I'm not worried about consuming GMO food (like most Americans, I do often). Our digestive system fanatically reduces everything we eat to its constituent parts before suffering them to be used by the body and it's much more sensible to be concerned about, say, high fructose corn syrup.
What I am saying is, look, we know that we have the structures of perhaps 1% of proteins. We know that membrane proteins (in context, probably the most important) are very poorly represented among that 1%. We know that our interaction databases are both incomplete and highly suspect, and that those interactions are observed only indirectly (e.g. yeast two-hybrid assays) rather than in terms of what the molecules are actually doing. We also know that solving a structure or learning that two proteins interact is often insufficient to determine function (hell, we are still finding new uses for myoglobin). Given the state of biochemistry today, it's absolutely true that we don't really know what will happen in response to genetic modifications in general (thus, we have do the experiments).
Roundup Ready crops just have a single enzyme swapped out for an isoform that isn't competitively inhibited by glyphosphate. This type of modification seems unlikely to cause complications, because it actually reduces the selective advantage of the plants (unless you dump glyphosphate on them). But, because the enzyme could participate in other pathways, or the modified binding site might be lead to promiscuous binding (a big problem in drug discovery), exhaustive experiments have to be performed. If you look into of labs which were used by Monsanto to do those experiments, you will find many reasons to doubt their results. Other types of modifications, even without any scientific fraud, could be much more unpredictable - especially if entirely new functions are introduced or if they confer unambiguous selective advantages.
So, to conclude, we know very little about biology and what we do know is insufficient to predict the outcomes of in vivo protein engineering. Furthermore, the history of biochemistry is replete with falsified, reductionist hypotheses. As examples I submit hemoglobin cooperativity, lactate in cellular respiration, biological roles for nitric oxide and carbon monoxide, "junk" DNA, functional roles for unstructured peptides, existence of ribozymes, not to mention enzymological topics (allostery, induced fit vs. lock-and-key, cooperativity) and the central dogma itself.
Simple theories and experiments are attractive, especially to engineers who might not have deep education in the history of biological science. Another view on this issue can be found in pharma, where simplified lead discovery mechanisms may be contributing to the very high attrition rates. Large scale bioengineering is coming, no matter what, and is probably actually necessary if we are to overcome the nearing limits on our civilization's expansion. I just want people to realize that our knowledge is still very severely constrained and that we should try to be as careful as we can when the stakes are high. Sorry for the long post. Also, read this book.
Since women make up a greater proportion of university professors, secretaries of state, justices of the Supreme Court, corporate executives, senators, scientists, athletes and attorneys general than ever before in human history, and in many of these categories doubling their representation in under 20 years, I think they are doing pretty well.
I must be remembering wrong, I saw that episode years ago.
Good points, though from what I've read, the grain we feed to livestock would feed a billion people. Of course, peak phosphorous and more immediately, water shortages, will make producing enough of anything a challenge.
We know the structures of just a tiny fraction of existing proteins. We don't know how they fold. We know a bit about the structure-function relationship, and a little about protein-protein interactions. We can manipulate DNA (and encoded protein), but given the hard limitations on our knowledge, we are like ancient spelunkers holding a tiny candle in a huge cavern, and can't see far.
We may know enough to cautiously engineer biological systems, with strong oversight, and when there are clear needs and goals, but it's still true that we know virtually nothing about biology.
IIRC, that episode of Bullshit! conflates direct genetic manipulation with all scientific agriculture.
The other thing I was going to say, in reply to your comment above, is that the level of productivity required now has more to do with our meat intake than our actual coloric needs, as well as our use of monoculture agriculture (which exacerbates disease and lowers productivity in general).
On this basis, nothing that the government or corporations do or plan should become public knowledge, because "the vast majority of the public are ignorant / misinformed on many issues."
Norman Borlaug's work had nothing to do with genetically modified foods, and everything to do with scientific agricultural practices and productive and robust, but conventionally bred, cultivars.
It's amazing how universal "kids today" complaints are and were. Even thousands of years ago when lifestyles changed slowly or not at all, people were complaining about the state of the youth.
It is right and proper that media outlets such as CNN are making us aware of the peril facing our species. After all, what is the point of worrying about poverty, disease, global warming, famine and inequality? These things will soon go away, as homo sapiens fall prey to the creeping menace of shooting games and too much fapping.
I think your analysis is overly simplistic. It's true that inflation reduces the values of our savings and wages, but it also reduces the value of the debt we owe to others. That's how the country avoids paying off previously accrued debt: by inflating it into irrelevance.
I have no credit so it doesn't help me. But it's not true that inflation is only a loss for people who hold dollars, if they also owe.
Current forensic DNA analysis uses a subset of markers whose size is determined by economics and scientific feasibility. To obtain really rigorous results, a large number of markers is required. As costs come down and techniques improved, my hope is that the marker libraries used in forensics will become large enough that results can be considered to be truly reliable.
Do courts typically ask for multiple laboratories to corroborate tests? Do they have side-by-side controls run alongside every sample tested? Are labs subjected to random inspection and method validation? Are judges and juries informed of the sizes of the marker libraries and the accuracy rates implied by those sizes? Obviously there are a lot of possible objections to DNA test results that can be raised, that may or not be grounds for appeal. Based on the reviews and meta-analysis papers I've read, the answers to above questions remain highly variable.
But again, I think sequencing advances will eventually ameliorate such concerns, although I am dubious of any results made with small numbers of markers or without extensive independent validation and corroboration.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not worried about consuming GMO food (like most Americans, I do often). Our digestive system fanatically reduces everything we eat to its constituent parts before suffering them to be used by the body and it's much more sensible to be concerned about, say, high fructose corn syrup.
What I am saying is, look, we know that we have the structures of perhaps 1% of proteins. We know that membrane proteins (in context, probably the most important) are very poorly represented among that 1%. We know that our interaction databases are both incomplete and highly suspect, and that those interactions are observed only indirectly (e.g. yeast two-hybrid assays) rather than in terms of what the molecules are actually doing. We also know that solving a structure or learning that two proteins interact is often insufficient to determine function (hell, we are still finding new uses for myoglobin). Given the state of biochemistry today, it's absolutely true that we don't really know what will happen in response to genetic modifications in general (thus, we have do the experiments).
Roundup Ready crops just have a single enzyme swapped out for an isoform that isn't competitively inhibited by glyphosphate. This type of modification seems unlikely to cause complications, because it actually reduces the selective advantage of the plants (unless you dump glyphosphate on them). But, because the enzyme could participate in other pathways, or the modified binding site might be lead to promiscuous binding (a big problem in drug discovery), exhaustive experiments have to be performed. If you look into of labs which were used by Monsanto to do those experiments, you will find many reasons to doubt their results. Other types of modifications, even without any scientific fraud, could be much more unpredictable - especially if entirely new functions are introduced or if they confer unambiguous selective advantages.
So, to conclude, we know very little about biology and what we do know is insufficient to predict the outcomes of in vivo protein engineering. Furthermore, the history of biochemistry is replete with falsified, reductionist hypotheses. As examples I submit hemoglobin cooperativity, lactate in cellular respiration, biological roles for nitric oxide and carbon monoxide, "junk" DNA, functional roles for unstructured peptides, existence of ribozymes, not to mention enzymological topics (allostery, induced fit vs. lock-and-key, cooperativity) and the central dogma itself.
Simple theories and experiments are attractive, especially to engineers who might not have deep education in the history of biological science. Another view on this issue can be found in pharma, where simplified lead discovery mechanisms may be contributing to the very high attrition rates. Large scale bioengineering is coming, no matter what, and is probably actually necessary if we are to overcome the nearing limits on our civilization's expansion. I just want people to realize that our knowledge is still very severely constrained and that we should try to be as careful as we can when the stakes are high. Sorry for the long post. Also, read this book.
Hypocrites deserve no respect
Along with ludicrous zealots, completely detached from reality.
"Make me laugh, little man." --Hillary Clinton to epyT-R
Since women make up a greater proportion of university professors, secretaries of state, justices of the Supreme Court, corporate executives, senators, scientists, athletes and attorneys general than ever before in human history, and in many of these categories doubling their representation in under 20 years, I think they are doing pretty well.
You don't need eggs, oil or sugar to make bread.
I must be remembering wrong, I saw that episode years ago.
Good points, though from what I've read, the grain we feed to livestock would feed a billion people. Of course, peak phosphorous and more immediately, water shortages, will make producing enough of anything a challenge.
We know the structures of just a tiny fraction of existing proteins. We don't know how they fold. We know a bit about the structure-function relationship, and a little about protein-protein interactions. We can manipulate DNA (and encoded protein), but given the hard limitations on our knowledge, we are like ancient spelunkers holding a tiny candle in a huge cavern, and can't see far.
We may know enough to cautiously engineer biological systems, with strong oversight, and when there are clear needs and goals, but it's still true that we know virtually nothing about biology.
IIRC, that episode of Bullshit! conflates direct genetic manipulation with all scientific agriculture.
The other thing I was going to say, in reply to your comment above, is that the level of productivity required now has more to do with our meat intake than our actual coloric needs, as well as our use of monoculture agriculture (which exacerbates disease and lowers productivity in general).
Homeopathy, defined as serial dilution of an active ingredient to the point of being undetectable, is magical thinking.
Believing that genetic modifications can do no harm, when we have virtually no understanding of the underlying biology, is hubris.
Climate deniers are left-wing? Are you, per chance, synesthetic?
To preempt the citation-craving masses:
Encyclopedia
News
Ruling
On this basis, nothing that the government or corporations do or plan should become public knowledge, because "the vast majority of the public are ignorant / misinformed on many issues."
Norman Borlaug's work had nothing to do with genetically modified foods, and everything to do with scientific agricultural practices and productive and robust, but conventionally bred, cultivars.
Baking your own bread is more than "technically possible." Or do you just mean the wheat?
It's amazing how universal "kids today" complaints are and were. Even thousands of years ago when lifestyles changed slowly or not at all, people were complaining about the state of the youth.
It is right and proper that media outlets such as CNN are making us aware of the peril facing our species. After all, what is the point of worrying about poverty, disease, global warming, famine and inequality? These things will soon go away, as homo sapiens fall prey to the creeping menace of shooting games and too much fapping.
(From IGN article linked in summary).
One or two strong female role models will have a larger impact than a hundred nudie magazines or porn streaming sites.
You can't help the survival of the human race if you aren't willing to have sex or bear children.
Patently false.
Don't shortchange "masturbatory."
how many other more serious crimes got ignored?
Good question, this is Berkeley...
I've even heard people in the industry say "biology is pointless" because modifying existing drugs is so much cheaper than target discovery.
They're calling it maize because, in Europe, "corn" refers generally to livestock feed.
large amounts/ratios of debt to income
So, basically just the government.
I think your analysis is overly simplistic. It's true that inflation reduces the values of our savings and wages, but it also reduces the value of the debt we owe to others. That's how the country avoids paying off previously accrued debt: by inflating it into irrelevance.
I have no credit so it doesn't help me. But it's not true that inflation is only a loss for people who hold dollars, if they also owe.
Current forensic DNA analysis uses a subset of markers whose size is determined by economics and scientific feasibility. To obtain really rigorous results, a large number of markers is required. As costs come down and techniques improved, my hope is that the marker libraries used in forensics will become large enough that results can be considered to be truly reliable.
Do courts typically ask for multiple laboratories to corroborate tests? Do they have side-by-side controls run alongside every sample tested? Are labs subjected to random inspection and method validation? Are judges and juries informed of the sizes of the marker libraries and the accuracy rates implied by those sizes? Obviously there are a lot of possible objections to DNA test results that can be raised, that may or not be grounds for appeal. Based on the reviews and meta-analysis papers I've read, the answers to above questions remain highly variable.
But again, I think sequencing advances will eventually ameliorate such concerns, although I am dubious of any results made with small numbers of markers or without extensive independent validation and corroboration.