I think we're in general agreement that GE Salmon is a bad idea, so I won't labour the points. The technique of salmon farming may be an issue, and depends on how enclosed they are. Current fish farms most often used anchored net pens offshore and I'm unaware of any "aquarium" type fish farms that raise fish for food (and I'm betting you are too). They may exist for specialist marine life (lobster), but they certainly don't for salmon.
As you say, an aquarium type environment would preclude salmon being released into the wild, but as they don't exist, it's a moot point. And as for the future, if GE salmon had to be bred this way, I doubt whether they would be competitive with the naturally occurring variety, bred in standard fish farms. I also doubt if anyone in the anti-GE brigade would ever believe that an enclosed net dangling in the ocean is absolutely escape proof. There have been recorded incidents off the coast of Maine, when 300,000 fish escaped from an ocean pen, and in Washington State, when 115,000 escaped. This has been used as evidence in the past that there is no way to be certain that the transgenic salmon would be kept separate from native fish.
I think your concepts of "significant affect" differ from mine. It is entirely possible for "small" (single pen breach = a few hundred thousand fish?) releases that occur even very infrequently to negatively affect the a native population. Actually it would only have to occur once for a negative effect. And any negative effect is extremely undesirable, both ecologically and politically. GE science has such a bad reputation at the moment; I would prefer not to give its opponents any ammunition at all.
You are correct, the scientists at Purdue did not use sterile fish, and they only said that the larger genetically modified fish attract four times as many mates as wild salmon attract, but produce weaker offspring. I suggest that over a single generation, a sterile fish would have an even worse effect.
To give this debate some place to go, I would suggest that salmon farmers engineer the fish to grow faster, but not bigger than the standard variety (giving no breeding advantage).
I saw Return of the King on monday but I don't intend to give a review until the professionals have (I signed an agreement). And yes it was good. I have no idea how people who aren't already Tolkien fans are going to like it. Of the other people who went with me, some loved it and some hated it. (The usual story I suppose).
Gosh, I don't know where to begin. This is clearly a flame, and I don't wish to encourage it but it's late on a Friday and I don't have the will power to just let it go...
The thing with GE releases, is that you actually have to *prove* it isn't a problem. Using the approach of releasing sterile organisms is a method already used to reduce the numbers of an exisitng population. An example is the screwfly in South America. This technique really only works where breeding is specific and occurs once a season. I believe this is the case with salmon.
I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. If the GE fish are sterile, *they* will die but the problem won't go away if new GE fish are continually being introduced, as would be the case with a fishery, else what would be the point of the fishery? Eh dumbass? Each generation of fish released could conceivably reduce the numbers of the wild variety. You don't have to have extinction of a species before the scenario could be considered a bad thing.
And the last point is that Salmon actually do breed this way. On average, the largest (fittest) fish will be chosen preferentially over smaller fish when mates are selected in the wild. But don't take my word for it, I get my facts directly from colleagues at Purdue University and you can check it out yourself at http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/0002.Muir.troj an.html.
Despite being a geneticist myself, I believe it is very important to consider all sides of an argument before releasing GE organisms and passing the point of no return. If done thouroughly, this should convince even the most determined anti-GE opponent.
Starving isn't the problem.
Salmon preferentially breed with the largest fish available. If natural (smaller) salmon breed with the the (larger) engineered salmon which are also sterile, then there will of course be no off-spring. An accidental release of sterile, fast growing genetically engineered fish into the wild would be disasterous to the original species.
These views are from my personal experience when working on postgraduate research with a renal unit.
Most of the figures stated in medical journals are for 1 and 3 year mortality rates. I'd like figures that stretch a little further and are related to the patients current age and expected lifespan.
Still, anecdotally, patients who recieve a kidney through transplant still die at a much younger age than the rest of the population. Don't believe me? Do a google search.
Donating a kidney will mean a difficult operation (with all the risks that entails), an extensive recovery time (more so that for the recipient), an increased risk of kidney failure for the donor coupled with a significantly reduced lifespan, all for a relatively slight extension to the recipients life. (Figures are out there but I don't know them - I'd like to see something greater than a 3 year post operation survival rate).
And after all this, there is still a high rate of organ rejection - 50 percent of patients have faced rejection episodes within the first year.
Other than getting off dialysis, the benefits for the patient include: (1)Increased feeling of well-being (2)Fewer restrictions on diet and activities (3)Increased energy level
To my mind, I would expect something more - hell you're donating an *organ* here!
I could understand a family member doing it, but I think that donating a kidney to someone you don't even know is something that *you* may learn to regret.
You *are* wrong.
Only very few RNA viruses are actually retroviruses - where RNA is transcribed back to DNA in the host cell. Many other viruses use RNA to carry their genetic information. Among these are the Arenavirus, Rhinovirus, paramyxovirus, (colds) the influenza (flu) virus.
DNA viruses are much more stable than RNA viruses. Vaccinations are possible for smallpox and polio because they are DNA viruses which evolve more slowly.
RNA viruses are less stable than those made with DNA. They change more rapidly and make more mistakes while replicating. RNA may be similar to DNA, but this is irrelevant - it is still a very different molecule. It is thought that life arose as RNA, because it is more reactive. (RNA's instability is due to its hydroxide group on the ribose).
Coming to New Zealand isn't going to solve that problem for you. Permanent jobs are about as stable as contracting and you'd be horrified at the differences in pay compared to what you can earn in the States. New Zealand is (I'm told - don't have any myself) a nice place to bring up kids, but not great to develop careers.
As a professional scientist, I'm hoping to win the Green Card lottery so I can do in the USA exactly what you want to do here.
My understanding (from a barely remembered interview from Peter Jackson) is that Peter wanted to name the company after a monster native to New Zealand. At that point, the movies that Peter was making were mostly visceral splatter fests. The ugliest, scariest thing he could find in New Zealand's rather small repertoire of native animals was the Weta - one of the world's largest and oldest insects. As frightening as it looks though, the insect is harmless.
Try talking to a Dr Alan Cooper (alan.cooper@zoo.ox.ac.uk), director of Oxfords Ancient Biomolecules group. He's a New Zealander who worked on Moa DNA for his Doctorate and is sure to have some views on this...
Slashdot Mirror
I think we're in general agreement that GE Salmon is a bad idea, so I won't labour the points. The technique of salmon farming may be an issue, and depends on how enclosed they are. Current fish farms most often used anchored net pens offshore and I'm unaware of any "aquarium" type fish farms that raise fish for food (and I'm betting you are too). They may exist for specialist marine life (lobster), but they certainly don't for salmon.
As you say, an aquarium type environment would preclude salmon being released into the wild, but as they don't exist, it's a moot point. And as for the future, if GE salmon had to be bred this way, I doubt whether they would be competitive with the naturally occurring variety, bred in standard fish farms. I also doubt if anyone in the anti-GE brigade would ever believe that an enclosed net dangling in the ocean is absolutely escape proof. There have been recorded incidents off the coast of Maine, when 300,000 fish escaped from an ocean pen, and in Washington State, when 115,000 escaped. This has been used as evidence in the past that there is no way to be certain that the transgenic salmon would be kept separate from native fish.
I think your concepts of "significant affect" differ from mine. It is entirely possible for "small" (single pen breach = a few hundred thousand fish?) releases that occur even very infrequently to negatively affect the a native population. Actually it would only have to occur once for a negative effect. And any negative effect is extremely undesirable, both ecologically and politically. GE science has such a bad reputation at the moment; I would prefer not to give its opponents any ammunition at all.
You are correct, the scientists at Purdue did not use sterile fish, and they only said that the larger genetically modified fish attract four times as many mates as wild salmon attract, but produce weaker offspring. I suggest that over a single generation, a sterile fish would have an even worse effect.
To give this debate some place to go, I would suggest that salmon farmers engineer the fish to grow faster, but not bigger than the standard variety (giving no breeding advantage).
I saw Return of the King on monday but I don't intend to give a review until the professionals have (I signed an agreement). And yes it was good. I have no idea how people who aren't already Tolkien fans are going to like it. Of the other people who went with me, some loved it and some hated it. (The usual story I suppose).
Gosh, I don't know where to begin. This is clearly a flame, and I don't wish to encourage it but it's late on a Friday and I don't have the will power to just let it go...
j an.html.
The thing with GE releases, is that you actually have to *prove* it isn't a problem. Using the approach of releasing sterile organisms is a method already used to reduce the numbers of an exisitng population. An example is the screwfly in South America. This technique really only works where breeding is specific and occurs once a season. I believe this is the case with salmon.
I'm not sure you understand what I'm saying. If the GE fish are sterile, *they* will die but the problem won't go away if new GE fish are continually being introduced, as would be the case with a fishery, else what would be the point of the fishery? Eh dumbass? Each generation of fish released could conceivably reduce the numbers of the wild variety. You don't have to have extinction of a species before the scenario could be considered a bad thing.
And the last point is that Salmon actually do breed this way. On average, the largest (fittest) fish will be chosen preferentially over smaller fish when mates are selected in the wild. But don't take my word for it, I get my facts directly from colleagues at Purdue University and you can check it out yourself at http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/0002.Muir.tro
Despite being a geneticist myself, I believe it is very important to consider all sides of an argument before releasing GE organisms and passing the point of no return. If done thouroughly, this should convince even the most determined anti-GE opponent.
Starving isn't the problem. Salmon preferentially breed with the largest fish available. If natural (smaller) salmon breed with the the (larger) engineered salmon which are also sterile, then there will of course be no off-spring. An accidental release of sterile, fast growing genetically engineered fish into the wild would be disasterous to the original species.
"Whedon's one trick pony recipe of teen angst and sarcastic quips" Surely one recipe with two ponies? Mmmm, pony stew.
Actually no.
These views are from my personal experience when working on postgraduate research with a renal unit.
Most of the figures stated in medical journals are for 1 and 3 year mortality rates. I'd like figures that stretch a little further and are related to the patients current age and expected lifespan.
Still, anecdotally, patients who recieve a kidney through transplant still die at a much younger age than the rest of the population. Don't believe me? Do a google search.
Donating a kidney will mean a difficult operation (with all the risks that entails), an extensive recovery time (more so that for the recipient), an increased risk of kidney failure for the donor coupled with a significantly reduced lifespan, all for a relatively slight extension to the recipients life. (Figures are out there but I don't know them - I'd like to see something greater than a 3 year post operation survival rate).
And after all this, there is still a high rate of organ rejection - 50 percent of patients have faced rejection episodes within the first year.
Other than getting off dialysis, the benefits for the patient include:
(1)Increased feeling of well-being
(2)Fewer restrictions on diet and activities
(3)Increased energy level
To my mind, I would expect something more - hell you're donating an *organ* here!
I could understand a family member doing it, but I think that donating a kidney to someone you don't even know is something that *you* may learn to regret.
You *are* wrong. Only very few RNA viruses are actually retroviruses - where RNA is transcribed back to DNA in the host cell. Many other viruses use RNA to carry their genetic information. Among these are the Arenavirus, Rhinovirus, paramyxovirus, (colds) the influenza (flu) virus. DNA viruses are much more stable than RNA viruses. Vaccinations are possible for smallpox and polio because they are DNA viruses which evolve more slowly. RNA viruses are less stable than those made with DNA. They change more rapidly and make more mistakes while replicating. RNA may be similar to DNA, but this is irrelevant - it is still a very different molecule. It is thought that life arose as RNA, because it is more reactive. (RNA's instability is due to its hydroxide group on the ribose).
Coming to New Zealand isn't going to solve that problem for you. Permanent jobs are about as stable as contracting and you'd be horrified at the differences in pay compared to what you can earn in the States. New Zealand is (I'm told - don't have any myself) a nice place to bring up kids, but not great to develop careers. As a professional scientist, I'm hoping to win the Green Card lottery so I can do in the USA exactly what you want to do here.
My understanding (from a barely remembered interview from Peter Jackson) is that Peter wanted to name the company after a monster native to New Zealand. At that point, the movies that Peter was making were mostly visceral splatter fests. The ugliest, scariest thing he could find in New Zealand's rather small repertoire of native animals was the Weta - one of the world's largest and oldest insects. As frightening as it looks though, the insect is harmless.
Try talking to a Dr Alan Cooper (alan.cooper@zoo.ox.ac.uk), director of Oxfords Ancient Biomolecules group. He's a New Zealander who worked on Moa DNA for his Doctorate and is sure to have some views on this...