't trust the words of a scientist who uses the word "ain't" in an interview.
All FUD.
These sorts of experiments are done in controlled conditions. This whole 'leaking' thing is very absurd.
Well most viruses are species specific. And also remember the 'tree' of evolution, newer more modern species will always contain genetic sequences of older species (derived from common ancestors). Heck human, fish, and chicken embryos all look morphologically similar due to just this sort of thing.
However, just because there is a sequence does not mean it is actually active. Around 2% of the human genome codes for protein (let's give tRNA and rRNA another 1% to be nice) and the rest is either, promoter, terminator, enhancer, telomere, centromere, or most usually... unknown function.
It seems that the biggest bunch of DNA does nothing at all. One of the early arguments around the Genome Project was should we map DNA that does nothing. I personally believer it must have a function and to just dismiss it is premature.
Did you know that geologists believe that we are still coming OUT OF a period of the last ice age? As in, we should expect continued melting of ice caps and glaciers. Hell, North America spent much of the last 300 million years as a shallow marine area, as in UNDER WATER.
Don't believe everything you read. Ask yourself where the money is going. Do CFC's destroy ozone? No conclusive evidence, but some big chemical company here in the US funded "research" that said so. Guess what? They had a patent on what was then the ONLY non-CFC refrigerant. Follow the money and you will find the source of the FUD.
The example given of mitochondria is flawed. I like the example of the active hemoglobin gene acquired by sweet pea plants from the animal kingdom better.
The idea that the genes will jump to enough other plant species to wipe out an ecologically important range of insects (or presumably rusts, smuts, fungi, et cetra) is beyond absurdity.
All this is again environmentalist bullshit.
Let the environmentalist run things and then you'll have huge environmental catastrophies.
The environmentalists are yet another breed of
poeple who try to leverage on emotional FUD to
gain power and undermine the society.
The nazis did that with the german resentment
against the WWI defeat and economic crisis,
and wanted a 1000 years empire. They destroyed
their own country and it took half a century for
Germany to have again some influence in
international affairs.
The commies leveraged on working class resentment
against upper classes and wanted to suppress
poverty : all they got is tens of millions
of people dying from starvation.
Environmentalism is all the same thing : using
mass emotional resentment and fear to justify
senseless political goal.
It's even a lot more extensive than that. There are entire families of viruses that routinely become incorportated into our DNA. There are even virus-like genes called "transposable elements" (transposons, retroposons, etc.) that are not even able to leave the cell - a complete virus needs to contain the code for capsid proteins, etc.
/.-ers know a lot about molecular genetics, but once you get into this stuff the parallels to computers are amazing.
I don't know how many
Your argument is a lot like people who cite the classical economists without having read them. Sure, the market will in the long run optimize marginal human weal, but it may kill a lot of innocent people in the meantime. The fact that a system has control loops which optimize certain numerical factors doesn't mean that it is intelligent of benevolent. Sure, life will adapt no matter what we do, but it may involve any number of economic disasters ranging from the failure of individual farms, up through major economic dislocation, widespread famine, and the extinction of our species (although this is _very_ unlikely -- my point is that Life doesn't give a shit about our survival, much less our economic well being).
Ultimately, we don't really need to invoke doomsday scenarios to be very concerned about this. Life is very complex and rich, and when you introduce a factor which has the potential to peturb an ecosystem, you're not risking the extinction of life, you're risking the impovershment of the ecosystem and a loss of the potential within that ecosystem.
If it hadn't been discovered that you could put european vines on american rootstock, the introduction of phylloxera would have made grapes extinct in Europe. In ths US exotic species like kudzu, water hyachinth, sagebrush and phragmites have wiped out huge swaths of diverse native populations. You might not care about it, because you don't remember how things were before hand so you and all your descendents down to the end of time don't know you've been ripped off by some idiot who thought it would be nice to have phragmites in his garden.
This is not a trivial issue so I won't make trivial points.
In the comments on this article I've seen the stupid cold war attitudes of cynicism, denial, guilt, delusion and gloom as the spectre of planetary destruction appears again. IMO the scientific details are unimportant, the issue itself is simply morally wrong.
It has been said that man could never destroy the planet. That's probably true, but IMHO the human race's current habits could certainly lead to it's own extinction. What is 'the planet' anyway? It's just a rock. The important thing is people, human beings.
Why should we 'accelerate evolution'? To turn a profit? To create huge monopolies and give Mr.Monsanto huge wealth and power? The world has stockpiles of food already. Nations are not starving through lack of food but through unequal distribution of wealth. America's government and companies control the world, pollute the environment with fossil fuel fumes, and now are asking everybody to increase their bloated profit margins even further by using genetically modified crops. At the worst genetic engineering could possibly lead to a catastrophe as predicted by this scientist (unlikely IMHO), or simply huge GM monopolies. Either are dangerous. It's plainly obvious to me that the whole thing is simply morally wrong.
There is a URL promoting the labeling of GM foods for those who want the option of choosing whether or not to eat that stuff. www.safe-food.org.
Anyone who things the consumer has the right to know should visit the page.
It is the same as evolution.
The reason being is that until you can transform a population size that is large enough to override natural gene flow you have not introduced "unnatural selection".
Species population sizes are immense, we're not talking about an endangered species we're talking about domesticated crops.
Furthermore, the professor is talking about gene leakage, not deliberate transformation. Again that will still result in natural gene flow.
Don't get all scared, it really isn't a big deal. Until you can transform enough of a species to make "NOT" having the gene to be unusual you're still susceptible to genetic flow.
Like the poster above you said, polyploid organisms aren't the problem. Nor are organisms with large species numbers. The problems are real for bacteria and endangered species.
See this page for a timeline. Maybe I should have used more digits. But really, it's not a big issue.
We'll just whip up some insects that can eat the genetically altered plants...
Well with Eukaryotic organisms there are two methods I can think of.
;-)
One is plain old sexual reproduction. This is especially a concern in regions where crops originate (e.g. potatoes in Peru, rice in India, wheat in the Near East), where wild "weedy" species can be found in conjunction with cultivated strains. This would be analagous to your having sex with your friend and one of you getting pregnant.
The second method I can think of is gene exchange by retrovirus. If a retrovirus infects your stem cells, you can pass it on to your offspring. I read somewhere where some largish number of human gene sequences (into the hundreds, I think) have been identified as viral in origin.
Bacteria, of course, are constantly exchanging genes via plasmids -- little hunks of genetic materials. I suppose this could also provide a secondary conduit for gene transfer (host to virus to bacteria to bacteria to virus to host). I dunno, I'm not a biologist, but I play on on TV
The way we were taught to think about genes and species in school is simplistic. We were taught that genes come down through our ancestors and that genetic change comes through mutation or sexual recombination. It turns out that there is considerable genetic flux between species, particularly by the viral route.
...but Salgak1's point was that the *leaves* of the tomato plant might be engineered to taste bad to insects - you know the thin green bits, which I at least don't eat.
BTW, do you have one of those 'Endorsed by Dan Quayle(TM)' dictionaries?
It's tomato; there is no e.
1. Antibiotic resistance genes absolutely _can_ and _are_ transmitted between different species of bacteria (by viruses).
2. All of us contain genes of extra-human origin as a result of retroviral infections.
3. Evolution most certainly DOES qualify as a theory, and an extraordinarily well-proven one at that. It is the unifying principle of all of modern biology. It simply amounts to recognizing that structural affinities between similar species reflect not coincidence, but common ancestry. Is easier to accept, for example, that pine trees and fir trees are completely unrelated or that they came from a common precursor? It seems pretty obvious to me. Evolution is also highly testable and demonstrable - compare a Dachsund and a Great Dane if you doubt the power of selective pressure. Nothing like either of these breeds existed 1000 years ago, which is a tiny interval on a geologic scale.
Denying evolution is just as irrational as claiming that the Earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the Earth.
Awesome! I'd pay good money to get rid of all the annoying plants and animals... Just keep a few of the good ones in a big bio-dome, and I'm in paradise! ;-) Eco-system be damned, I want my "Quality of life"...
must be those damned Jews again...
Well, plants aren't the only thing insects eat. We will just be left with the mosquitos, dung beetles, houseflies and spiders.
A good assortment.
Seriously, if you get rid of a lot of insects in a certain area you also get rid of animals further and further up the food chain that depend on each animal.
I guess the question will be: Do you want to live in a totally artificial world, devoid of your ancestral memories?
It's bad enough we got people grilling on gas barbecues, they might as well go to burger king. So much for gathering around a fire with the clan. So much for listening to the changes in the world as it wakes up in the morning. The transition of night creature noises to day.
Goodbye nature, humans hardly knew ya!
Well presented and informed.
Let me just add that gene flow and evolution do 'trend' towards homogeny anyway. In the presence of selection pressure will variation begin to arise. (This is beyond just random mutation.)
I don't think we're going to see the problem that is supposed simply because we're not affecting large enough portions of species populations. Until we make the unengineered species population significantly smaller than the engineered version there will still be gene flow.
Yes, that is a much more realistic scenario. Dr. Jones has a point in that you can't understand how ecosystems will respond, as we have witnessed in most of the cases where we introduce a new species into one that then takes over.
However, where do you think the resistance genes came from anyway? We certainly don't know how to make them; they came from some organism, probably another plant. If his scenario about wiping out insects were so good it would have already happened.
Secondly, there is no such thing as an "insect resistance gene." The press and some genetic determinists are constantly making up such non-existant things like "THE intelligence gene" or an "the aggression gene". An "insect resistance gene" seems to be about as reasonable as software that "fixes THE Y2K problem", because plants use a zillion different means to resist insects, and none works on all insects.
-benRI
bredelin@ucsd.edu
Benjamin Redelings I
http://sdcc13.ucsd.edu/~bredelin
Well working on a PhD in Molecular Genetics I can tell you that the article's author is full of it.
Fun to see all these /. GM experts prancing about. I guess because the finding has been summarized in a low-brow form they think they can also be experts.
It should be pointed out that Prof. Steve Jones is a hot-shot geneticist, and that anybody who know the field would also know that. He is also a professor in the english sense (its not one of these inflated US titles).
With your argument people who are good at sitting behind monitors for long periods of time and maintain their concentration will do better. The crazy feathers on a peacock help it mate, but do nothing for day to day survival. We have known for years that brains (the medicine man) will always usually outdo brawn. Hitler himself was pretty scrawny , but with his brains created a powerful (and horrible) meme, or idea.
Do you realise that we all speak of evolution while many people in the US believe God created everything 10000 years ago ? Heck, there are even people who still think the world is flat ! How can we expect those people to understand what GM is all about and weight the risk of it ?
How stupid.
Why don't you ask an Indian about how well a nuclear power plant is run in India, or Asians how there hunger for exotic animals are helping the endangered species. Drink some water from the river next to Shanghi. These problems are here because of development and industry, not culture.
don't you know that (because they want to make money) the things aren't fertile? even better: the big companies want to make the seeds so 2nd generation intoxicates itself before germination. therefore: no uncontrolled reproduction of the insect toxin.
and b.t.w. i still didn't hear any good argument saying this is not evolution. don't you think that plants are able to evolve genes that produce toxins themselves? (as a matter of fact... let me browse through my old biology books heh heh) things even toxic to humans? ooooh let's be afraid, what if apple trees recombine in such a way behind a different promoter that the fruit becomes poisonous ooooops..
don't make me laugh
yes, i am educated. yes, i am a molecular biologist. and a damn good one!
Ok I went to one of the professors of genetics out here (he does work with marine turtles) and checked with him about plasmids and eukaryotes.
He informed me that by definition a Plasmid is:
Any extragenomic genetic material. Thereby any organism with mitochondria and/or chloroplasts by definition has a plasmid since that material is extragenomic.
However, he also added that the lateral transferrance of genetic material is not 'naturally' found in the eukaryotic world and is limited as a prokaryotic phenomina.
So it looks like even still that this 'leaking' of genes concept would be limited to possible cross pollination events (most assuredly within cladisitically similar species). With that you're still under the problems of gene flow and selection advantages.
What must be considered, is that just because a plant picks up a gene that 'appears' advantageous does not meant that this gene is A) advantageous to this particular plant and B) going to be expressed anyway.
The advantage of a gene is not a simple yes or no, obviously. Cost to maintain gene and produce gene product along with possible other effects of the gene (i.e. during insertion were another other genes shut off by this mutation).
While insect resistance may superficially appear advantageous, it may be too much of a load for the plant to sufficiently carry and so the gene would cause death of the plant and not be passed along.
The professor of the article has WAY oversimplified the situation. As far as I can tell, there really is no threat of his doomsday predictions. Evolution will tend to itself.
Hey, btw, genechkr keep it up, you're keeping me on my toes!
Tindalos (who always forgets his password and ends up posting as an AC)
Why do humans think that we are above evolution? We are still taking part actively in the world's evolution. Skyscrapers are no less natural than a moutain or the nuclear bomb. Go out in the woods and you can find dozens of 'natural' toxins and carcinogens. Plants are full of 'natural' insecticides (i.e. nicotine, caffeine, strychnine) god help us if these genes 'leaked' into our food crops.
I am not saying that man can or should do everything- we must simply judge technologies by cause and effect and not emotion.
Sure nature will hang in there with all our mucking around. The lowest common denominator will rule. The cockroach and jellyfish will be some of the most plentiful animals on land and sea. We'll be sitting around when we are old timers remembering when butterflies, birds(except Pigeons), frogs, most animals in the rain forest, and the rain forest itself, were around for us to enjoy. The new generations will look at holograms of stuffed animals and not miss a thing, just like people born after 1950s don't remember the massive migrations of song birds that would block out the sun for hours. Read the annotated journal of Lewis and Clark and the number of animals they saw. They ain't there anymore.
Sure GM won't be the end of the world, just a step forward in the bland future of generic shopping malls, and parking lots and streamlined money movement. Diversity is bad for profit. You don't think the movers and shakers of the world, in thier greed, would do such a thing or you don't see the blandness I speak of? What is Windoze? and maybe you were born into a world that has slightly less color (diversity) than it did.
Peace and hope for the future. Fight the Powers that be.
Only prokaryote life ... eukaryote life (that is, almost everything excluding simple bacteria) evolved between 1 to 2 billion years ago. And even then, to get anything we would really call animals, you have to go between 500 and 1000 million years ago.
Doug
Whatta heck has toxins to do with it?
My greatest concern is with the long term effects on the gene-combinations that _looks_ OK if you take the effects in a short time perspective.
That, and the effect of having 100% of the farmland covered with cloned crops. This because consumers "want" the cheapest, which is what companies like Montesano is offering, to the cost of having to give up local variation. This is happening in India for example.
hmmmm,
don't you agree that (for example) the enviroment we humans created by our industries will have a far more severe effect on humankind than across-species gene transfer? i don't think so.
but please, explain more about what you refer to as 'domino effect'. why is this situation so contrary to evolution.
the real problem is that people who comment the most on the 'frankenstein food' issue are not molecular biologists, hardly understand the concepts of evolution and use emotional arguments. pffff, domino effect, who are you trying to scare.
(yes i am a molecular biologist and i have studied evolution theory somewhat...)
wim
As several others pointed out, a world of no insects is not really the problem here. The insects that aren't susceptible to the anti-insect gene (if there aren't any now there will be) will replace those who can't eat those plants anymore. As GM improves, I think we'll probably see plant 'upgrades' to make sure your crops are resistant against the latest GM-resistant bugs and diseases. Can humans keep up fast enough? Who knows. A similar battle is being fought with antibiotics, and I think we're losing (at the moment). What I am more afraid of is that GM does not promote variety so more plants become susceptible to the same thing. Could GM have prevented the Irish Potato Famine? Or made it worse? Who knows. The point is that we shouldn't assume we can keep the upper hand against pests and diseases. Evolution can be very powerful, and I don't think we've proven we're better than Nature at adapting yet.
I think this raise a more generic question : isn't capitalism perverting science, trying to push it to unreasonable limits to make as much money as possible ? Scientist know that it takes time to validate something and release it out of the lab. But those greedy shareolders don't give a damn, they want money now, and as much as possible. They don't care the consequences. That's what happened with the mad cow disease, they improved profits of the animal food industry without thinking one minute about studying the problem before. Monsanto doesn't care about ecology or people health, it's a corporation and it's only goal is to please its investor... so when they say "it's perfectly safe", I don't feel they are really concerned about it...
Plasmids are a particular phenomina of Prokaryotic organisms, bacteria. Transposons are movable elements and can be found in virii, eukaryotes, and bacteria.
The statement about gene transfer between species is true in that it is 'possible' to get a transformation event.
Insulin is derived from E. coli bacteria (or others) that have a plasmid with the insulin gene on it. This would not work in eukaryotic cells such as plants and animals.
You can deny macro-evolution, but then you are
left with the problem of explaining how you
get from trilobites to tree - swinging apes...
I've never been near the speed of light, but I tend to believe I can't go any faster.
:-)
The article is discussing an accidental event, which means the gene is in a very very low percent of the given population. Now it is under standard evolutionary speed and selection pressure.
Remember there is more to the cost / benefit of a gene than just what it does. There is a cost to maintain the gene, and produce the protein. Between whatever mutations the gene caused by transfer into the genome (which again is really undoable cross species by accident) and the costs of the gene itself, these may not outweight the benefit of some minor insect resistance.
My point is that so long as your haven't flooded a species with the gene, you won't suffer the doomsday prediction. Genes come and go, insect resistance has always beena round, and cross species lateral transfer in eukaryotes really is unknown. Perhaps a cross-pollination event within members of a similar clade, but I don't see this being a bio-disaster. There is a cost to the gene itself, not to mention where and how it inserts. Just because it is an advantage for species A does not automatically make it an advantage for species B.
Seems to me that the article is alarmist in nature.
Now if there are deliberate attempts to change a species well that's a bit different than accidental 'leakage'.
That's what I've been saying.
Again.. the biggest potential problem and disaster is with bacteria and antibiotics. Not plants and insect resistance.
~Tindalos
Hey Genechkr whatddya think?
Genetically Engineered crops have been quite the hot topic lately. IT may sound like some wacky sci-fi stuff that these plants can cross-pollenate their properties with other plant species, but the possibility is VERY REAL.
most of stuff i have heard on this topic has been about the Monsanto corp's "Terminator Technology"
basically Monsanto's genetically engineered crops can only germinate for one generation. this allows them to protect their patented super-engineered super-disease and insect resistant seeds from being copied (i.e. a portion of the crop cannot be planted for seed for use next year, because the next generaton of seed is STERILE.)
by taking away mother nature's basic ability to reproduce, we are screwing ourselves.
this issue has been floating around on the net for a while. for more information on how large corporations are patenting mother nature, check out the rural advancement foundation international at http://www.rafi.org
ignoramus! study before you comment!
the gene in question is probably derived from a bacteria (forgot the name but in short it's Bt) and it's protein product forms crystals in the poor larvae's stomach. thereby the larvae die. so it doesn't taste bad, it kills insect larvae. and not humans. period.
(thank you)
First bacteria have the plasmid and transformation events to pass resistance between species. This is a known occurance. Of course, as has been stated and restated, it is limited to prokaryotes.
Would you please define 'macro-evolution' sounds to me like your speaking of cladistics being a non-existant theory. Which cladistics is well developed and demonstrated.
Species derive from common ancestors, who in turn derived from common ancestors. The whole tree of life concept is well documented. Granted I have some problems with it, but that species change and even diverge into new species is well documented.
Course that all depends on what you're using for a definition of species.
This may be beyond the scope of this forum...
I seem to recall that Mitchondrial DNA had other features? Perhaps reverse twisting, or slightly modified bases (beyond methylation or deamination)?
AC- who's having fun tearing up other genetic arguments further down.
The prime example of "interference" is cancer. There is no stepping out of the system but a part of the system actually forgetting that it is part of the whole system. Part of the system "forgetting" it's proper role. Liver tissue decides it will do it's own thing and ignore what it's supposed to do.
We have, in principle, no possible way to predict the outcome of gene tweeking. Such activity is a 'divergent' process that is absolutely unpredictable.
thank you
It seems to me that the likely hood of any killer insect gene wiping out all insects is very small. However, it could potentially devistate different populations of insects, leaving other, more resistant and perhaps nastier, insects to fill in the ecological niches. Is that something that we want to happen? My guess is probably not. Nature as a whole is not fragile, but individual ecosystems are, and the fact of the matter is we just don't know if what we'll end up with is worse than how we started.
Doug
This is plain anti GM FUD.
He failed to mention that most of these genes comes from naturally occuring plants already resistant to these insects. What the researchers is doing is just speeding up evolution, the insects will probably adapt faster than these genes can spreaad to other plants.
Species exchange genes all the time but that doesn't mean we'll get man sized/brained cockroaches eating people and such.
IMO, Human evolution has stopped. We have medical technology to allow people to live that would not have lived a million years ago. I'm not saying this is bad, as some nazis may convince you it is. But, if you allow scrawny unathletic people (such as us geeks ;) to reproduce instead of being killed off by wild animals and virii, you get a gene pool with a much greater amount of scrawny unathletic genes floating around. I wouldnt expect the human form to change much at all (without us changing it ourselves) over the next few thousand/million years.
So how does this "gene leakage" work exactly? If I hang out with my African-American friend long enough will I get tanned or will he get blond hair? That whole article is such British rubbish. The British press are a hundred times better at sensationalizing boring news than the American press. I'm out of here to go get my "leakage tan."
So the gene altered plants don't reproduce- That's what we want, right? And if other plants somehow get these genes, they will not reproduce as well.
Duh?
Posted by The ULTIMATE Crippler:
http://www.yonderway.com/images/cowtoss.jpg
(not having read the article, only /. summary)
uh... plants will perpetuate a gene that kills off their pollinators? riiiiiiiight....
-- Moderation in all things, exceptions to all rules --
Since when do genes have free will. I am not worried about genes "escaping" from a tomato into corn, heck I would be more worried about a gene revolt. What happens when the genes don't want to work for us anymore? Imagine one day, you come to work with the sniffles and you leave in a body bag. Some genes from disease resistant grass crossed with the common cold to create an uber-plague!!
slap-slap-slap
Ok, I'm alright now.
-- Remember: Wherever you go, there you are!
Who says life has existed for 4 billion years? Got proof?
This space intentionally left blank.
Here's a quick question- how many geeks out there are from farm backgrounds, and what kind of farm?
(Don't laugh. Mark Andressen came from a farm.)
Wow, I wrote this a long time ago.
This means that we *don't* allow insects to adapt.
Good luck stopping it. The only way would be to kill them all off instantly. Miss one - it adapts.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Exactly my point. Life did adapt, does and continues to do so.
Be the horseshoe crab not the trilobite!
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Posted by tausq:
/. readers, but I do agree there seems to be a lot of speculation here....
You'd be surprised at the backgrounds of some
But this has always been the debate, hasn't it? Should we "discontinue" science because some people are worried about the consequences? (cf Dolly, etc)
I recently read an article about Watson (of DNA fame) where he argued that this approach (of stopping science because we are nervous) is misguided, because we can't understand how to control the consequences until we understand how the technology works. It's going to be done eventually by someone, so why not figure it out now?
Posted by tausq:
:-)
Scientists have been looking for insecticides for many decades. With the passing of chemical pesticides like DTT, farmers are having little defense against pests. These new insect-repellent genes are the new "insecticides" for the future, if we learn to use them correctly. This means that we *don't* allow insects to adapt.
Of course it never works as planned, but that's how it should work in theory
There's a less than subtle difference between the standard machinery of evolution (random mutations introducing favourable characteristics) or selective breeding (identifying those characteristics and breeding from them) and the DNA-splicing of the GM labs. GM soya contains genetic components from fish: I'd like to know how that could be derived from evolution and selective breeding.
The general point in the article is valid, surely? Science is notoriously bad at predicting and identifying its own evolution: the mutation and development of its innovations.
As for the fragility of life: well, the Great Barrier Reef managed to last 4 billion years, but given the effects of global warning, it's probably got 50 years left. I suppose you'd expect it to evolve, though...
Insect resistance doesn't have to jump to other plant species to cause a problem. Look at this scenario:
Certainly, that is unlikely. However, is it so unlikely that it is worth the risk? Consider that the population at risk has no real say in weather or not the risk is taken. Consider also that we have very little data regarding the spread of engineered traits. Most of the data we do have comes from corperate research with a strong vested interest in a particular conclusion (this includes university research with corperate sponsors).
Who benefits from taking the risk? The farmer, the seed producer, and potentially, the consumer. I argue that the seed producer recieves far more benefit than the other groups. This is because other less risky pest control measures exist which cannot be patented (such as releasing preditor insects). The farmer and consumer benefit from those methods without assuming the risk of starvation, but the seed producer does not.
In the event of a famine, the seed producer still wins because at that point, any seed they produce that may alleviate the crises can be sold at a premium price. The farmer and consumer will have no choice but to pay whatever is asked. Furthermore, the decisionmakers within the seed producer are less likely than the average consumer to suffer the consequences of a food shortage (a simple socio-economic reality).
Based on those facts, until more IMPARTIAL research is done in a well controlled and contained environment, for the consumer and the farmer, it's a sucker bet. For the seed producer, it's just about a sure thing.
Next question, by what right do the seed producers expose me (and the rest of the population) to a risk like that when they and not me (and the rest of the population) will gain the primary benefit?
Your example of the Coyote is totally fallacious. Here in the UK, we have no wolves or bears, and very few medium-sized cats - directly because they were killed off by humans - they have not evolved to be stronger. I'm not trying to say that humans are evil because of this, but that nature is not predictable.
In your last paragraph you essentially trust in hope that nature will overcome anything we throw at it. Indeed you are right, nature will continue, the planet will evolve - but into what? These new bugs; what will they be, how will they behave? Will locusts swarm across places they never swarmed before? Nobody knows. And the fact that we don't and can't know worries me.
The problem is not that insects will or won't be able to eat. If I plant a field of insect-resistant tomatoes, then I will have several (or many in the US) acres of insect-free land. Thus, bird, rodent, spider and lady-(bird|bug) -free land. And the natural cycle in the area will be destroyed.
Have Americans really not learned the lesson of the mid-western dust-bowl?
Living on a farm you will have noticed how around each field (particularly oil-seed rape) there exists a virtually wild 'mutation' of the stuff that behaves exactly like a weed. People are worried about this stuff. The genetically modified oil-seed rape cross-pollinates with the wild oil-seed rape.
Duh!
P.S. Steve Jones isn't exactly the sort of scientist who will find it hard to get a grant.
--
If having an insect resistance gene were in the overall scheme of things beneficial to every plant on the planet, chances are they would have those genes. The truth is that insects would rapidly evolve to counter such a change (as mosquetos have adapted to chemicals such as DDT).
People must realise that life did not survive on this planet for 4 billion years by being fragile.
--
--
--
Well, here's one that strikes close to home -
The so-called "killer bee", now invading North America, as far North in California now as Santa Barbara County.
The result of a genetic experiment gone wrong, is now transforming the entire population of North American Honeybees (which weren't native to North America in the first place, they came from Europe), into Africanized bees.
Lots of news programs have wonderful material for "scare stories" but life goes on. In reality, at most, a few people (probably no more than a dozen worldwide) will die each year from Africanized bee attacks. Far, far less than die from lighning, or hurricanes, or tornadoes, or tainted food, or handgun accidents.
Life goes on.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
More like 300 years. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I don't think evolution beats engineering.
I just think that what we're today, calling "engineering", will be laughed at 1000 years from now.
Evolution beats what we're doing today.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
. . . and antibiotics/antibacterials. . .
. . . and what did we end up with?
Tougher bugs.
I think nature is bunches more smarter than we give (her) credit for.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
. . . in five years, this author will be working for ADM, making $100k writing marketing literature promoting genetically altered corn. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Alan.
I hate to break this to you, but I just came back from a 1 week trip to London, and frankly, I think the meat there sucks.
I know, I know, I'm not supposed to eat beef in the UK. Mad Cow disease. But man, a better imitaion of shoe-leather, I have never tasted. YUK!
I'm VERY happy to be back in the states.
(Although I wish I could find Stella Artois here in America. Good Belgian beer).
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
The big point about antibiotic-resistant bacteria isn't that the use of antibiotics caused them, it was the MIS-use.
Doctors acting as glorified salesmen for the pharaceutical companies (great when insurance pays for it all). Parents whining about their kids' earaches, forcing "prophylactic" prescriptions of antibiotics for viral infections. Prescriptions not fully administered through their course, or improperly administered.
Too low a dosage, (forgetting to take that afternoon pill), or stopping the course early is what encourages bacteria to develop a resistance.
Also, feeding antibiotics to livestock in mass quantities on a regular basis is a textbook example of how to literally engineer a resistant strain unintentionally.
I know this discussion was off topic, but I felt that the example of "antibiotic-resistant bacteria" as a point that mankind "tampers too much with nature" was a bit off, and needed some correction.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
. . .
There IS hope on the antibiotic-resistant bacteria front. It seems that word IS getting to responsible physicians.
Several weeks ago, I took my daughter in for an earache. Many parents, in that desperate situation would plead with the doctor - "please, give her SOMETHING!".
This doctor stated quite bluntly, this is a viral infection, antibiotics will not help, tho they may prevent a bacterial infection from occuring from the swelling and inflamation caused by the viral infection, it's not likely to be of any use. Take her home, give her ibuprofin for the pain, it should go away in a day or two.
It did.
I sincerely hope that there are more doctors like that out there. Unlike my nephew's pediatrician, who had him on Antibiotics nearly continuously for a year and a half, and had to keep changing types because at one point, the infections develped a resistance. Half the time, it was viral infections anyway. . .
Cha-ching!$$$
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Nobody wants to un-invent anything. People are against the application of the inventions. And, contrary to your claim, there are many inventions that cannot legally be used. For example: DDT, biological/chemical weapons, land mines, police scanners etc.
If GM foods were illegal, what do you think, Monsanto goes underground and supplies the black market with soya? You've got to be kidding.
--
People in Europe desperately want these regulations, that's why they are there. Governments couldn't care less. Also, the idea of beef and even milk from hormone-treated cows is absolutely disgusting to the average European; if you mention it at a dinner party, people will stop eating. This is not something protectionist governments made up.
Note also that the Invisible Hand only works if all market participants have full information. However, Monsanto et al. are even against labeling GM foods. Soja is ingredient of virtually every processed food.
Back to the original article: the professor's example of insects dying out seems a little contrived. My major concern would be that plants which are engineered to resist a particular herbicide will encourage higher usage levels of that herbicide, which selects for resistant weeds just as in the well known penicillin desaster.
--
The GM-avoiding customer however doesn't want to be screwed and therefore demands a ban on GM'd foodstuffs. The governments listen to this majority.
--
OK - I know GM has been going on in the lab for years, but all of a sudden it seems everyone everywhere is doing it.
What's worrying about this is when you look at the early science in almost every avenue. Take for example medicine. Initially we started off drilling holes in peoples heads - primitive, but it worked after a fashion - those people's heads didn't hurt any more - but they had slightly bigger problems!!! Then look at early nuclear reactors... I don't really need to elaborate on that point.
The problem is, changing genes has a _lot_ longer lasting effect - changed genes don't just stop at one plant - they continue into the next generation. It's fine to say that "we wouldn't have gotten this far..." (not quoting you - just something I've heard), but we've never mucked about with the innards before. Look what happens when you mess with the number of protons in an atom. Whooaaa - suddenly you've created a radioactive beasty with one tiny tiny change. I think mucking with DNA is about the same - we change one thing because we see it has effect X, but we forget about side effect Y.
And the human genome project is only 10% complete... Don't think doctors aren't already investigating human DNA modification - they are.
Matt.
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
That was supposed to be in reply to the AC below.
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
Geez...
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
This is what scares the crap out of me (and an awful lot of other very bright people):
People like yourself dismiss GM foods (and genetic modifications in general) as being the same as evolution
We're not talking about natural selection here - very specifically we're talking about un-natural selection.
Matt.
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
I don't think it will happen. In all likelihood, the genetically engineered rape-seed will be sterile, either because it's a hybrid naturally or as an effort at copyright protection. I lived for 18 years on a farm that grew lots of hybrids (corn, soybeans, occasionally a winter wheat crop), and there was no noticeable "leakage" into surrounding areas.
Jones may not have a hard time finding a grant because he's saying what some people want to hear...
Guess what? Most seeds used today are sterile hybrids. They sprout, grow, and produce sterile seeds. Rarely -- very rarely -- a hybrid will produce viable seed, but it's the exception more than the rule.
I wouldn't be surprised to find out the real motivation behind the "terminator" (nice loaded
word there) gene is to allay fears of bio-engineered crops "escaping".
Joss, what are the long-term dangers of just letting nature do her thing? We don't know. We don't know the long-term effects of GM either, but this is actually true of ANYTHING HUMAN BEINGS DO. What are the long-term effects of computer technology? Modern medicine? The Tele-Tubbies? No one knows, but is that a rational justification for deliberate ignorance? The precautionary principle is just a deflated excuse to refrain from any progress.
Of course not. If they did, the seeds with a terminator gene would fail to reproduce, leaving only those without the gene. Voila! The problem fixes itself.
Johann, if this were just between scientists, then I'd be inclined to agree with you. But it has gone beyond that stage now, and activists, lobbyists, and politicians are getting involved. It is time to hold up our preconceptions and knock them down or reinforce them before a hysterical multitude runs away with the situation.
Humans in one form or another will be here long after your precious nature has been incinerated in the expansion of the sun. They have an adaptability born of tool-using sentience that goes beyond the adversities that would kill other species.
Even if the gene does escape into *all* plants, unlikely as it seems, evolution will occur in bugs and other predators at the same rate. So, it is unlikely that this will be a *killer* gene.
--mere mortal--
Genes can travel from one bacteria to another fairly easily with bacterial viruses. Thats one of the ways that scientists put genes into a genome, in recombinant genetics. I think the concern is if the resistance in new diseases to penicillin being transferred into new diseases.
--mere mortal--
I think the habit of constantly trying to conquer nature, and only considering immediate consequences is one particular to Anglo-Americans and Russians.
Japan, China, and India for example are for the most part very good at planning many generations into the future, and considering all those nagging what-if's. (much to the chagrin of the US.)
--
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
This situation will persist until we Americans do away with our WWII government completely like the most of the rest of the world has.
--
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
With really cool hair I might add, especially if you're of East Asian descent.
(I know that has nothing to do with "gene leakage", but I think that's the most probable way GM plants will propogate themselves.)
Sorry, I'm rambling.
--
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Seriously though, I subscribe to Adbusters, and I think it's the nuts. But I wish it would contain more factual articles and less Ivan Stang style rants.
That, and they seem too self-absorbed to ever try to organize or join any substantive protest beyond defacing billboards.
--
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Humanity would survive if I went and killed all my neighbors too. That doesn't make it an ethical thing to be doing.
--
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Actually, most of the people I've talked to (I live in the USA) who are aware of Monsanto, and what they're trying to do oppose it. Not so much because it's scary genetic engineering (although that's also a factor) but because forcing farmers to buy new seeds every year is a heavy-handed evil sort of thing to do.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I thought that should be "this stuff has amazing parallels to parallel computers." After all genes are nothing more that a set of codes with multiple pointers interacting with a self modifing tendencies! :-)
--Karl
Although I am not an expert in biology, I suspect the calculation would be something like this. How many genes are there in the plant? How many genes are transfered on average? How frequently does a transfer occur? How frequently does a transfered gene get passed onto the next generation?
If you consider the probablity of transfering any gene from the GM plant, you might find that a transfer does occur within a reasonable length of time. On the other hand, if you ask the probablity of a specific gene crossing over would be extrodinarly small and has an expectation time on the order of geologic time.
Consider for the moment that there are a large number of plants that are already too toxic for insects to ever eat. Take the case of tabacco which has potent toxin (which people love to smoke) which only a handful of hardy insects can eat. The crop is grown is large quantities accross great areas of land. Yet, we don't worry about the genes for that nicotine crossing over to all plant and wiping the insect population out. Thus the conditions already exist and have existed for centuries. So the argument that just because one plant is immune to most insects that the entire ecosystem is going to collapse is not just far-fetched, but in the realm of science fiction.
There are much greater threats to our ecosystem to be worried about that this one.
--Karl
Consider the construction of the anti-insect argument. In that he proposed that some gene will cross over from a modifed plant to the entire ecosystem thus resulting in the complete destruction of all insects. Then asks the reader to consider the consequences. He then says that this is an unlikely event but possible. (The reader is left to assume that some lesser event is therefore more probable and we are all on the road to disaster when that is untrue.)
The argument is bad in a number of ways. First of all there would not be a anti-insect gene inserted in plants. A gene would have to be something useful like anti-leaf eating insects. That gene even if it crossed over to all plants through natural hybreds (which is impossible for all plants and unlikely even for natural cousins.) Thus the only insect affected would be those that eat the leaves of that plant and those that eat the those insects. But wait a minute that bees are not leaf eaters. And those of the insects that we are thinking of having disasterous results living without. Thus even without the plant eating insects most planets would still get pollonated. (some specialized planets would die).
Yes, there can be bad consiquences for a GM plant. But there are bad consiguences for many things (take MTBE for example). But we are not heading down some path for instant disaster. The the entire senerio is nothing more that fiction. It is nothing more that a strawman example to scare the uneducated masses. And it looks like you are falling for it.
--Karl
Yes, there are certainly some dangers, but the greatest threat is the overruning of the environment with the GM rather that the GM's genes escaping. The ammount of for the transfer of a single gene crossing over is on geologic scales. Yes, horizonal transfers are probable, but that is the transfer of any gene. Consider that probablity of two people having the same birthday in a group of 100. It is likely that 2 will share the same birthday, but the likelyhood of an individual being the one is low. Similarly, the likely hood that a horizontal gene transfer occuring from a GM plant to another plant is probable, while the chance the modified gene traveling is low.
True, we must consider the consiquence and prove that modified genes are not likely to cause problems on other species or give the plant such an edge as to become dangerous. However, to give credence to improbable arguments just makes us all look silly. The most probable events should be of our concern not ones such as this.
I agree that this should be done in the open for all to see. Yet, I would wonder if it already is not underground.
--Karl
In the case of the Africanize bee the bees did not simply travel to some point and go on a rampage (there are numerious other animal species where that is the case.) The bees were intentionally brought here and forced to create a hybred bee with the honey bee. The resulting species is just a mean bee (nothing more.) Further, there are other biological vectors including a species of mites (from China I believe) that have been devistating the native bees and thus allowing the Africanize hybreds to spread.
This brings up a definite point. Hybreds in nature are not particularly common. Thus if we saw modified corn to be resistant to a bug (produces a bug birth control hormon), then a number of naturally expecting outcomes will occure. First, most instects will stop eating the crop. (Those that are able to still eat it will eventually become a dominate insect, but that is a later story.) According the professor we should worry about the gene crossing over to other plant species.
However, the cross can not be made in the same fashion as it is with bacteria and penicillin. Plants don't just bump into each other an exchange genes. (Bacteria do!) It requires a cross pollination from one compatible species to another. So we should assume that there is a compatible grass that can be pollenized by corn. However, for this to occur there would be a hybred planet with properies of both. But we don't see hundreds of species with much of the characteristics of corn (with its large kernel sizes) being exchanged. One must conclude that hybreds are therefore very rare. And that the chance of that gene excaping to just one other near by species is also difficult. Yes, the cross over may eventually occur, but for it to spread to the entire ecosystem would never happen as more planets can not be hybredized with all but their closest species.
In essence his argument is that we should worry about some gene we add to cows crossing over to goats. That is a small worry. The greater threat is that the GM planet will take over the environment and dirrupt the ecosystem by itself. (One can make a strong argument that enhanced tabacco plants may pose such a threat as they are toxic to most things already before we modified them.)
I believe this professors arguments are being greatly overblown. There is a threat, but this article presents only scare arguments without evaluation of the actual possible results. (All insects dying is completely impossible.)
--Karl
In the end this is less an environmental threat than a waste of time. As previously noted, people starve for political, not technological reasons. We can feed the world today. Monsanto's claims that their technology will feed the world are false and self-serving, unless they plan to establish world peace and equity while they're at it.
GM crops primarily are designed to enforce a seed monopoly, e.g. "terminator" and "round-up ready".
It another context you might call it "gratuitous incompatibility".
That is a good point which I hadn't considered before...
"You're gonna need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody
This is old news (like 4 years). I heard this same hypothesis when I completed my MS in Botany in 1995!
This is so off topic for slashdot because 99% of the idiots who read this site don't know enought about genetics or biology or ecology to make it a worthwhile discussion. P.S. Even with a MS in Botany, I don't think I have enough knowledge to contribute to a worthwhile discussion!
"You're gonna need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody
"un-natural selection"? You mean like the domestication of dogs, cows, horses, etc. that humans did thousands of years ago? You mean the deliberate selection of plants for desirable properties which even the Ancient Egyptians and Sumerians did? Yeah -- we can do it faster now. But just like the ENIAC is really no different from a modern PC from the standpoint of computer science, all the fancy gene splicing is no different from what humans have always been doing from a biological level. And I might add that the distinction of natural vs artificial selection is quite fuzzy if one considers that humans are of course part of nature.
That having been said, I fully agree with many posters here that companies like Monsanto don't always work in the public interest, but that's not because of any safety theat, but because such companies dream of a future of dominated by their proprietory products which neither farmers nor academia will be allowed to modify.
Genes *don't* jump around? I suppose the entire scientific literature on horizontal transfer is completely worthless, eh?
Genes *do* get passed around quite a bit. Antibiotics are becoming worthless because bacteria (even quite unrelated strains) are sharing resistence genes. But in order to *keep* the resistance genes selective pressure is needed -- and yes, the insane overusage of antibiotics is indeed a cause of such pressure.
And of course gene transfer from viruses has been known (for about twenty years) as the cause of many cancers.
I'm a cynic. When I first heard about this a few months ago, I realized that any company this evil is bound to make money. So I bought shares.
My mom and stepfather farm. I wasn't big on it in
high school, though I'm taking over the gardening
starting this year. It's a mostly-organic subsitence
farm that has raised pigs cows and chickens (yuck)
in the past.
Farms/rural areas are good places to grow up.
You learn discipline at an early age, and
living in the quiet helps thinking!
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
Umm... Penicillin wasn't created, it was merely used more. People assumed that it would work forever - it's this assumption, which failed, which is the interesting point. Biology was changed, penicillin is now considerably less effective.
Besdies which, I find it extremely interesting that Steve Jones is saying this kind of thing.
For those that wondered about his informality, that's because he's a chatty kind of bloke - he's had TV series on Genetics and so on on UK TV.
Dick Pountain, a long-standing computer industry commentator in the UK, has some comments in his column in the latest issue of PC Pro in which he draws interesting analogies between genetics and operating systems. Specifically, he suggests compiling a piece of Linux kernel which works and whose purpose is well understood, and patching it into a copy of Windoze 95. Even if Windoze runs, one day something awful is going to happen to the system... and surely the same implications are present for genetics (even without species crossover).
Using HTML in email is like putting sound effects on your phone calls. Just say <strong>no</strong>.
I've seen some of these insect-resistant plants.
They're only partly resistant, and only partly resistant to specific types of insects.
If they jumped, other insects would take up the slack.
Genetic jumps are far more likely to make herbicides obsolete (there are plants engineered to be resistant to, say, Roundup) than to kill off all insects.
-Richard.
-Richard
penicillin and coyotes don't quite cut the same analogy that implanted genes have. what about tilapia in N. America and Australia and all those barnacles in ship ballast being brought to other places? it's always the rate of change. if it's too fast, nature/evolution has trouble keeping up. the exception are very small things with very short periods between reproduction (bacteria/virii) ... the question should be how much can we push the envelope before it breaks ...
the thing about cutting edge teaching is that what they teach you is basically half wrong. the problem is that your lecturers/tutors don't know which half ...
I don't know about this claim, but Steve Jones has done a really *excellent* series called "In the Blood". It takes up racism, evolution, free will vs determinism and stuff like that. The trailer said "Knowing your destiny is the first step towards changing it." The series has been shown a couple of times on BBC World. I don't know if it is available in the US, but if you ever get the chance I recommend you see it.
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
The gene sequence is the binary form.
and patents provide the licence required for Monsanto's soya etc.
The danger is that Genetic engineering gives the equivelent of root access to evolution.
Personally I would prefer it if non of the users, Monsanto ICI etc were allowed to crash the system.
If genetically modified plants were sterile how would the seeds be produced to be sold to the farmer?
"leakage" is inevitable only the consequences are unknown.
Introducing new genes in a population is not quite like destroying poor ones.
One recent example was the introduction of the african bee in America. They arrived probably by ship in Brazil, and set out to happily exterminate the local bee population in vast areas of the continent. Last time I heard they were already a plague in the southern areas of United States.
The main point is that the modified genes will probably escape. Genes are rather trick when it come to reproduce themselves. They will go to extremes such as building nuclear weapons and creating technology for space travel.
I agree with the article in that this is the main problem and we should be prepared to deal with it. Your point does not really apply, unless you are prepared to cope with the extermination of whole species of insects. Some of these species may be essential for some other plants to reproduce. Then these plants go away also. Once started, this cycle can go on and on and leave you with very different, no necessarily improved, ecosystems.
Exactly!
I also thought it seemed to make far more sense to compare GM foods to penicillin and insects to bacteria then comparing GM foods to some penicillin resistant strain of bacteria.
Yes, of course it is easier to kill off coyotes, especially on an island, because there are fewer of them and they don't breed very quickly.
Insects are more like bacteria in that there are huge numbers of them, and they breed extremely rapidly, which speeds the rate of evolution.
I think that unless we set up quarantine zones by colonizing others planets.. or better yet.. star systems..
What will happen eventually is that some terrorist will brew a genetically engineered virus in a lab somewhere which incubates for a while while it spreads, then all but completely wipe out humanity. Once the technology for this sort of thing becomes more accessible (probably a few more decades), all you'll need is one reasonably intelligent wacko.
I'm a very down-to-earth guy in general, but this is something which rather frightens me. The only reason terrorists haven't nuked anyone yet is because weapons-grade uranium and plutonium is hard to come by. What will happen when genetically engineered virii become reasonably easy to make? (All you need are a few sequencers (which will get cheaper as the cost of computing goes down) and petri dishes (I'm exaggerating a bit).)
Live life while you still can, people!
And just how many third world farmers do you know?
- "I never could learn to drink that blood and call it wine" - Bob Dylan (Tight Connection to my Heart)
It has recently become clear that genes hop from species to species in nature very frequently. For example we carry fossilised viral DNA in our cellular mitochondria -- they were once free-living virus but have now become so symbiotically linked to other species that their genes are indistinguishable from the "human" genome.
Anyway for real paranoia-inducing science, forget GM foods -- check out the latest climate change predictions, and have a look at the Larsen B ice shelf in the Antarctic ...
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
>The nazis did that with the german resentment
>against the WWI defeat and economic crisis,
>and wanted a 1000 years empire. They destroyed
>their own country and it took half a century for
>Germany to have again some influence in
>international affairs.
half a centurly later, a plane flew over a patch of trees only to realise that there were two species, grown in such a way that a swastika showed up in the middle of them. The army had planted trees to keep a lasting influence.
trying to compare environmental concern to a fascist regime, though, is a load.
>and yet, when Mount Pinatubo erupted in the >Philipines a few years ago, it's been said that >more carbon dioxide was expelled into the >atmosphere by that eruption than man has created >in his entire existance.
It's common knowledge that nature produces more air 'pollutants' than we do. However, the pollutant compounds are not nearly as complex as the ones we make.
Furthermore, I'm fairly certain that since the manmade pollutants are heavier, they tend to float around closer to the ground, and thus you inhale them; also, their weight tends lead them to accumulate, ie., they don't dilute and become less toxic.
I think one of the biggest risk here is gene crossover of "terminator seeds" sold by companies like Monsanto. I imagine that the reproductive systems of some plants are similar enough that normally-reproducing plants stop reproducing.
<humor>
I mean, if these "terminator" plants start spreading all over the world, we'd be in big trouble!
</humor>
Seriously, while such terminator plants are by definition an evolutionary dead-end, they do pose a risk to places that have existing crops that *do* rely on seeds for the next year.
pooptruck
And some nonsense a few comments back about "farmers feeding all their animals antibiotics" is just silly. The only genetic mucking about most farmers ever do is artificial insemination
Feeding antibiotics isn't genetic mucking about, penicillin is a normal ingredient in normal "feed supplements", or was for many years. You don't have to have "most farmers" using them to cause bacteria to develop resistence, either.
All you need is to have some few large, industrial agribusinesses putting the stuff in feedlots with hundreds of grain- (and who knows what else?) -fed animals in sheds no "farmer" ever sees.
Jonathan
Let me just add that gene flow and evolution do 'trend' towards homogeny anyway. In the presence of selection pressure will variation begin to arise. (This is beyond just random mutation.)
There may be a certain homogeny of phenotypes. A large, geographically diverse population, however, will have massive *genetic* variation -- with recessives and local variations ready to take advantage of selection pressures.
Simply by reducing the wild population of something, you reduce genetic diversity -- even if the organisms you're killing looked just like the ones still alive. The "options" for natural selection disappear.
Non-reproducing crops are quite irrelevant to any studies of "gene flow". Their dangers lie in cross-pollination (which can render seed from fertile strains sterile), some infinitesimal risk of gene "hopping" (absurd, but it happens all the time) and in monoculture.
Monocultures, even of reproductive crops, reduce genetic diversity drastically. Potato blight, people! Root stock, people!
Sure, potato famines and equivalent potential crop wipeouts due in part to genetic modifications are not going to end the world; (I hope the "insect resistance" quote was distorted!) but even short-term ecological and human catastrophes are not "good science".
And what if we can't *find* the root stock? 100% control of the world market of a crop by a GM food company is SCARY.
Jonathan
Also, feeding antibiotics to livestock in mass quantities on a regular basis is a textbook example of how to literally engineer [sic] a resistant strain unintentionally
Engineering? Evolution by un-natural selection.
Jonathan
It's the system!
Money talks, even to well-meaning idealists.
Look at me, I work in the defense industry.
Jonathan
Here in the US, corporations are not run by the government. (Yes, I know you know that in a logical sense, but you fail to point out the distinction in your message). It might be convincingly argued that the government is being run by corporations, but that's a different argument...
MONSANTO may want to control the world crop market with microsoft-like practices, but that's to the benefit of Monsanto (if foreign markets or, for that matter, the US market are foolish enough to let them), not to the benefit of "the US".
If everyone runs to Monsanto with the "but we 'HAVE' to use their seeds because it's easier to get bigger yields", it's their own @$#@#%!!! fault if Monsanto ends up controlling them.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
"Terminator technology?" Bah. If they won't seed...clone them. It's easy. Though I suppose Monsanto's lawyers might descend upon anyone who did so publicly. (hmmm...And Microsoft products last only about a year or two before you are forced to buy them again...)
Market pressure should kick in here - ARE there many people who will be willing to buy "one-generation-only" seeds as long as normal seeds are still available? Biotechnology is a booming field. Relatively low-cost biotech workers could conceivably "program" new seeds for smaller companies instead of being forced to use Monsanto's seeds. Heck, barring excessive obnoxious government regulation, a plant-tissue-culture hobbyist in a basement somewhere could conceivably come up with his/her own new GM plant and make it freely available...
(Hmmm...could a GM plant be released under a license based loosely on the GPL?)
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
My, that was a bit verbose, wasn't it? And I'm
still not sure what the point was.
I certainly will agree with the "we're insignificant in the grand scheme of things" part, though. If we damage the eco-systems that we depend on through our ineptitude, we'll either learn real fast to move to a new one and/or rebuild it, or we'll die out and be replaced. So
what?
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Given the lazy and sloppy flood-irrigation and water-wasting sprinklers that seem so popular where I am (California), I imagine we'll run into problems of soil salinity and lack of decent water LONG before there will "suddenly" be no more insects. If I'm right, we'll have to go to other means of cultivation (hydroponics [in relatively sealed buildings, I imagine] and single-cell proteins and such) before any magical bug-genocide-gene can filter out into the "natural" environment.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
On another note concerning the ability of plasmids to rapidly spread drug resistance between different strains and species of bacteria--they can also carry virulence factors as well. For instance, E. coli O157:H7 (A potentially lethal contaminant of meat, esp. ground beef) has a number of genes believed to have been horizontally transfered from other bacterial species.
For an example of an unauthorized release of engineered organisms, look up the case of Dr. Gary Strobel's unauthorized tests of Pseudomonas bacteria engineered to protect trees against Dutch Elm disease.
"Only Anglo-American and Russian civilizations have a habit of trying to conquer nature, as per your statement, with Japanese, Chinese, and Indian civilizations much more intelligent about their role with nature... "
The ancient civilizations, maybe. But consider modern China. About the time of the cultural revolution, a campaign was begun to eliminate birds from the city of Beijing, for aesthetic reasons. The campaign succeeded--and was followed by a boom in the insect population. This was responded to by a campaign to eliminate vegetation. This, in turn, caused problems with dust storms...
Look at the Three Gorges dam as a more recent example of butting heads with nature. (BTW, yes, I am Chinese).
Even if this genetic drift occurs the likelihood that all insects of any species being susceptible to the toxin is low, let alone all insects of all species. The more likely outcome would be the selection for insects that are harder to kill with conventional pesticides.
That would violate the rule about no side-effects in programming.. I.. I.. I JUST CAN'T DO THAT, IT'S PLAIN WRONG!!! :)
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
If we make plants immune to bugs, we'll just end up with bugs that eat plants that are immune to regular bugs.
:P
You're ignoring the more hideous outcome. If we take away the insect's food source, they will turn on us!
Armies of huge, mutant arthropods preying on our women and children! Swarms of locusts and dragonflies as big as cows, swooping down on us with their child-eating mandibles!
Clearly, genetically engineered plants will only lead us to a life of slavery, ruled by a dominant race of insect-beings that we helped create.
I'm surprised no one else picked up on this.
That is the absolute most amazingly one one-sided point I have ever read. Any time someone brings up Nazis to support an unrelated point it can only be an example of 'mass emotional resentment and fear to justify senseless political goal'.
Anyway, on the more important subject of GM you have to take into account the fact that most GM research is NOT done for the sake of a stronger crop, or a more versatile crop, or a better tasting or more nutritious crop. In fact more of the GM advances are done for one reason only market dominance. the very idea that corn1.2 looks alot better on paper than corn1.1 . This sort ideal will never bring about any form of evolutionary change of lasting value only minor tangents following short term goals. In many cases the GM modifications have no other purpose than to make the plant more resistant to pesticides so that the levels can be brought up, and make no mistakes IT DOESN"T JUST WASH OUT! Now is the point when I would love to throw out a proper historical reference... but I don't have a source handy. The gist though is that that have we are losing *blah* amounts of seed diversity every year due simply to hybrid plants. In many cases these hybrids have done exactly what they were selected for and did their job well However there have been a few instances where a dramatic environmental change of some sort has rendered these plants useless and entire crops have been wiped out. Had these crops been a bit less streamlined they would have had the facilities to survive their growing season. The sickens thing in my opinion is that we are actually LOSING genetic diversity.... the GM producers are modifying genetic codes without proper backup... leaving hobbyist organizations to preserve the genetic diversity by planting every variety they can get ahold of to keep the seedbank up.
Another thing.... when I lived in Iowa I used to pick up the occasional farmers journal. Regularly the headline was about how difficult it was to get GM foods into Europe. followed by the agriculture secretary mentioning his plans to stop this and how keeping GM foods out of Europe without scientific evidence to back such an act was "Bad science" Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't such a statement 'bad science' isn't the path of science constant diligence in skepticism. If a country has a concern regardless of it's resigns it is in fact very 'good science' to hold back conduct research and cover your grounds. the only possible example of 'bad science' that I can think of is haste.
On a similar note, I hear that the US govt. is going planning tariffs to support the acceptance of GM foods into Europe. Why? they obviously don't want them and it's not an issue of excluding US good for Euro goods the fact is the product is very different. if the US wants to sell food to Europe they can simply sell something that is competitive --lose the GM foods. It seems slightly sick that the US thinks it can bully other countries into accepting something that they simply and resonably don't want.
*blink*
I'm a card carrying Green Party member, and I've been following the GM argument for quite some time (and there is a lot more debate in New Zealand than in the United States).
>> 1. There is evidence GM soya causes immune system damage.
> Do you have a citation for this? I'm not asking just to be an @$$; I'd actually be interested in seeing the data.
This approach scares me. It seems to be very common to require those who are against a particular technology to prove that it is dangerous. It should be up to those wanting to distribute something like this to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is safe, and not be allowed to release it until they do so, thereby putting the burden of proof on those who will benefit. The minimal field trials that are taking place certainly don't do this.
> by playing to ignorant fears, the anti-GM factions are making the situation more dangerous, not less.
As a member of the anti-GM faction (I used to not care until I took some time to find out what some of what was going on), I'd like to know which of my fears are ignorant, and how me arguing against GM food makes things more dangerous, as it seems that there are practically no controls currently. See the end of this post for some of my concerns.
> If people 'prefer' no anti-GM'd food, why are there government regulations to prevent it's sale?
The problem here is the underhand ways that the big biotechnology corporations are pushing their product, and organisations like the WTO and ANZFA are working to restrict labelling as being anti 'free trade'. This leaves consumers unable to distinguish between GM and non-GM food. Soya is an example of this sort of problem, as GM soya is mixed with ordinary soya before being exported from the U.S., so there is no way of distinguishing them. The only way that those of us who don't want to eat GM food is to make a lot of political noise about it, and in New Zealand the issue has gained enough attention to possibly be an election issue this year. The simplest way to respond to public pressure is a ban. From the NZ point of view, I would be satisfied to see growing GM crops in NZ banned until proved safe (Nuclear power and weapons are currently banned), and all imported GM food clearly labelled, including what species genes are taken from, so I could choose not to eat it, but this infomation isn't made available, so I also support a ban until such time as it is.
A summary of my concerns (Email me for any clarification):
(1) There is no labelling of GM foods, and such labelling is not allowed or required as being anti 'free trade'. Even labelling food as being non-GE is not allowed under some trade agreements. Knowing what you are eating seems like a basic right to me.
(1a) I suffer from some food allergies, including some not very common ones. It is actually pretty easy for me to avoid products that have clearly labelled contents, as if it contains a bad ingredient I just don't eat it. With (1) above, this could become impossible.
(2) I have heard people glibly say that ill effects can be tested for. Given that some ill effect might not show up for years, and genetic damage can take generations to show up, the GM food testing going on can only test for the short term stuff. This is exacerbated by (1), as if people start getting sick later, there is no way of tracking it down. I'm thinking of such disasters as Agent Orange, asbestos, Thalidimide, and many pesticides that were thought to be safe based on limited trials.
(3) The risk of genetic material leaking into the wider environment, including into other supposedly non-GM foods. We simply don't know enough about how our ecosystems work to risk the wide scale use of GM that is currently happening.
(4) Some of the big genetechology companies are touting their technology as helping to 'feed the third world'. NONE of the genetic modifications that I have heard of help at all with that, or help the consumer at all. Things are being done like:
- Round-Up ready soya-beans, that just allow greater doses of herbicides to be used
- Terminator technology, which prevents seeds being used from crops to grow more crops (it is actually a lot more complicated than that, and this can leak into neighbouring similar crops).
- Modifying foods such as tomatoes to give them a thicker skin, and give them a longer shelf life. This is a slight bonus for food distributors, but doesn't make the food any better.
- Making crops produce pesticides. This will increase the amount of the given pesticide in the environment, producin pesticide resistant insects much more quickly. This is analagous with the idea of dosing everyone with antibiotics - a possibly useful tool becomes useless very quickly through misuse.
(4a) I eat organic food where possible, and the worst example of (4) I have heard of is engineering the production of Bt into crops. Bt is one of the safest pesticides, in that it is the only pesticide that can be used by organic farmers as a method of last resort for dealing with pests, by applying very small amounts in carefully directly to affected areas of crops as seldom as possible. Now that Bt is being engineered into crops, there will be great increase in pests resistant to Bt. I have seen estimates that Bt will be rendered useless in about 10 years or less. The corporation concerned acknowledges this. This makes a quick buck for a particular organisation who can then move on to something else, leaving another industry with a reduced set of tools.
(5) There are lots of political aspects to the way that Genetic Engineering is being used, which I won't detail here, except to say that this is a way of large corporations who are answerable only to shareholders to take over a pretty basic area of our lives - our food sources.
I am not against Genetic Engineering per se, but I have seen nothing to recommend the way that it is currently being used for crops, and plenty to suggest that it might be a really bad move.
Roy Ward.
--
Monsanto is to biodiversity
as Microsoft is to standards.
> Asking for a citation of a factual statement isn't all that outrageous, is it?
You are quite right. I still stand by what I said, but it was a little misdirected. It is a trick that I have seen used for proponents of something to insist that the detractors furnish all of the proof as a way of letting themselves off the hook. Tobacco companies were masters of this.
In answer to your query, I haven't seen any direct evidence that GM soya causes damage, but it might be of interest to look the story of Professor Arpad Pusztai of Aberdeen's Rowett Research Institute, and his research into GM potatoes. You won't find his results in any journals (he got sacked), but do a web search on potato and Pusztai to get some information.
Concerning my comments on proof - the words 'beyond resonable doubt' were in there for a reason. It is impossible to completely demonstrate anything to be safe, (although demonstration of unsafe is possible). What I object to is that these things are being pushed out with minimal testing and regulation, just because there is a lot of money involved. I just want to see some research addressing the real concerns that have been raised, not just the minimum as set by a government that (in New Zealand) will do anything not to annoy corporations.
One thing that I heard recently (I'm not at home, so I can't give you a reference) is that with food engineered to include pesticides in the United States, the government body regulating pesticides won't look at it because it is a food, and the FDA won't look at it because it is a pesticide.
I'm completely happy with testing of these foods, as long as it is done is such a way that it is nearly impossible for material to escape. Unfortunately, many of the tests going on don't even meet this criterion. As for driving them underground, there is currently little enough control over the process (at least in New Zealand and India) that driving it underground wouldn't make all that much difference in this case, as the corporations make most of their own rules.
I agree on "There are things man was not meant to know" being rubbish - I don't go along with that either. Science itself isn't good or bad - it's what we do with it.
> I could decide that, for example, your computer use is dangerous to me, and demand that you stop it until you prove that it isn't.
Be assured that if you can suggest some plausible reason that my computer use is harmful to you in a way that you can't easily avoid (I'm not asking for proof here), I'll stop until I can give reasonable evidence that your fears are groundless. That is the sort of thing that I am asking of the GM food producers.
> So, if you want to stop someone from doing something, then yes, the burden of proof of danger is on you.
We'll have to just disagree on that one. I've seen so many cases of damage from misuse of technology that I am a supporter of the precautionary principle. Of course, with the way that your so called free society works, even if I could prove right now that GM food was dangerous (I can't), I still wouldn't (on my own) be able to get anyone to stop a damned thing because I don't have enough money to affect the vested interests.
Roy Ward
--
Monsanto is to biodiversity
as Microsoft is to standards.
"One of the primary goals of the GM food industry is crops you have to buy from them each year. Right now third world farmers do rather better by saving some seeds and replanting them. This is like windows licensing your crops. "
Someone should develope open source plants.
Limaux or GNUorn or something.
I'm sure they meant well. So did the makers of Thalidomide.
Let's say we have a field full of 100% insect resistant crops. It leaks it insect resistant genes to the surrounding fields until half of England is covered with plants that insects can't eat. Most of the insects die, the rest move to Scotland. Ok, so who going to pollinate next years insect resistant crops? Not the insects and if crops die, no more insects resistant crops. The regular crops move back in and attract insects with the promise of a higher standard of living and good schools.
How is "A tiny accident, one gene leaking out, can have massive consequences." any different than Y2K hysteria? Natural section will eliminate the insect resistant genes. It's FUD.
Some of my favorite non-computer related FUD is:
-"we're due for another killer asteriod."
-"playing Tomb Raider will cause 'gender idenity crisis' in boys"
-"the reset button on tomagachi's will give children an unrealistic concept of death."
-"Thoose POG's are gonna poke your eye out kid!"
I'm sure they meant well. So did the makers of Thalidomide.
I pull up /. at 5pm and what do I see, "KILLER ASTERIOD!" Boy am I faced.
My dear Wormwood it seems you take a very long post to say you don't believe any of that FUD either. Of course Tomb Raider and Virtual Pets (;P) do not cause Bad Things to happen to your kids. (But it made good copy at the time!) Also, that's a pretty fast moving gene leak to go though an entire country before dying out. Hope it doesn't get on an airplane.
Ya wouldn't believe some M$ drone if he said something negative about Linux so why believe one chicken little about genetics? Do you expect "gene leak", if it exists, to move faster than the various crop blights we already live with? We already have the tools at had to deal with these 'natural' occurances. Natutal selection _is_ a slow gentle process when compared to the lawn mover and flame-thrower.
Why do people fret about big improbable disasters instead of the pedantic everyday murderers such as cancer and heart disease? Neither of us is a geneticist so our opinion is about as informed as Richard Dawkin's opinion of vi vs. Emacs. So, how many people have to slowly die so you can feel secure that Triffids won't mug you at the ATM?
I'm sure they meant well. So did the makers of Thalidomide.
I live on a farm, tho, my family hasn't farmed for a couple of years now. We used to have cattle and wheat and barley. "Terminator" seeds are nothing too revolutionary. Companies have been producing hybrid plants that won't reproduce for years. Sunflowers used to point their heads in the direction of the sun[1] , but now, with sunflower hybrids, they always point in one direction. And some nonsense a few comments back about "farmers feeding all their animals antibiotics" is just silly. The only genetic mucking about most farmers ever do is artificial insemination. [1] True! The plants grow so fast that the side facing the sun grows fast enough so that the sunflowers yellow head always (used to) face the sun. Or so my dad (42yr) says. I'm only 18 and have never seen that in my lifetime.
Photos of bits of the past hiding in the present: afiler.com
I see that most of the posters have pro-GM attitudes. I suppose that the majority of them are from the USA. Here in Britain, public opinion swings the other way. Our Prime Minister, who is a glove puppet for the USA's President Clinton, is having a difficult time selling GM to the public. Monsanto et. al. have spent a lot of money supporting US politicians' election campaigns (of both main parties) and lobbying the houses. Furthermore, their aims are closely tied to the aims of US foreign policy - to dominate the world through control of food supply and technology. the 'Terminator Gene' is the most frightening prospect yet. The plan is to sell seeds which produce superior yields to the Third World, until they have no unmodified seed to self-subsist upon, then to exercise US political will through trade restriction. If the environmental effect of other genetic modifications makes it more difficult for other suppliers' seeds to produce useful yields, so much the better.
Genetic 'Engineering' - good for the USA, bad for everyone else.
The natural process of evolution is that every species will eventuall evolve to be absolutely ideally adapted for a given environment. The major side effect of this is that eventually the species becomes so well adapated to that envrionment that if the environment changes they will die off.
We have built up our society on technology, and as our technology has evolved we've become ever more dependent on it. As we build layer upon layer of technology upon eachother, eventually some layer will give and the rest will come crashing down.
A good example of this playing out is that people with a proneness to diseases can be treated and procreate and spread their genetic limitation throughout the gene pool. Over time, more and more people become disease prone, but as long as technology is there it is all okay. If that technology breaks down though, the entirety of the species may be at risk.
We can be faster than nature at adapting for a little while, but eventually it will catch up with us. The house of cards will come tumbling down just as it has for every other species who has come and gone on this planet before us.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
The reason that anitibiotics lose their effectiveness is that when they are used, they kill off ALMOST all of the bacteria. Thanks to the wonders of natural selection that means that those few bacteria left after exposure will multiply and of course all of the offspring will also be resistant to that bacteria. For crops, the insect resistant crops will drive away the insects that can't eat them, but those few that can (remember, resistant crops, not impervious), will multiply. In fact they will get the evolutionary one-up of being the only insect capable of eating those crops.
In the United States, farmers are in fact required to plant 10% (I may be off on the exact number) regular crops with their GM crops so that they prevent the scenario I just outlined from happening. Thus the few resistant insects breed with the non-resistant insects and keep the resistant genes relatively diluted.
My thought is that caution is warranted if only because time and time again it has been prooven that we never see the other edge of technology's double edged sword.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
I read an article several months ago where this was already happening. In this case, the company, (might have been Monsanto), was suing a farmer because some of their prized genes showed up in his crops and he hadn't bought any of their seed. The article mentioned that since the farmer saved some of his seed to plant the next season, it was likely that this crop was cross-pollinated with that of a neighbor farmer, one who had purchased the seed.
Most biochemists/genetecists etc would agree on one point - the media keep getting it badly wrong
Two extremes seem to exist - the Wired 'anything goes' type attitude and the 'playing God' attitude. The problems are far more complex than they tend to be painted. So here's my tuppence worth:
1) there are definitely tangible benefits to GM foods. Whilst there has been little success with oral vaccines, imagine for a moment a banana that could planted, harvested and eaten to vaccinate against malaria. technically difficult, though not unfeasible; maybe not for malaria, but certainly for some dieases. Of course, the liklyhood of such a strain being developed and given freely to third world countries seems remote at the moment, given the state of modern biotech. Which brings me to my second point...
2) There are risks from gene leakage, as Steve Jones (the scientist in question) points out. There are also risks that stem from the current state of the art and inherent imprecisions in the current methodology. Ask any genetics specialist how they achieve precise targetted gene insertions in eukaryotes - they'll laugh at you (not v good at at the moment). So the question arises: do the benefits outweigh the risks?
In the case of the RoundUp-resistant (pesitcide resistant) plants developed by Monsanto and rushed to market - no.
In our hypothetical banana case - yes.
Anyway, this is getting too long.
Will post and rant more later.
What???
As anyone whith any knowledge of ecology and evolution will tell you, you don't have to go round transforming individual plants and or insects to fill a given population with a novel gene. If the gene is sufficiently beneficial to the organism, it will spread through the population very rapidly. Furthermore, speed is not too much of an issue. If the gene escapes across speicies there is no way of 'putting the genie back in the bottle'. There are ways of lowering the incidence of gene leakage. If you put the gene close to the centromere of a chromosome, crossover frequency is reduced and thus the gene is kept in the correct environment and under the correct controllers and promoters. Also the gene can be kept away from mobile regions of DNA that can lead to gene leakage and also be kept away from the regions of DNA that can make it susceptible to moving to another plant by means of viruses or bacteria (e.g. A. tumeficans - a bug that causes tumours in plants by inserting its dna into the plants dna). Unfortunately, scientists haven't perfected targetting techniques yet - it's all random. So you can get a plant with a gene that is ok to 'good' insects in generation one(but kills the 'bad' insects, then ten generations down the line, a crossover event has taken place that places the gene under different controller sequences and suddenly its concentrations are 100x higher and the ladybird population is vanishing. If the biotech companies weren't in such a hurry to make money on their patents, then the correct research could be done and the dangers vastly reduced.
Basic rule of plant biotech:
If its being done by a multinational, worry because its unlikely to be beneficial to the consumer and will be rushed to market with too few tests and shoddy work. Be afraid.
The quality of someone's English does not necessarily reflect his knowledge in his field. If you come from London then "ain't" will probably be a integral of your language.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
If the tomatoe is modified to taste bad to insects, then it will probably taste bad to humans.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
First, yep I got the spelling tomato wrong.
Next, if you aren't going to make the fruit taste bad, what's the point of making the leaves taste bad. After all, the insects would go for the fruit instead.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Are you being sarcastic here?
That a backyard chemist will be able to brew their own virii and depopulate the world?
It would seem farfetched and difficult to envision... And evolutionary forces would say that man, with technology and civilization, would be able to survive such a disease... Worldwide instantaneous communications exist on the internet and television, quarantine should be able to do something...
Worse case, it'd be a post-apocalyptic world, but people would still survive, I think.
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Haven't there been plants around with natural insect resistances (to particular insects) for aeons? Even POISON plants? In those millions of years they've had to interbreed, those insect resistant and poison producing genes have done a pretty poor job of destroying the ecosystem.
Yes, I'm just a part of the universe. But, as the Black Hole has the ability and ``right'' to suck me into it, I have the ``right'', if not ability, to obliterate anything and everything. It's not about ``nature'', it's about the universe, which I am an expression of.
No, it's not even about the universe. It's about nothing, or possibly something. whatever....
Yes, but think of the incidental benefits of making flying fish. The gene therapy for blind people, the new compression algorithm for highly randomized data, etc.... Doing things every which way you can, whether easy or hard, smart or stupid, increases human knowledge beyond the immediate goal/outcome.
The majority of the phylum from the cambrian era are extinct. Sometimes life doesn't adapt, sometimes it just dies... because other life has adapt faster than it could.
I volunteer to not reproduce.
It's highly unlikely that this could happen, but there are known cases of virii picking up genes of one plant and transferring them in a blight to other plants. Other incidentals can add to the destruction of a declining population. Even if it's far-fetched, someone has to make these possible problems known, so they can be addressed.
What you're missing is that only a few bacteria have to make a gene resistant to penicillin. Those few bacteria can transfer genes between others of the same species, and between different species. This can be done via transformation, conjugation, or transduction via bacteriophages. This can be done to plants and the like via virii intermediates.
Selecting mostly the immune bacteria/plants, is indeed a very important method of a population gaining greater resistance, but it's not the only one.
A secondary, but important method of crossing genes from one population to another (yeah, even from one kingdom to another (silk producing bacteria anyone?)) is via virii. Virii and other techniques, some of which can and do occur ``in the wild'' are very important methods of recombinant genetics. This along with the slight possibility of a negative mutation (for the world, not negative for the mutated lifeform) have to be dealt with.
Darn it! It's the jerks of the world that are bad for me, not ``ourselves''. You may as well say it's the eventual nova of the sun that's bad for us. It's not even the jerks who are bad for me, it's the things that occur that have a negative effect on me.
What's ``negative''? What's ``bad''?
Then why did I have to boil my water when I visited China?
We're part of nature, how can we possibly go against nature's ``grain''? Maybe it's other parts of nature going against our part of nature's grain?
Other than that, your comments are probably beneficial for the overall fitness of the human species.
paraphrase: ``...great programmers know when to reuse code...'' or something like that.
All of the insects would move off of farmer Dan's GM'd crop onto farmer Al's non-GM'd crop. This would cause a huge blight on Al's crops, and force him to buy GM'd seed from the same manufacturer as Dan does. Doesn't this seem a little market manipulative/blackmailish to you?
I think his point was not that genetic engineering would have an effect similar to the introduction of penicillin. I think his point was merely that ecology is almost always more complex than we perceive, and our actions have long-term unintended consequences. 50 years ago, the concept of resistant strains would not have been taken seriously. He used the analogy to ask the question, "What could happen 50 years from now that people today would think impossible?"
It's a funny thing about the UK - it's an island (or two). It is much easier to wipe out a species on an island than on a continent.
Malthus is a bad example. He used quantitative methods that assumed exponential growth of people and linear growth in food supply. He was wrong on both counts. He also assumed that the rate of growth of the human population would be independent of the rate of growth of the food supply, which is absurd - isn't it obvious that as food becomes more scarce, the rate of population growth will go down?
I would further suggest that those who believe we are not currently encountering ecological disasters are good examples of the human ability to accept any situation as normal. We are in the middle of an ecological disaster of geological proportions - future paleontologists will debate endlessly about what caused the die-out of so many species during this epoch.
It would be much more correct to say that, faced with a removal of their normal targets, insects DIE or adapt. Most insects, especially the kind that we're talking about when we refer to GM crops, are parasites/predators SPECIFICALLY of one species of plant. So if that plant becomes "immune" to the insect, it will die. The insects that we're trying to protect our crops from are largely incredibly specialized to parasitize that one particular crop. There are, of course, exceptions like locusts and things, which eat multiple crops, but we don't have any really effective 'GM' means of dealing with these pests.
... the comment about food practices in the UK, particularly ' ... we don't allow growth hormone in cattle, so our meat tastes a lot better ...'. Do we remember mad cow disease? The UK has had its fair share of biological/agricultural science fuck-ups, so let's not be too quick to tout the merits of any particular system.
Even if the insects can 'move', they would move to another plant! So the statement 'the largest target to move onto is humans' is rather irrelevant. We're not going to have wheat rust or corn worms suddenly attacking the populace at large!
Another earlier comment was that GM genes could escape into the ecosystem at large, which would kill off all the insects, causing catastrophic collapse of food chains and whatnot on earth. This was probably just a provocative statement, but I'd like to emphasize that it's just untrue. First, the reason of specialization stated above. Second, people don't seem to fully understand the consequences of genetic interrelationships such as pleitropy or dominance. Even if an insect- or bacterial- resistance gene were to 'escape' into the wild, it would likely be completely useless when inserted into the genome of whatever plant received it. Phenotypes (i.e., the physical traits that we can observe, which are based on the underlying genome of the organism) are intertwined in a very complex manner. In the vast and overwhelming number of cases, simply sticking a random gene somewhere into the genome will not produce a different phenotype. And if it does, it's more likely to fuck up whatever normal genetic architecture existed in the organism in the first place, probably killing or sterilizing the damn thing.
That's my two cents.
Oh, and I can't resist a parting shot
dm
darkmagus
Yes, but is this DNA sharing inter- or intra-specific?
--
Okay, I got Linux installed. So where's the free beer everyone keeps talking about??
I was raised on a non-commercial farm, if that counts. Through the years we grew just about everything you can, either for income or sustenance: cows, hogs, chickens, ducks, guineas, goats, numerous garden crops, hay, timber, etc. And from 1 - 15 cats at any given time. The cats were neither income nor sustenance. *heh*
;)
I got a wildlife conservation degree in college, and now work as a terrestrial ecologist. I'm gradually mutating into a geek in my spare time.
By the way, guinea fowl are the Spawn of Satan(tm), but they sure keep the ticks away!
--
Okay, I got Linux installed. So where's the free beer everyone keeps talking about??
So, how is this supposed to work again? How do the genes from plant species A wind up in species B?
That penicillin reference is really, really BAD, too. Penicillin is nigh-worthless in some parts of the world today not because of some mysterious gene-sharing between types of bacteria. They just all migrated down similar paths to resistance. Was it evolution? Yes. Was it some nefarious evolutionary plot designed to get back at us? No.
Maybe I haven't had enough coffee, but what's the problem here?
--
Okay, I got Linux installed. So where's the free beer everyone keeps talking about??
. . . in the "resistance against insects" quote.
You breed or gene-gineer plants to be resistant of
certain types of insect attacks. For example, you
might engineer a tomato whose leaves taste bad to
any insect that wants to munch on the leaves. But
that won't prevent pollination, and the insects will find
other plants to munch on. But this British professor
seems not to want us to realize that. . . .
Several comments. . . .
1. Let's look at those insect-free tomatoes.
My wife gardens, so I have some experience here.
The main bug problem is a variety of caterpillar
that eats the leaves of the tomato plant, thus
stunting its' growth, and its' yield of tomatoes
in the end. You seem to claim that removing ONE
species, amongst many, somewhere in the middle of
the food chain, will cause catastrophe ???
The only system I know of in which one bug can
cause/prevent utter system catastrophe is
Microsoft Windows. . . .
2. The "natural cycle" you are claiming exists,
is, in fact, ANOTHER fallacy. I could plant
those acres in, for example, wheat instead of
tomatoes, STILL not providing a habitat for the
tomato-leaf-chomping caterpillars, and still not
cause catastrophe. Nature is flexible, and adapts
to changes in the local environment. Sort of like
Linux. . . .
3. The "Dust Bowl" was caused by over-farming and
aquifer depletion. NOT by genetic engineering of
either the breeding or laboratory variety.
Your serve. . .
Corn and Soybeans, Dairy herd, and a smattering .)
.)
of hogs (primarily for internal use. .
I got my father to be the first one in the county
using computers for agriculture as well. . . 15
years ago, on a PC (forgot whether it was PC/XT
or PC/AT. .
What happens if an insect-repellent gene leaks?
:) /.
Insects adapt.
And then the crops which were genetically modified in the first place lose their advantage.
Thats all GM is essentially, just pushing evolution along at a faster rate.
The media is full of scaremongering like "All the insects will die!!!", lets get sucked in to it on
--J
Maybe all we get is evolution?
I dunno, but seems this is how it's been done for millions of years. The word 'interfere' can't ever really be relevant since 'the evolution system' can never be 'stepped out of'.
I think 'unpredictable consequences' is an important point. Since that's what evolution leads to, whether we like it or not. The domino effect seems unlikely... it seems arbitrarily appropriate for the chaos theory, but since when has the chaos theory preached that 'that butterfly should not have flapped its wings' to prevent storms across the world?
Maybe what will evolve from GM foods is the extinction of the human race. And maybe that will happen because the existence of humans 'wasnt stable enough'. Maybe there's destined to be a greater intelligence than is possible with human brains, who knows. Sometimes the plate has to be wiped clean.
At the end of the day, who knows. Maybe this will 'cause something huge to happen. You can't step out of nature just like you can't step out of evolution... we're part of it. And tomorrow is just as natural as today.
It's perfectly possible that through reproduction the tomato's gene mutates sufficiently to replicate the effect that you suggest. But then many things are perfectly possible.
If humans really are 'worth saving' and 'the soul' amounts to more than soft grey matter then hey, I wouldn't want to be the one responsible for saving us. Nature's power encompasses much more than a few species.
While the summary of this article is forboding and, I feel unlikely, these genes can and do move around. I have had occassion to work with transgenic projects that looked specifically at gene movement. These had to do with herbicide resistant crops and movement of resistance to similar weed species. Movement DID occur, although resistance was not guaranteed. Interestingly enough, the companies developing the crops were equally concerned with their genes moving into a neighboring field of the same type of crop. Competitors, they reasoned, would be able to harvest and isolate their proprietary work.
Hold on
I do and I don't beleive this for a second.
I lived on a farm that raised corn and soybeans, as well has hogs.
As someone that has lived on a farm and has planted corn next to soybeans all my life, I would have expected to see soybeans start growing ears of corn any second now. This sounds like someone's attempt to get a nice grant.
Economists need to learn how to subtract
Until you reduce demand, you cannot stop the cycle of consumption that is killing the planet
Are you volunteering to kill yourself? Or not reproduce?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
People in Europe desperately want these regulations, that's why they are there. Governments couldn't care less. Also, the idea of beef and even milk from hormone-treated cows is absolutely disgusting to the average European; if you mention it at a dinner party, people will stop eating. This is not something protectionist governments made up.
Note also that the Invisible Hand only works if all market participants have full information. However, Monsanto et al. are even against labeling GM foods. Soja is ingredient of virtually every processed food.
I'm still a bit confused, but less so. I would have expected it to work out a bit like this: If a unit of non-GM'd food is selling for X, after the introduction of a GM'd version, selling for, say 0.8X, the original version should be labelled (prominently) as un-GM'd, and then sold for 1.2X. Given this business model (which I freely admit absolutely screws the customer who wants to avoid GM'd food), it's in the best interest of the food provider to be completely up-front about the GM status of their foodstuffs.
If the GM-avoiding portion of the population in Europe is a majority, it seems like that approach would result in some nice profits for somebody...
Of course, I'm talking completely out my @$$ at this point...
john,
who needs to quit lurking on this thread and do some work!
GeneHack {--(bioinfo*linux*opinion)
Interesting you should mention that, Psion. I've just come back from a talk given by Professor Kevin Warwick, who puts forward the view that the long-term effect of computer technology is possibly the extinction of the human race - from the point of view of a computer expert rather than the point of view of, for example, a religious fundamentalist.
Certainly there's been a lot of discussion in the past about modern medicine eventually being responsible for creating superbugs which are resistant to all forms of treatment and will go through the human race like a flamethrower through a low-fat vegetable spread.
And if you believe their detractors, the long-term effect of the Tele-Tubbies is that children will grow up incapable of speaking English and students will lie around their flats all day going 'Eh-oh' and giggling a lot. Research points to the latter prophecy already coming true...
But is that a rational justification for deliberate ignorance either? Because we don't know either way we should just have a go and see what happens?
There was an interesting discussion in the Q&A session after Professor Warwick's talk. He took a question which turned out to be more of an accusation of a lack of scientific knowledge and good research methods. He countered with the question, "Have you read my book?" The reply came: "No, I refuse to on principle."
Just because people seem to espouse views that we don't like or agree with doesn't mean we should refuse to listen to anything they say and rush as fast as we can towards the opposite extreme. The concerns people have with medicine, Tele-Tubbies, computer technology and GM foods should be taken on board, although we shouldn't let them paralyse us completely as some people seem to suggest. Nonetheless, if holding off for a little more controlled research is possible, who does it harm?
In this particular case, Professor Jones raises a number of very valid points, and even if you disagree with some of what he says, the rest should not be ignored.
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
The problem is that we are doing things with GM foods that can't occur through normal evolution. E.G. it is possible to use the genes from one strain of wheat with another and this is something that could alos occur via evolution without any human intervention. The problems occur when you do things that 'natural' evolution would not allow in a single step such as using the genes from an artic animal in a tomato to protect from frost. If such a thing could occur through 'natural' evolution it would be via a vast number of intermediate steps which would allow everything that depended on the tomtao to also evolve. If mankind takes a shortcut there is a possibility that every not every creature and plant dependant on a quality of the tomato that has been removed would not be able to evolve in time and thus die out. This in turn could lead to a domino effect with unpredictable consequences.
Kithran
This guy sounds like a doomsday sayer to me. He's ignoring three key facts.
/he/ should be worried about his future creditability in the science world.
Number One: Insects can evolve too. He seems to think that plants changing will make it so that no insects can eat them, or polinate them, or anything. Um... Who says that the insects can't just evolve to this new scenario.
Number Two: These modified plants do not keep insects from polinating. Just from damaging. So, most likely, we'll have more insects running around.
Number Three: Genes are unlikely to be able to spread to anything but closely related plants. Plants are like animals, they have genomes, with varying numbers of chromosomes, and they'll have a hard time crossing that barrier.
So, I'm not very worried about his foretold doom. I think maybe
--
Matthew Walker
My DNA is Y2K compliant
Matthew Walker
http://www.tweeterdiet.com/ - My Diet Tracking Tool
The parent post of the post you're replying to said so. I think the poster had the handle sanity. The number sounded a little large to me, too. I'm pretty sure it's in the billions, just not four billion, somewhere between one and two billion or something like that.
So, you don't see a several year long 50% drop in a countries food supply as "massive consequences"? I can't really agree with that reasoning. Sure, plenty of people would survive, it's just the fact that plenty might die or have their lives destroyed that gets me. The argument that goes "after such and such an amount of time it won't matter because things will be stable again" doesn't wash very well in my opinion.
:).
See, the entire point of advising caution is that you may be able to avoid these big disasters. Going through them and then rebuilding is all well and good, but haven't you ever watched news footage about how some town has been flooded for the xxth time and it's going to cost billions to rebuild and wondered what ever possessed people to live there in the first place? Or at least to wonder why they didn't spring for better designed levees?
People often say things like "natural selection will eliminate the insect resistant genes" without considering the fact that natural selection is not a gentle process.
Regarding your other examples of FUD... I don't have much to say about a "gender identity crisis" in boys from playing Tomb Raider. On the other hand, I don't think the game helps much in giving boys, or girls realistic expectations of what the human body is supposed to look like, but that's hardly unique to Tomb Raider. As for the reset button on Tamagotchi's (sp?), I'd certainly hope that people can distinguish between toys and real living things. As for POG's, just remember, it's all fun and games until someone loses an eye, then it's just fun
As for killer asteroids (or comets), I would agree that there's a lot of Fear and Uncertainty, but, let's face it, there isn't very much doubt. The argument that we're "due" is, of course, a complete fallacy. Probability doesn't really work that way. That kind of thinking is the same law of small numbers that keeps people at the slot machines in casinos. On the other hand, the chances are vanishingly small that we (meaning the planet earth) won't be hit by a large asteroid or comet again. It's a crapshoot (actually, it's not absolutely a crapshoot, since once we know the location, size, mass, speed and direction of all the players and the appropriate, correct laws of physics governing them, it's all pretty deterministic, but we don't know all those things, so it's a crapshoot). It may or may not happen in my lifetime. Chances aren't particularly small that it will. If it does, there's still the fact that most of the Earth's surface can be considered an "isolated area" so an explosion as powerful as many nukes probably won't cause much loss of human life (if it hits in the ocean, some of the waves might be pretty bad, and it might set off secondary cataclysmic events like massive underwater landslides, which have been known to create half kilometer high waves themselves). Of course, there might be a dust cloud which could make things pretty unliveable for a few years in colder parts of the world. And, there's always the danger that the various nuclear powers might think that a huge explosion is a nuclear attack (apparantly, meteorites have set off ICBM warnings before) and follow their standard policies, which pretty much demand that they shoot first and question later. There's also the possibility that the comet or asteroid will be so big that we'll pretty much be wiped out. Of course, that's very improbable (over any given short period of time), but, if so, it begs the question: why do people buy lottery tickets anyway?
On the other hand, there's not a lot you can do about killer asteroids/comets. I suppose humans could try ridiculous plans like responsible living. You know, things like planning ahead for the possibility of disaster and working towards getting things into a stable and recoverable order rather than the mess we work with these days.
Even Prince Charles thinks this is a bad idea.
I agree with you .. the real danger underlying genetic manipulation is not so much the technology itself, but the fact that corporations are being allowed to a relatively large extent to control it.
Something like this should be kept "safely" under the wing of the scientific community, and only used in responsible ways.
The moment you introduce any element of financial gain, all ethics are tossed out the window instantly. There is no way that any corporation will ever be responsible enough to not abuse technologies like this. (Probably not the government either.)
Just wanted to compliment you on a very well-spoken post. Everyone seems to miss the point of the concern. Famines don't have to be permanent to be a disaster. Also, there is another troubling factor. Some of these problems may just result in much lower crop yield, not decimation. So instead of being the miracle crops they're touted as, they wind up producing less than they do now.
The main problem, though, is with the greedy corporations. They'd do anything for a buck. Companies like Monsanto have already shown whose interests take top priority.
--
--
Jason Eric Pierce
There's no doubt that world is basically run by morons. What do you propose? A revolt of the nerds?
"Sir the nerds are revolting!"
"They can't help it, they don't get any sun or exercise."
^_^
But seriously, while many things can be improved, many others are the way they are for a reason.
I don't know about Scandinavia, but geothermal heating is common in Iceland, which has absurdly abundant easily accessable geothermal heat. It's an oddity of the region, not a valid plan.
As for nuclear energy, there's politics involved. For one thing, the power companies have businesses to protect, and nuclear energy could potentially make electricity so cheap as to make all other forms of generation instantly obsolete. For another, you can't burn up the waste in breeder reactors because of fear of nuclear weapons proliferation.
Dug-in homes are cheaper and could last practically forever, so nobody in the construction industry wants them around.
Sloped runways are more expensive, and all the pilots are used to landing on flat ones. Like all regenerative braking systems, it has considerable barriers to adoption. Note that your car doesn't save any of the energy from coming to a stop to get itself going again.
Cellular systems can't handle the same traffic as lines. They are not a substitute for a good wired-in phone system, never mind the household internet connection and cable TV.
Sometimes there is no short detour around a mountain range.
We live in a capitalist society. It has it's ups and downs. One of the biggest problems is that those who are best able to implement a change are the ones most likely to be hurt by it.
Much of the world is sensible; where it's not, somebody is probably making money off of the silliness.
There are no easy answers.
...and CH4 is CH4, and these are the two major greenhouse gasses that everyone is whining about when they talk about global warming. Yet mankind's dumping of these is an insignificant drop in the bucket.
Anyone who thinks humans should cut back on these emmissions to avoid global warming hasn't looked at the numbers. We just aren't dumping enough of this stuff to make a difference.
Real poisons released into the air we are breathing are definitely a real concern, though. Anyone who's dealt with L.A. smog can tell you that. People really ought to push harder for cleaner-burning engines in their cars, there are some brilliant designs out there that just aren't being used. Coal-burners are still pretty dirty too.
BTW: the same people who complain about carbon dioxide emmisions often complain about stuff not rotting in landfills and non-biodegradable packaging. Think about it! When we put paper in a landfill, we're fixing carbon, like putting coal back in the ground.
Okay, so humans are part of nature, not it's guardians, not it's masters... but we're wrong for doing what we do?
It seems to me that the view that we are part of nature supports anything we do, even if we wipe out practically everything else, like the first oxygen-producers.
As for the rest of the ecosystem outliving humanity, consider the rate at which human capability for both construction and destruction is increasing. In a couple of centuries, once we're off this little rock, we might lose our fear of such things as nuclear weapons and start having fun with toys like antimatter bombs. I wouldn't casually dismiss the idea that people might use planetary crusts as shields, hiding deep under the surface as their enemies reduce the biosphere to a glass-floored parking lot, even cracking open the planet with unimagineably destructive weapons to get at the enemies within. And perhaps, when the fighting is over the survivors would emerge and casually terraform the surface over the course of a few months, populating it with inoffensive genetically engineered lifeforms for their own pleasure.
Our intelligence makes us different. If we don't wipe ourselves out, the survival of other lifeforms may be determined solely by our sentimental attachments. If we do wipe ourselves out, there's a pretty good chance we'll take the whole shootin' match with us.
Let's face it, we're reaching the point where life can be divided into humans and their toys. Some people have trouble with that notion; it is a failure of imagination. We're not quite there yet, but we're damn' close.
Get a grip, and quit spouting mystical nonsense. It's all about us from here on.
...this isn't really all that different than hybrids, which are also sterile and give better yield.
No, no, most F1 hybrids - even F2 hybrids - aren't *sterile* at all; they just don't reliably breed true. However, you can usually breed back to open-pollinated species in a few generations, either the F0 parents or plants similar to the F1 plants. People do this regularly - cf. Carol Deppe's book (1993, Little Brown) Breed Your Own Vegetable Varieties, written by a geneticist for hobby gardeners. (I know you can breed from common corn, tomato, and bean hybrids, I've done it.)
About the UKs resistance to meat hormones - they did just have a serious scare from battery farming techniques; general public sentiment distrusts the ability (and willingness) of meat farmers to tell the consumer how their meat was raised, so general public sentiment supports regulations against hormones. Democracies get to do that, although the WTO wants to prevent it.
There's plenty of reason to distrust our food producers - Vermont passed a popular law just requiring labelling hormone-produced milk, and the big dairies attacked it on the grounds that it affected their First Amendment rights to not speak.
Increasing the vigor of infectious diseases is not a sensible goal for biotechnology.
As you say, penecillin resistance is increasing. This
a) isn't a good thing
b) is avoidable; it's largely due to overuse, not use, of antibiotics, and can be slowed or even reversed if people are more sensible (see the CDC's discussion)
c) is EXACTLY analagous to what genegeneering pesticides into crops is likely to make happen.
Using Bt twice a season, when the bugs it attacks are multiplying, and leaving untouched reservoirs, allows nonresistant bugs to outcompete resistant ones - just not on our crops. Constant exposure to Bt, in monoculture fields, breeds for resistant bugs alone. Stupid, stupid, stupid. The biotech companies want to create these problems so they can sell the solutions, but there's no reason for the rest of us to let them.
Coyote survival is another warning sign - yes, coyotes can survive ecological attacks, as can cockroaches, rats, loosestrife, and bindweed. I have higher ambitions than living in an environment of weeds and scavengers - you can't eat bindweed, and I sure don't want to eat cockroaches.
You seem to think that I believe that all current species developed from a common ancestor. You seem to have misunderstood me. There is ZERO proof for any transition between species, and this would lead one to believe that it does not and has not happened. If it had happened, it would have happened so many times that al least one piece of evidence could have become part of the fossil record. Is there any? No. This can be stated in a simple argument: Premise 1: If evolution between species occurred and resulted in the incredible diversity of species that exitsts today, some evidence of in-between forms would be evident in the fossil record. Premise 2: There is no evidence of any type of in-between form (between ANY two species) in the fossil record. Conclusion: Evolution between species did not occur.
This space intentionally left blank.
The whole argument about whether genes can cross from one species to another by evolution without man's help depends on one thing: that macroevolution is aa fact. However, macroevolution does not even qualify as a theory; it is instead a philosophy of science (it can't be tested, observed, repeated, etc.). It may be possible, but then again it may not. There has never been any proof found to support macroevolution or (as far as I know) the natural migration of genes across species. Even the instances cited in the article and some of the posts confuse macro and microevolution. For example, the bacteria becoming resistant to penicillin occurred not becuase the bacteria changed their genes to become resistant to the penicillin, but instead occurred becuase some bacteria already had the genes required for resistance to penicillin. The penicillin didn't do anything but kill off the non-resistant bacteria, and thus increase the food supply for the resistant bacteria. Personally, I don't think that there is anything to worry about.
This space intentionally left blank.
The examples you have given which you claim "prove" evolution are examples of microevolution (variations within a species). Pine and fir trees are members of the same subset of trees (they just have slightly different characteristics) and are not completely different species, and dachsunds and great danes are members of the same branch of the canis family. Saying that these offer proof of macroevolution is just plain ignorant. That this occurs is undisputed. However, macroevolution, the "theory" as proposed by Darwin, has zero proof in its favor. There is much more evidence for intelligent design than there ever has been for macroevolution. Proof that one species has changed into another, completely different species has never been found. Another thing -- it is impossible to test macroevolution, as in Darwin's theory, becuase it would not occur in a lab. There would be no outside forces acting on the test subjects, and so they would have no reason to change. Even if they were to have a reason to evolve, they would remain the same species, but with slightly improved aspects. Accepting macroevolution as the only possible way that life could have arisen and become what it is today seems to me to be stupid. Calling macroevolution a theory (and a well-proven one at that) just reveals how little you have looked into all of the empirical evidence.
This space intentionally left blank.
And X-Rays. People used to go to department stores and XRay their feet and hands with abandon. Only later did the link between XRay exposure and cancer become evident.
Genetic engineering is not really as simple as drag and drop. It is quite possible that promoting the expression of a desireable gene can lead to unwanted effects, such as expression of a less desireable gene. We have huge gaps in our knowledge of this area. Since the American farmer seems to be reasonably efficient already, there should be no big hurry to plunge head-on into the unknown using everybody who eats as a guinea pig.
If history teaches us anything (particularly the penicillin example) it is that evolution will adapt around GM modified plants. Some version of insect that likes the plants will emerge. Exactly this sort of thing has occured with standard pesticides. Farmers dump chemicals on their fields, the insects most vulnerable die, those most resistant survice. Over time, evolutions selects toward an insect that is totally resistant to the chemicals.
There are *bazillions* of insects in the world, and most of them have very short breeding cycles and a huge number of offspring. The insect world is evolution in high gear.
I find it odd that he choose penicillin to illustrate his point, as this example points to exacly the same pattern: nature adapting around our tampering and surviving despite our best efforts. Hey, I'm not a geneticist, so take this with a grain of salt... but it seems almost common sense to me. Thad
The Bolachek Journals
I remember something fom biology called plasmids whereby genes do just that, and jump around. Thats how we got Bio-engineered Insulin in the early days.
That disclaimer aside, has anyone really thought about what would have to occur for this to happen?
Let's examine the good Professor's prediction; ie, that genetically modified plants, for example, cotton, will spread their genes to flowers and prevent them from interbreeding.
"Okay," say the scientists, "Let's make some cotton these little buggers don't like to eat!"
So, they pull out their tweezers and magnifying glasses and tweak a gene or three. A wee bit later another plant grows to full height, this time resistant to nasty moths and bugs and whatever else might want to eat a nice innocent lil' cotton plant.
Now, let's examine the dandelion. Not necessarily a precious, sweet-smelling flower, but it came to mind and I can spell it. So there.
Anyways, think of how many healthy dandelions you've seen in your lifetime. Have you seen any that looked as though they'd been eaten by insects? Well, I haven't. So, the bees which pollinate dandelions don't eat them?!?
Well, now, let's see here . . . we are assuming, now, that a gene will jump ship from one species to another (note: species cannot interbreed, preventing infestation by insects in the original species, and making bees go away in the recipient? Huh?
Now, let's extend our imaginations a bit further. Flowers newly offensive due to renegade genes are produced alongside their original counterparts. What does basic evolution theory tell us? The good Professor would have us think that the strain which, by slight extension of his own statements, will not be assisted by insects in the pollination process is going to not only become more abundant than but will overtake and eradicate what remains of the original, unmodified strain of flower.
Hmmm . . . so now, a gene which does something in one plant jumps ship and does something totally different in another plant, which is unable to breed due to characteristics not conducive to reproductive success yet overruns plants better suited to the environment, in effect killing off the original plant and dying off in one generation, leaving the world starving.
Right. Let's compare. I, after standing next to someone with, say, sickle-celled anemia, am rendered sterile (random side effect caused by sickle-cell gene), then produce enough offspring to choke anyone not descended from me, then, since my childen are obviously sterile, the entire human population dies.
Anyone else not worried?
Comments? -hankaholic
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
I love to see edumacated individuals complain about the adverse effects that human beings have inflicted upon our fair planet.
What most fail to tell you is that they really never bother to research their arguments. Most environmental arguments are based in emotion, not fact.
Granted, the human race has done quite a bit of ecological damage to the environment, LOCALLY. There will be no major ecological disaster. The whole idea that man is significant enough to permanantly damage this planet is preposterous. That goes not just for the planet, but for the life that is living on the planet. Like Crichton postulates in Jurassic Park, life WILL overcome. There's a reason why weeds grow in your sidewalk, because they are hard to kill.
Look, we've detonated hundreds of nuclear weapons, set Kuwait on fire for a year, herded millions of methane bloated cattle, burned millions upon millions of tons of fossil fuels...and yet, when Mount Pinatubo erupted in the Philipines a few years ago, it's been said that more carbon dioxide was expelled into the atmosphere by that eruption than man has created in his entire existance.
Face it people, we are but insignificant bugs on the face of this big rock. A thousand years after humans become extinct, you'll hardly be able to tell we were here at all.
Everyone here seems to forget that by us (humans) having planted the THREE MILLION ACRES of crops in the first place, we have artificially inflated the pest insect population. We keep them in check by killing them with insecticides, pesticides, etc. By making our food source pest-proof, we not only keep the pest population in check, we keep their predator chain in check, and so on down the line.
It's also kind of neat being able to feed 2 billion people off of that crop...
The Dust-Bowl comparison fails in that it would require the genes to jump from plant to all plants.
The ecosystem is REAL. Think about it this way:
We have a problem - car accidents
or crop failure
We have a culprit - the car(generalized)
ar insects(generalized)
we have a solution - remove all cars(bad)
or remove all insects(bad)
the result:
the car-bone is connected to the work-bone,
the work-bone is connected to the income-bone,
the income-bone is connected to the food, shelter, survival, and spending-bones
the disaster:
the food, shelter, survival, and spending-bones are connected to the economy-skeleton and finally
the economy-skeleton is connected to
the company-earnings-bone and the
product-research-bone wwhich have all kinds of
income-bones coming from them.
the ecosystem has very similar connections.
the fallcy:
There's is little guarantee that all cars would be removed by confiscating them for DUI's, and there is none that gene bouncing will affect your whole crop and remove all insects. The fortunate thing about a catastrophe is it requires simple but extreme circumstances.
the differences in those two cases above is that in the case of the insects there is no guarantee to begin with. We're closer to the central skeleton in that case. A few insects gone or a few drunks off the road are good thing for the system. In the case of the confisctaion of cars there's a bit of a problem. Unless we focus on repeat offenders in that case we are closer to being the insects and too many people who hardly ever get out line being out of a job can bite into our economy.
The ship sank. Get over it. (This sig was cut out from another's shirt and painstakingly hand-posted)
> Additionally, you can easily tell the difference > between mitochondrial DNA and H. sap. DNA I thought that the biggest difference between H. sap. DNA and mit. DNA was that H. sap. _had_ DNA and mitochondria had RNA. chipthog
In the United States, farmers are in fact required to plant 10% (I may be off on the exact number) regular crops with their GM crops so that they prevent the scenario I just outlined from happening. Thus the few resistant insects breed with the non-resistant insects and keep the resistant genes relatively diluted.
This is known as a refuge, and is used when planting crops that have the Bt toxin gene (The Bt toxin is lethal to lepidopteran insects). There are several different Bt technologies currently on the market...the initial technologies were registered with a 5%-10% refuge requirement, which means that at least that much acreage must be planted to non-Bt crops. And the non-Bt crops should be planted close to the Bt crops, so that resistant and non resistant insects can interbreed, and prevent the passing of resistance to the next generation. There's been a lot of controversy about how big refugia should be--the EPA has registered new technology with a 20%-40% refuge requirement, although the older technologies are remaining at the lower level.
Of course, this is only a resistance management strategy. It is inevitable that resistance will occur...this is just putting it off for a while.
Sorry....I just finished a term paper on this exact subject. Kinda neat to see something in /. that I can actually comment on intelligently.
I'm currently an agronomy major in college (who graduates in a month!), and I was raised on a dairy/cash grain farm. I'm just a geek in my spare time. :)
There already exsists a system in which you must buy seed from the 'evil seed corporations' each year. It's called hybrid corn (and wheat, and a few other crops). Hybrid corn is heterozygous, which means it doesn't breed true. If you want to plant the same hybrid a second year, you must go back and buy new seed from the company. Hybrid corn confers a large advantage over what we used to plant; you don't see any corn planted that isn't hybridized anymore. Even in the Third World, hybrid corn provides such a huge yield advantage over normal lines that it is being widely adopted.
Now, I don't think Terminator technology is quite the revolution that hybrid corn was. But there are similarities to the situation I described above. Also, your hype about 'GMs as US political tools' is all a lot of BS. Novartis, for example, is a SWISS company, and they are just as leading edge with GMs as Monsanto is.
>There is a big difference between selective breeding, natural selection, hybridization and genetic engineering.
- -----------
There is? In what book did you find this out? A mutation is a mutation. A gene is a gene. I don't care what the source. With selective breeding, you take years to get the result you want by just waiting for the proper bizarre mutation.
Come on, what you're saying is about as silly as saying there's a big difference between in vitro fertilization and the natural kind. Sure, you deposit the sperm in a cup instead of the more pleasant way, but the end result is that a sperm and an egg meet and start dividing in the way that causes a zygote to form instead of just more cells. Same thing with cloning.
We're talking DNA here. Breeding and hybridization work by 1. combining two different sets of DNA or 2. looking through the set of genetic mutations in your breeding stock and picking out the two most favorable mutations.
What this bozo in the article (more than likely, the news bozo who rewrote a press release and got the story wrong) doesn't have is a logical way to get genes from one thing to another. They don't just jump ship. (This is the biological equivalent of throwing FUD at those bad "hackers" who make nasty viruses. Oooh!)
The main way we have of doing this now is retroviruses. That's how they get glow in the dark plants. But those are engineered organisms who's purpose it is to inject a bit of DNA into a living cell. Then, that DNA replicates over and over. This is how normal viruses work, but, they usually produce more of themselves. Modify the virus to produce more of a chemical, and walla, you're effectively putting seeds inside of single cells. Talk about tiny fields. Hopefully, these are what the guy is really talking about, not just genetic engineering in general. (I suppose a retrovirus could get turned lose.)
But even then, the only result of the genes is simply to produce a certain compound. It's that compound that gives the benefit.
But you have to get infected by a retrovirus for the DNA to be injected in you. Plants have been making chlorophyll for years, and you don't see any of us turning green from eating spinach. This guy is silly if he's talking about any old Genetic modification.
Science uses the Microsoft method, make a beta, try it. Don't fix it until there's a known problem. Why? Because not using because of the unknowns doesn't outweigh the benefits of using right now.
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
In the wonderful world of cats, Mr. Fus
Just a few points that I think could be missed:
;)
I think that Prof. Jones is probably on target when he says that it's unlikely that genetically modified food is harmful eat. Most of the modifications made to plants involve inserting naturally occuring genes into one plant or another to convey resistances, improve yield, etc. The question of whether these things are harmful is pretty much the same question we have to answer for any food. I mean, is corn good for you? It is a vegetable, but it's also quite high in fat. Neither naturally occuring corn, nor modified
corn will kill you outright, but there may be side concerns to worry about.
It seems quite concievable that these genes could be transfered from one species to another. Although two distantly related plants would not be able to share this information directly, there are alternate pathways by which genetic information could move across species. The issue of penicillin resistance is not just a case of convergent evolution among bacteria, but also involves the fact that bacteria redily conjugate, or trade DNA pieces. Furthermore, there are both viruses and bacteria that permanently change the DNA of the host organism by inserting a pice of genetic information into the hosts genomic DNA. It isn't that far fetched to imagine a case in which DNA was removed from one species and put into another by such a mechanism.
Finally, if we engineer a plant to be resistant to some insect parasite, it is true that things like polination should not be affected. But we have to consider the effect that the reduced fodder for the parasitic organisms will have if other plants usurp the resistance. Just because we consider some creature a pest because it eats our crops does not mean that it is not an important part of the ecosystem in which it lives. If we adversly change the niche that these insects have, we don't really know what the consequences are.
But I think that's the point of the article: we don't really know.
Just my 20 cents.
-zook
One of the points about genetic manipulation that seems to be ignored a lot is genetic variability. The engineered plants are designed and manufactured - they're all identical genetically. The danger in that is that with a smaller gene pool, there's less variability to draw from when new pathogens enter into play. The plants can't adapt to a changing environment because the random differences introduced in sexual reproduction have been elminated. There's a reason why sexual reproduction was selected for way-back-when. The population as a whole has better long-term survivability than a genetically identical population.
As far as crossbreeding with plants that were left alone - their progeny will have some variability, but not as much as the wild (domesticated) plant. And traits like terminator genes can be introduced in a dormant form into an otherwise viable plant. Overall fertility rates of the plants will be affected. So you're reducing variability of the population and decreasing its ability to reproduce. What happens when these modifications start to stack up?
Rudy
1. 2.
That was some guy at Edinburgh. Steve Jones is still, afaik, Professor of Genetics at University College, London.
That's not a controlled experiment.
The point he's making is that GM could be the same. We might think it's safe now, but we don't know. He just wants a bit of caution.
"but then many GM crops are infertile ..."
,by making all the crop produce {produce the pesticide internally, resistant to the herbicide} selects for nastier pests in the next generation. I think that this point got edited out of the interview.
Its not the offspring of the crops, but the weeds/insects that are the problem.Overuse of the pesticide/herbicide
The crops are infertile in order to "protect the intellectual property" of the biotect company, eg.
Monsanto, Du Pont, Novartis; the farmer must buy seed every year instead of using some of last years crop. This is a major danger in itself. Say Company M uses a particular farm/area as its supplier of seed. Now if something happens to that farm/area (flood/bad weather/disease?) then bang goes next years crop. The backups we use to handle such day-to-day disasters are gone. We're used to having millions of tonnes of seed around; having enough seed to get things going again in a few years time is not sufficient when the whole world is dependent on you for seed (as these companies are aiming for: Monsanto is aiming at controlling 100% of the worlds Soya supply by the end of the year).
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
The penicillin reference is very relevant.
The problem is that one of the major problems with current/proposed GM products is the adding of
{herbicide,etc}-resistance to crops, eg. Monsanto adding roundup-resistance to Soya,etc.
Penicillin resistance developed through the overuse of penicillin: the few bacteria that survived had resistance to it, and a host all to themselves. Next generation bacteria spread the resistance. Best Practice is to only use antibiotics,etc where necessary.
The same threat exists with herbicide-resistant crops: next generation weeds could be roundup-proof. Good practice is to only use herbicides where necessary, commercial interest (for the manufacturer) is to use as much herbicide as possible. Bang, conflict of interest.
Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist
Not to defend the article, but: "mysterious gene-sharing"? Bacteria have their own dna in strings, but they also have rings of dna, which they can copy to other bacteria. The penicillin resistance is in a form of one of these dna rings (sorry that I can't remember the scientific name for the ring). And that is how penicillin resistance can (and has) spread.
But I wasn't claiming any more. It's really secondary to what I was saying.
According to reliable Public Interest Research Groups, this scientist was locked out of his lab for months after he went public with this information. Apparently the British government was very embarassed at him biting the hand that feeds him.This I hear from a person who works at Consumer's Union (the parent company of Consumer's reports) who came to speak at my campus. There's an interesting paper by the guy, Mike Hansen, here, at http://www.consunion.org/food/whywenny798.htm.
No, the human race has been "on a major collision course with ecological disaster" for centuries. People predict ecological disaster all the time, and they've been doing so for hundreds of years. It's a time-honored tradition. Malthus is a good example here. I wonder why it hasn't happened yet...`
(_The_Ultimate_Resource_ by Julian Simon is recommended reading.)
> the exception are very small things with very short periods between reproduction (bacteria/virii) ...
...and bugs...
The possibility of Gene Leakage, in plants and animals, is something that *could* concievably happen and probably already does naturally. It still doesn't take into effect the fact that life adapts to it's surroundings. The insects will find a way to get around the defences of the plants; they always adapt. For example: Pesticide resistant bugs.
Don't write off the insects... they are more resiliant than you think.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Yes, you're right about the "don't understand effects" argument slowing progress, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong. I'm usually in favour of virtually any kind of scientific progress. For instance I have no problem with genetically engineering children so they come out smarter and better looking. I have no problem with people implanting chips in their brain to improve memory etc. I am not worried about these things because the effects are largely predicatable and mostly restricted to those involved.
However, I do take exception to companies farting about with stuff they plainly don't understand for no better motivation than to make a quick buck when there is a non-negligable chance that they will completely alter the course of evolution on the planet. I take exception to them spending large sums on political campaigns in order to force GM foods down everybodies throats (as it were). Various initiatives from GM industry are trying to:
1 prevent people even being told whether food is GM or not.
2 impose trade sanctions against countries that don't want it.
3 eliminate restrictions, controls and monitoring efforts.
Maybe that makes me anti-science, but the fact remains I don't trust these companies to fully evaluate the dangers inherent in what they are doing or to have our best interests at heart. When one of the most respected scientists in the field comes out and says that this stuff is dangerous then it seems reasonable to pay some attention.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
I am very familiar with genetic algorithms, and for many tasks they are not particuarly effective. Why the hell do you think companies are bothering with GM foods in the first place. They ARE producing plants/animals which are "fitter" than the ones produced by evolution.
Let me put it another way. The parameters for natural evolution (particuarly the mutation operator) are not at all optimized. Natural evolution occurs within a very limited set of gene sequences. If you take a pre-optimized solution to a particular problem and add it to an existing GA then you can make huge improvements.
It may well be unlikely that they will produce anything tremendously dangerous, but it isn't like the Shakesperian monkeys. These aren't random combinations but the calculated addition of highly effective solutions from different spheres. For instance, one of things they are doing is combining plant and animal DNA. Plants have far more DNA than animals, there are likely to be some pretty effective strands in there.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Undoubtedly the ecosystem would recover, it always does. What we're concerned about here is the chaos it could cause before it recovers. Consider this scenario:
Monsanto releases its bio-engineered soybean plants that are insect-resistant, but have the side effect of having sterile offspring *most hybrids do by design, IIRC). Agribusiness A plants the hybrids, which cross-pollenate with the normal soybean fields of family farmers B - Z. That fall, those farmers reserve 10% of their harvest for seed, and maybe sell that seed to some other farmers in the 3rd world, etc. The next year, all those farmers' fields won't grow, causing a massive shortage of soybeans. From then on, only Agribusiness A can buy and grow soybeans, and Monsanto has agricultural production by the proverbial balls.
Multiply that situation by all the other crops that can be made sterile, and all producers except those who can afford Monsanto's yearly seed subscription go out of business. Poor 3rd world subsistence farmers could starve to death. All that could happen within about 3 years.
--
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
You are right that much of the concern expressed by the public over GM food is ill-informed, and you are right that life is not fragile.
The point you seem to miss however is that life has gone on but a great may species (and not a few human cultures) have been wiped out. Sometimes that happens because of their own actions.
GM crops do increase the chance we might destroy some part of the ecosystem we depend on, and either kill a lot of people or radically reduce oeveryone's quality of life.
When you hear some of the stories (some of which are probably at least based on fact) of the arrogance of the companies selling these new crops, and their attitude towards local rules on testing, it seems that insufficient care is being taken.
Viruses. Some virsuses seem to contain DNA which has 'escaped' from host species. Some host species contain what looks like old viral DNA. The human genome contains bits an peices that seem to have come from all kinds of different species.
The penecillin thing is different - the point was just that we cannot be sure what evolution will do with what we give it (but then many GM crops are infertile). I think Steve Jones' words got a little mangled by his interviewer.
Julian Simon is (or rather was) a very cool person. His confidence in the idea that we can rely on our own resourcefulness to dig ourselves out of trouble seems by and large to be well placed.
On the other hand, as out powers over the ecosystem increase, I am uncomfortable with the idea of trusting in as-yet-unmade discoveries to save ourselves if anything does go wrong. Even if it does all work out in the end, a great deal of value may be destroyed in the process. You may not care, and I am not sure I do either, but a lot of people certainly do.
I had a 3 from a comment in another thread long ago. until someone changes your rank, it appears to stay the same from then on. i wouldn't have ranked my own comment that highly either.
Bravo, and you're so right. No easy answers, and the counterpoints you give are dead on. But still, it is a nice idea, is it not?
That in the long run, all the good ideas - when considered properly, will come to fruition despite the lobbies and the bottom line?
And is that not precisely what we have an opportunity to do right here? Consider the issues, get them out in the sunlight, knock them down, prop them back up and whail on them some more..
Yeah, in the short term all we really have is thought experiments. In the long term, maybe we can walk away with some answers for future directions.
And now and again, we share a heartfelt chuckle:
"Sir the nerds are revolting!"
"They can't help it, they don't get any sun or exercise."
You made my day!
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
It's not about being a luddite and hugging trees. I'm as much of a technophile as anyone here. It's about understanding that we can get further, faster and better if we use nature to our advantage, rather than going against the grain so much.
We're learning, slowly; but we're still fixated on the post-WWII mentality of just throwing more resources at the problem rather than truly understanding it.
Consider: Airports are now being designed with uphill and downhill runways, as well as rampped ones. This allows for shorter and safer runways, by using gravity to help slow and speed up the planes, and allow them a steeper climb and descent in mountainous areas.
Homes are being heated by solar and geothermal (where available) energy, to reduce costs and in the long run reduce pollution. In Scandinavia (correct me if I'm wrong) geothermal is used to heat neighborhoods and steam is run beneath streets to keep them free of ice.
About 50% of the phones in Poland are cellular. The infrastructure is very old, and it's much cheaper to put up a tower here and there than it is to run new lines. And you don't have to restring the towers after a snowstorm.
France gets 70% of it's electricity from nuclear plants. Yes, actually it is safe. You just have to be responsible about it. Sometimes the true 'bottom-line' is a little farther then the next fiscal quarter.
This is a wiser use of resources than blasting away a mountain to let a freeway run straight. It's the same mentality that lengthens a road a mile, in order to build a shorter and sturdier bridge. Sure, the Golden Gate is an engineering achievement, and where necessary, we certainly have the means.
But we also have the means to apply our intellect to doing things in accordance with nature, rather than against it.
Engineering is about laziness. So is intelligence. We put a lot of effort into simplifying and conveniencing our lives... A little more will let us not have to worry about acting against the forces of nature - but rather using them to our advantage.
Don't you think that building a home down, rather than up, would be wise? Let's keep the living area below the frost-line, so as to cool and heat less. Let's pipe sunlight down with fiberoptics - maybe even some of that new 'slow glass' for a nightlight. The energy savings might prove adequate to have an elevator instead of stairs. This is just an off-the-cuff idea; I'm sure there are plenty of others.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
probably a little more clearly stated in my reply called "You miss the point", please see that, as I think it will serve to clarify.
As for mystical nonsense - It's not. I am in agreement with you on our potential capacity as a race. But, I feel that the best way to get there is to use the laws of the world to further our endeavors, rather than putting in a lot of effort to overcome them.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Tsk, tsk..
There you humans go, again thinking it's all about you. It isn't. It isn't about you anymore than it is about the fleas on your dogs back. It isn't even about a Genus, or an Order or a Phylum. It's about life.
You meddle in things you only think you understand, and you speculate on the consequences of your actions, as though your actions were actually significant in the grand scheme of things.
Yes, you change the climate, yes you kill off the weak and inadaptible species. Guess what.. That's why you're here. Evolution has provided you with the ability to modify your environment, and the arrogance to think that it is actually yours to modify.
The world is not yours to modify, save or destroy with your actions. You belong to it, and it will be here long after you are gone. Wether you go to the stars, and leave your cradle behind you, forgotten and covered in plastic and asphalt; or you annihilate yourselves in a spectacular mushroom farm that will leave nothing but cockroaches and twinkies; the world will still be here.
The world, and life, will continue. You are just a piece of the puzzle, just a cog in the evolutionary machine. You are not the appointed guardians of life on your little mudball. You have delusions of grandeur, you are vain and selfish and you lack the instinctive knowledge of worms.
You do not understand balance. You do not realize that, as a part of nature, you must abide by it's laws, or be removed from the equation.
You stand tall and proud, like an oak tree on a sandy cliff. Reveling in your grandeur while the wind whittles the very earth from beneath your very roots. How arrogant you are, to think that you are somehow greater than the nature that bore you.
You build your homes on the windward side of the hill, and wonder why your kids suffer draft induced colds. You build your streets in the valleys and complain when they are washed away in the spring thaw.
You continually butt heads with the nature that made you, and rudely ignore her lessons. She knows you, better then you know yourselves. You breed like rabbits, and overrun her without asking permission. She gave you AIDS to keep you humble and to give you pause to contemplate your place in the scheme of things - and you think you can "engineer" yourselves a cure.
Insolent children, when will you learn that you simply do not have the 5 billion years of experience necessary to guide your own destiny? Your best intentions will kill you, and make roon for a more obedient race.
You must understand this, you must take it to heart and know it in every cell of your soft and delicate little bodies: Learn the House Rules. Abide by them, and conduct yourself in accordance with nature. Give onto her, and she shall benefit you. Insult her and you will be punished. You have been given prophets: Darwin, Newton, Einstein, Tesla, Fuller, countless others. You will be given more. The lessons are there, you must choose to see them.
It isn't ABOUT you - but it is your choice to be here or not. Think twice because you can only act once.
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
I'm not sure that this is contraty to what I'd said. The main thrust of my post probably got away from me, but it was, in a nutshell:
:)
Since we can tailor our environment - we should do so with accordance with natural laws, not contrary to them. Making flying fish won't work.
Someone succeeded in making a chicken with legs where the wings should be. More drumsticks for KFC, but how do you catch the damn thing?
-- What you do today will cost you a day of your life.
Suddenly /. is populated with experts in genetic engineering.
Actually, I am a rocket scientist^H^H^H^H^H^Hmolecular biologist, although I prefer the term 'gene jockey'
We're creating all kinds of combinations that would just never occur in nature (such as mixing of plant and animal DNA).
Sigh. 'Never' is a big word in science. Have you been following any of the sequencing projects? It's looking more and more like horizontal gene transfer (genes moving from one species to another via bacteria or viruses) is a major factor in gene lineages. So, it's quite possible that there's some plant or animal species out there carrying some DNA from the 'other side'.
Who really knows what the effects of introducing radically new gene sequences into the environment will be?
Nobody. Anybody who tells you different is trying to sell you something. However, at some point, there's only so much testing that can be done. You've got to 'ship the product', and trust that your tech support can deal with any problems that arise in the field (no pun intended).
This is something that's going to happen sooner or later (i.e., release of a hacked organism into the Big Room with the Blue Sky). All this effort to stop the release is just going to drive it underground. Then, the release will be done illegeally, without the proper controls, and it will go to hell. The best bet for the environmental groups is not to insist on a block to release, but to insist on more and more oversight of the process.
john, /.
who's glad to see some bio-stuff on
GeneHack {--(bioinfo*linux*opinion)
Anything beyond yeast? I can't find references to eukaryotic organisms containing plasmids.
ASAIK, only unicellular euks can carry plasmids, and not all of them. You can introduce circular plasmids into metazoans (multicellular organisms) and get gene expression, but they aren't replicated (this is called transient transfection).
People have sucessfully introduced linear DNA molecules into metazoan cells and had it replicate, I believe.
john.
GeneHack {--(bioinfo*linux*opinion)
It has recently become clear that genes hop from species to species in nature very frequently.
You're okay with that statement...
For example we carry fossilised viral DNA in our cellular mitochondria -- they were once free-living virus but have now become so symbiotically linked to other species that their genes are indistinguishable from the "human" genome.
But you blow it with this one. We do have integrated retro-viral DNA in our genes. We do have mitochondria, which do have a symbiotic origin (probably). However, they used to be bacteria, not viruses (a big difference!). Additionally, you can easily tell the difference between mitochondrial DNA and H. sap. DNA (assuming you're given a large-ish chunk -- 10 or 20 kilobases), based on differences in nucleotide usage and larger scale gene organization.
Pointless Tech Analogy: It's sorta like the difference between text files across systems. Basically the look the same, but if you look closely (at the line delimiter), you can tell the difference.
john
GeneHack {--(bioinfo*linux*opinion)
This may be beyond the scope of this forum...
Prolly -- but what the hey...
I seem to recall that Mitchondrial DNA had other features? Perhaps reverse twisting, or slightly modified bases (beyond methylation or deamination)?
It's circular, like bacterial chromosomes (one of the early indicators that lead to the endosybiotic hypothesis of mitochondrial and *plast origin).
AC- who's having fun tearing up other genetic arguments further down. /., isn't it?
It is fun to get to be a bio-geek on
john.
GeneHack {--(bioinfo*linux*opinion)
1. There is evidence GM soya causes immune system damage
Do you have a citation for this? I'm not asking just to be an @$$; I'd actually be interested in seeing the data.
2. One of the primary goals of the GM food industry is crops you have to buy from them each year. Right now third world farmers do rather better by saving some seeds and replanting them. This is like windows licensing your crops.
But, as others have pointed out, this isn't really all that different than hybrids, which are also sterile and give better yield. Why is the Terminator Seed so much more hazardous to Third World crop practice?
3. One of the reasons for such tight current control on GM plants is we don't know enough about genetics yet. We are at the same stage in genetics as the early explosives people were. They knew it could do wonderful things but were never quite sure what was going to happen, and likewise if you got it wrong you made a very big mess.
We're considerably further along than that! That's not to say that there aren't reasons for tight controls on release of gene hacked organisms into the environment, but by playing to ignorant fears, the anti-GM factions are making the situation more dangerous, not less.
4. Faced with a removal of their normal target insects and bacteria either move or adapt. If they adapt your genetically modified food is now useless because they've eaten it, and if they move well then you risk destroying another habitat. Also remember the largest target to move onto is Humans.
This is a decent point, and one where the above argument (early days of the field) can apply. We currently don't have a good handle on the networked nature of ecosystems, and tampering with seemingly minor variables can cause emergent effects. However, this doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand, it just means we need to be very careful.
In the UK and most of Europe people tend to prefer their food grown to engineered. We don't allow growth hormone in cattle so our meat tastes a lot better, and most UK supermarkets are talking about ceasing to sell any GM foodstuffs.
If people 'prefer' no anti-GM'd food, why are there government regulations to prevent it's sale? I'm fine with the Invisible Hand determining market choice, but there seems to be a bit of a contradiction between your first statement and your second.
john.
GeneHack {--(bioinfo*linux*opinion)
>> 1. There is evidence GM soya causes immune system damage.
> Do you have a citation for this? I'm not asking just to be an @$$; I'd actually be interested in seeing the data.
This approach scares me. It seems to be very common to require those who are against a particular technology to prove that it is dangerous. It should be up to those wanting to distribute something like this to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is safe, and not be allowed to release it until they do so, thereby putting the burden of proof on those who will benefit. The minimal field trials that are taking place certainly don't do this.
Asking for a citation of a factual statement isn't all that outrageous, is it? The statement wasn't "GM-ed soya might be harmful", it was "GM-ed soya is harmful". A big difference, and all I want is a little bit of proof. Second, proving that something is perfectly harmless over the lifetime of a human animal is a pretty tall order. How do you define harmless?
Additionally, it's sort of a feature of free societies that you can do what you want as long as it's not dangerous to others. So, if you want to stop someone from doing something, then yes, the burden of proof of danger is on you. Otherwise, I could decide that, for example, your computer use is dangerous to me, and demand that you stop it until you prove that it isn't. A silly example? Maybe, but do you see my point?
by playing to ignorant fears, the anti-GM factions are making the situation more dangerous, not less.
As a member of the anti-GM faction (I used to not care until I took some time to find out what some of what was going on), I'd like to know which of my fears are ignorant, and how me arguing against GM food makes things more dangerous, as it seems that there are practically no controls currently.
The point I was trying to make here was that certain fractions of the anti-GM lobby (from what I can see) are trying to demonize the whole practice of modifying and releasing organisms. It's a rather Luddite-like argument -- "There are things man was not meant to know" -- and I think it's dangerous.
Why? Because you can't put the toothpaste back into the tube, and you can't un-invent something. An overwhelming historical fact about our species is that once we've got the power to do something that's potentially very dangerous and disasterous for all concerned, we're going to do it. Given that, strong pressure aganist the testing of these foods (which I've seen in Europe; don't know about NZ) is just going to drive the testing and development underground. It'll be a lot better for all concerned (potentially all period) if the testing and development happen out in the light of day, in an open process. To continue the analogy in your .sig, to GPL the development, rather than use a closed source propitary model.
I've snipped the rest, you make some good points. I just wanted to clear up the two above.
john.
GeneHack {--(bioinfo*linux*opinion)
The circularized extrachromosomal DNA of bacteria is called a Plasmid. It can be transferred between species and is unique to prokaryotes. Eukaryotic organisms (plants and animals) don't use these types of genetic elements.
Not quite right. Plasmids can and do exist in eukaryotes, such as S. cerevisae (yeast).
john.
GeneHack {--(bioinfo*linux*opinion)
I thought that the biggest difference between H. sap. DNA and mit. DNA was that H. sap. _had_ DNA and mitochondria had RNA.
Again, BUZZ!. Thanks for playing, tho.
Both mitochondria and the cell nucleus of eukaryotes (the organisms that have mitochondria) contain DNA. This serves as a template for the production of RNA. In the mitochondria, the RNA stays put, and is translated into mitochondrial proteins. This process also requires the import of proteins that are encoded in the nucleus.
In the nucleus, some of the RNA stays put, and functions in processes such as mRNA splicing and ribosomal RNA modification. Other RNAs are exported out of the nucleus, into the cytoplasm. There, they either do stuff (for example, the ribosomal RNA directs the production of proteins), or are translated into proteins by the ribosome. Some of those proteins are then imported into the mitochondria (see above).
The only (known) RNA-based organisms are virii. For example, the transmissive form of HIV is a double-stranded RNA retrovirus.
john, more convinced than ever that a basic bio tutorial for geeks needs to be done...
GeneHack {--(bioinfo*linux*opinion)
Cool! You could buy a packet of seeds (the binary form) and get a breakdown of the gene sequence with it (the source form).
You'd have to be careful with licenses, though. Someone might produce a kind of cabbage and license it using a BSD-style license, so derived cabbages could be made proprietary. If I crossed this with a GPLed carrot gene sequence and made a spiffy new vegetable, we'd have license incompatibility wars starting all over again.
Bzzzt! Godwin's Law invoked. You lose.
It Must Be Magic. :) Seriously, no, that simply doesnt happen. Genes from plant _SUB_species A may combine with genes from plant subspecies B and form plant subspecies C tho. While that may be a slight problem with closely related weeds and some useful plants, it's not that big a deal. Genes dont just jump around.
And I agree with the penicillin reference being bad. It just proves that nature will evolve another way to penetrate the resistance eventually.
The penicillin resistance in bacteria is a large part our own fault tho. Extreme overuse of antibiotics is pretty much what has accelerated the evolution of resistance so fast. If we hadnt had farmers pumping animals full of antibiotics all the time it might have been another couple of centuries before the resistant strains would start appearing.
It's not common code across platforms being used to create the same code. You've got more than ribosomal compiler issues. The DNA to Protein complialtion sequence involves feedback loops on pretty much every level. You think that the NT 2000 kernel is complex? You AIN'T seen nothin'. You're transferring genes across not just Kingdoms, but superkingdoms. DNA that has not been able to work in two organism for Billenia, suddenly is creating novel proteins in an altogether new environment.
What's really at issue is companies pasting genes from one species into another, and then everybody in genetic engineering doing things like using a common promoter for the gene. Single point of failure. Not a pretty sight. Any Unix Security person recognizes the danger of that. And Biological Auditing will put NSA auditing to shame. Your seal of approval is survival. Making crops dependent upon our GM is extremely dangerous. There's very little place for diversity. Monocultured crops put out by Monsanto and the like (read about Terminator seeds: Plants that will NOT have viable seeds, Terminator 2 (Traitor) seeds: Plants that NEED Monsanto PROPRIETARY pesticides/ chemicals to survive, and the Irish Potato Famine) You think the SPA is bad? Seed companies have hotlines to report people who use 2nd generation seeds. Yup. Licensed GM products. I see a slippery slope here. You're welcome to speculate. We're going to Need the FSF and GNU here.
30 years down the line. All insects are resistant to 100s of pesticides. All major food staples like rice, wheat, and soybeans come from farms licensed to use either Dupont or Monsanto seed (assuming they don't duke it out, and Microsoft hasn't bought them out.) What are you going to do? Grow your own? It won't survive. Not a CHANCE. Now have these companies standardize on Windows 2005. Add a failure to meet the target for when the insects adapt to GM strain #31, and we become Ozymandius.
Further along this line is a serious problem with the current GM paradigm. You find a gene for resistance to a bug, by promoting a natural pesticide, so you splice it into the plant. Amazing! A field with this plant survives predation by a certain insect. Well, actually, 99% of those insects can't eat that plant, and that 1% is really insignificant. The second generation of those insects is ALL resistant to that pesticide. So once that strain of insect spreads, the entire world has effectively lost the ability to use that gene's pesticide. Why do companies do this? Because companies like Monsanto and Dupont can afford to create new pesticides every 2 or 3 years.
Wouldn't you know it, some people are allergic to some proteins. Chances are, with any food, somebody is allergic to it. You use a process of elimination to find out what you're allergic to. You put a GM (genetically modified) plant on the market, don't label it GM (like the companies want) and God help you figuring out what's sending you to the hospital.
FDA approval for GM products currently consists of giving the FDA a seminar on the safety of the product. The honor system. How about splicing genes from the poppy into wheat? All our studies indicate people are happy with it.
Now I'm NOT saying that we shouldn't research genetics. This isn't meant as a luddite rant. Science is based upon blind faith in the future. That doesn't entail blind ignorance of the 4 billion years that got us here, what it means to survive and be a part of 4 billion years of evolution. GM should be done with extreme caution, and with monumental levels of supervision. One last note, there are two industries that have been refused insurance by EVERYBODY: genetic modification, and nuclear power. Nuclear power in the US has been dead/ in a holding pattern since 3 Mile island and Chernobyl. Do we NEED an equivalent before we take action?
I hope not, but just in case, I'll be damned if I don't go down fighting for my species.
He brings up the analogy that disproves his point, and then tries to turn it around to prove it...
We introduced penicillin into places it had never been before in order to confer resistance to diseases on humans. And it worked for a bit, then the diseases we used it on built up an immunity to penicillin, and now we've reached the point where it's starting to be ineffective, because the only bacteria still alive are immune to penicillin. What we've seen isn't penicillin genes "escaping" into other molds, it's the bacteria evolving to circumvent the penicillin.
Take the coyote as another example. Western ranchers have been trying to exterminate them for about as long as there've been Western ranchers. Shooting killed the slow ones, trapping killed the stupid ones, poisoning killed the weak ones, and the fast, smart, strong ones that were left produced fast, smart, strong puppies, until now, far from being endangered, they've expanded their range to include places like New York City. Given the forced pace of evolution they're sure to be subjected to there, they'll probably be driving taxis and lifting tourists' luggage in airports and bus stations before long.
That which does not kill you makes you stronger. Evolution beats engineering.
I don't think we need to worry about the bugs. They were here, essentially unchanged, long before there was anything even vaguely human-like on the planet, and they'll probably be here long after we're gone. If we make plants immune to bugs, we'll just end up with bugs that eat plants that are immune to regular bugs.
Suddenly /. is populated with experts in genetic engineering. Hey, some looney limey scaremongering, must be some kind of luddite, evolution has been going on forever etc etc, GM foods are no big deal...
There is a big difference between selective breeding, natural selection, hybridization and genetic engineering. We're creating all kinds of combinations that would just never occur in nature (such as mixing of plant and animal DNA). I would say the burden of proof should be on the companies producing GM crops to explain why there is no way nasty side effects can crop up.
The GM debate in the states has been cleverly framed so that people questioning the safety of GM crops are painted as uneducated and anti-science. (By safety I mean long term effects of existence of modified genes, NOT the danger that the food might be bad for you - that's easily tested). There's an instant aura of rationality that can be obtained by dismissing allegations of possible dangers as nonsense. Who really knows what the effects of introducing radically new gene sequences into the environment will be ? These are sequences which would never arise naturally. There may well be no danger, but would you happily allow life forms from another planet into our eco-system (hey, its probably harmless), or would it make you kinda nervous.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
Last week it was reported that the polar caps are melting faster than ever. Do you think this is "FUD"?
The amount of pollution in the air is increasing yearly. Do you think this is a scheme to put the Green party in government?
I can't get over this notion that environmentalism is a political movement. Do capitalists live on another planet? Their mountains of trash and waste are as close to them as to the hippies and tree huggers. This is not a political issue.
Human civilization has been on a major collision course with ecological disaster for decades. Consumption, waste, manipulation of nature/natural processes, global warming, etc.
Behind it lies the dubious economics of growth and consumption as practiced and preached by the G-7.
It can be summed as simply as this (from Adbusters.org):
Economists need to learn how to subtract
Until you reduce demand, you cannot stop the cycle of consumption that is killing the planet.
You're point seems to support my argument all the more...
Only Anglo-American and Russian civilizations have a habit of trying to conquer nature, as per your statement, with Japanese, Chinese, and Indian civilizations much more intelligent about their role with nature...
However, China and India are no less a threat to global war, nuclear holocaust, and other nasty human killing effects than any of the western states. And until they were put down in the WW, Japan was as much a threat as any other nation.
My point still fits your evidence; whatever the threat humans pose to nature, we pose still more threat to each other. China, Japan, and India included.
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
I don't have any idea who would outlast the other; nature or humans.
But I do wonder sometimes that our worst foe and enemy are... ourselves.
We create the political mess, the infighting, the squabbling and bickering. I can cite optimism to defend the idea that people will outlive whatever nature can throw at it.
I can cite the grandeur of nature to put humans in their place. Either work, it's your own choice on what to believe..
However, despite nature and it's struggles, can we really survive ourselves?
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
A lot of people are fixating on how dangerous GM foods and genengineering is.
Yes, we're playing with fire here. It's a habit of the human race. Note the ironic application of an old cliche? We're playing with fire.
That's probably how this all got started anyway.
I'm not sure that our priorities are in the right direction...
I'm pretty sure that as a whole, humans are a greater threat to each other than to nature, or than nature to the human race. Nature is reliable in her methods and attempts to deal with us.
We are an evolutionary force of nature unto ourselves, and there isn't anything we can do about it. We can be more careful, certainly, and cautious, and all, but I don't think we mean anything more than minor nuisance, no matter how much we reshape and rework our environment. Whole continents have been rearranged and destroyed, formed and buried under ice, waters have risen and lowered, etc etc, and life has survived and prevailed.
We should worry about what we are doing to ourselves and to each other too.
AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
There are a whole load of reasons GM food should be a point of concern
1. There is evidence GM soya causes immune system damage
2. One of the primary goals of the GM food industry is crops you have to buy from them each year. Right now third world farmers do rather better by saving some seeds and replanting them. This is like windows licensing your crops.
And if they decide to stop supplying a country that is dependant on these terminator crops (eg the US interfering in another war) everyone starves to death. Good isnt it.
3. One of the reasons for such tight current control on GM plants is we don't know enough about genetics yet. We are at the same stage in genetics as the early explosives people were. They knew it could do wonderful things but were never quite sure what was going to happen, and likewise if you got it wrong you made a very big mess.
4. Faced with a removal of their normal target insects and bacteria either move or adapt. If they adapt your genetically modified food is now useless because they've eaten it, and if they move well then you risk destroying another habitat. Also remember the largest target to move onto is Humans.
In the UK and most of Europe people tend to prefer their food grown to engineered. We don't allow growth hormone in cattle so our meat tastes a lot better, and most UK supermarkets are talking about ceasing to sell any GM foodstuffs.
Alan