A Conversation for Organic Chemistry

Oh come now,

Post 1

MisterBealy

You're not being fair - lots of it makes sense. But looking after a chemical reaction is like babysitting: it's noisy, messy, smells bad, never does what it's supposed to and you go home with a headache. On the plus side, the labs all have networked computers so procrastination opportunities are endless (see this message).


Oh come now,

Post 2

Elite

Well I'm an A-level student, with exams approaching at speeds that would make a truck wince and I can confidently say that organic chemistry makes me want to cry and hide under the table.


Oh come now,

Post 3

A Popular Pariah

Organic chemistry is perhaps the easiest of all of the chemistries. Quantum chemistry, now that's both an interesting
and difficult branch of chemical epistemology!


Oh come now,

Post 4

Paradigm Shift

If it wasn't for organic chemistry, we wouldn't have such wonderful technologies such as genetic engineering.


Oh come now,

Post 5

MisterBealy

That's interesting, it makes me want to run out of the building screaming and not come back.


GMO's

Post 6

MisterBealy

That's not entirely fair either, genetics is in a whole other building. What gets me (well, one of many things that gets me) is hearing scientists say that if only the public would understand the processes involved properly then there wouldn't be a problem.

So here goes: they take a virus and a short strand of fish DNA. They put the fish DNA into the virus and use it to infect a plant. The virus writes the fish DNA into the plant's DNA where it gets copied and processed so that the plant starts producing fishy stuff. Nobody knows what becomes of the virus but the research being rubbished in the news at the moment says it sticks around and can be dangerous.

Feel safer now?

My advice is don't touch it with a bargepole.


GMO's

Post 7

A Popular Pariah

That is a rather naive and uniformed take on the whole process. Just because one is ignorant of the findings doesn't
mean that the information should be scorned. Science is neither inherently good nor evil. The way humans use it is.
Does any one here remember the fate of one Mr. Galileo?


GMO's

Post 8

Paradigm Shift

Yes, but to all this they use organic chemistry.


GMO's

Post 9

MisterBealy

Uh huh.

OK, mister patronising git, why don't you explain it then:

1) Exactly how does one produce a genetically modified organism - the whole process from start to finish?
2) What DNA is chosen for the modifications, where does it come from and why specifically is the modification beneficial?
3) What becomes of the virus they use to infect the plant and effect the modification?
4) What is "substantial equivalence" and does it really PROVE that a GM food is safe?
5) If Arpad Pusztai's work that showed that GM food was not safe is scientifically unsound, shouldn't we also discount all his previous work that implied that it was safe?
6) Is the potential for unforseen side-effects like the one that's killing monarch butterflies enough of a reason to stop producing GMOs now?
7) Given that a species always expands to fill its food supply, won't increasing our food supply with GM technology lead to an even greater overpopulation problem?
8) Given that the EU destroys millions of tons of food every year and the West wastes more than it eats, isn't distribution the solution to feeding the starving?
9) Is Monsanto merely making a quick buck or is GMO research a good cover and bankroll for cloning and biological weapons research?

I promise you that you're far more ignorant on the subject than I am. I've studied the science, the politics, the economics and the humanitarian aspects of the issue and believe GM foods are a bad idea and we don't need them.

Just because I chose to be brief and put a glib viewpoint out on a lighthearted website doesn't mean that I don't know what I'm talking about. Why don't you go find someone less intelligent than yourself to hassle?


GMO's

Post 10

MisterBealy

Actually there's very little overlap. Biotechnology and genetics branched out of biochemistry a while ago and biochemists today work with different tools and in different ways to organic chemists.

Chemists study and manipulate molecules; we take chemicals and react them together to produce different chemicals. We can't start with the chemicals that make up a plant and synthesise one. The area of GMOs and cloning is concerned with plugging together DNA from different places - cutting and pasting blueprints, if you like. It's very crude - they have no control over the process that turns these blueprints into plants and people. They know basically what's involved along the way but aren't even close to understanding what drives it. They do however know enough to mess with it and expect us to eat what comes out. I don't care, do what you want but give me the option not to join you.


GMO's

Post 11

A Popular Pariah

Well, seeing as how I am only an ignorant being who also happens to be a microbiology/molecular genetics major
at UF, I can attempt to answer a few of your very daunting questions that no doubt only begin to scratch the vast
archives of knowledge that you have stored somewhere near your hippocampus. Your first question dealing
with how does one produce an entire modified organism is rather vague. What do mean by modified? Simple
modification of the pea plant to produce luciferin and luciferase results in a glowing transgenic organism with very litle
effort. Much the same can be said about your second question. Does it concern prokaryotes or eukaryotes? What is the intended
product? How much of it do you need (which has a great imporatnce with regard to the addition of specific promoter seuences
such as Pribnow boxes in prokaryotes and Goldberg-Hogness box sequences in eukaryotes). Your concern about the virus that
infects the plants is admirable, but is not likely to infect humans seeing as how it is antigen specific and cannot infect human tissues
without substantial modifications to its protein capsule. Just because one work of an individual is not yield expected results does not mean
that their past work should be abandoned. Francis Crick, co-discoverer of the chemical structure of DNA and a revered scientist, made
a great deal of hypothesizing during the early days of his field. Many of these speculations (eg the nondegenerate properties of codon
recognition) were flat out wrong. Does this mean that we should hrow away his work without delay? Most certainly not. Of course,
a sufficient amount of conservative attitudes are required in the viewing of any scientific work. At the same time, it must also be balanced
with an open mindedness that allows us to understand the meaning of the discovery. Your Malthusian prophesies about the overpopulation
of the Earth because of an increasing food supply (although a very much rallied and admirable cause since the days of Mr. Malthus himself),
would seem to be somewhat unjustified. If one actually looks at the growth rates of most developed nations, they are actually
declining to the point of stability or even decrease. Immigration is the only thing that keeps them afloat. There is, however,
concern for the developing world, where the population base is increasing and the food suplly is dwindling (for more info
on the mechanics of this vicious cycle of economics, read any anthropology book). One of the necessities of these countries
is to stabilize the food base and restructure their economy. Forgive the brevity of this reply, I have to get off to my remedial
genetics class now!


GMO's

Post 12

MisterBealy

You didn't need to wave your scientist credentials, I could have guessed by the questions you didn't answer, the points you missed or chose to pass over and the terms you threw around. Am I supposed to be impressed? I only counted two that have never passed by my hippocampus - not bad for a mere chemistry PhD - and you're still being patronising.

I'll give you a few brownie points for knowing something of the overpopulation debate ... or did you need to look it up for funding applications? Perhaps you should skip your remedial genetics class in favour of something on the consequences and uncertainties of science in practice.

You didn't really answer any questions. Pity that, but I already had the answers I need. How about instead of trying to show off, you tell the public what you're up to? Worried that if they knew more about it they'd like it even less? Maybe they're right. You know, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and all the knowledge you and your peers have collected on gene sequencing and expression is only a tiny fraction of what you need in order to use it responsibly.

In Europe this issue is as close as you can get to a serious debate with vested interests around. Maybe it doesn't matter in the States where your food goes through a chemical factory before it hits the plate. You know, over here you can buy peanut butter that's made from peanuts and nothing else - have you ever read the ingredients on a jar of Reese's?

We're obviously entrenched on this, so I'll let you get back to your lab and get on with raping Mother Nature, but how about answering one question that could restore my faith in your profession: How do you feel about the fact that the same technology you're so passionately supporting can and probably already has been used to produce agents that could make food crops express toxins (botulinum is a germ-warfare favourite) or the famous snakebite flu? Gene therapy could take us beyond the nuclear warfare age, how would you like to play a part in helping that along? [Hint: the usual hiding behind science as a factual discipline and politics being concerned with its application isn't going to cut genetically modified mustard].


GMO's

Post 13

A Popular Pariah

Your consistent condemnation of genetic engineering on the basis of potential wrongs is only half vaild. It is very much a real fact
that gene manipulation can result in severe harm to humanity through such things as biological warfare. However, by the same reasoning
I could point out that chemical research is evil because it has brought us such things as mustard gas casualties and thalidomide babies.


It is rather unfortunate that so many people have an image of genetic engineering as a sort of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein. Nothing can
be farther from the truth! The same branch of science that is capable of producing botulin is also capable of yielding insulin secreting E. coli,
which saves the lives of millions of people every year. It also gives us new cancer therapies and disease screening programs. Consequently,
it is the way humans decide to use this knowledge that different results are achieved. One thing that I simply fail to understand is the notion of
ulterior motives that you preport genetic engineers have. Genetic scientists, just like chemists, do have agendas. They sometimes
work for companies require specific product development or they may work in a university for academic research. Whether or not their
products result in things that are harmful to man does sometimes occur. Much the same can be said of chemists who oversee the manufacture of
explosives that kill many multiples of people more than gene engineering ever has.


Your claim that we do not know enough about the science behind genetic engineering to implement it responsibly is hypocritical. Prior to the knowledge
behind chemical mechanisms and molecular thermodynamics, many chemists were milling about manufacturing a great deal of products which had both
beneficial and negative side effects. DDT, penicillin, and antipsychotic drugs can all fall under this category. Even today, there is a great deal about chemistry
that we still don't understand. Genetic engineering, compared to the long history of chemical research, is a fledgling science and there
is still a great deal that still needs to be explored. But if there is the possibility that we can aid in alleviating some of the human misery here on this planet,
I think it would be irresponsible for us to take no action.


GMO's

Post 14

A Popular Pariah

I would also like to add that I personally do not condone the production of biologically hazardous agents
for use against human beings. I think that any respectable scientist should refuse to cooperate in any
experiment that has only the sole purpose of injuring others. I assume that you too feel the same way
in regards to the chemical profession.

PS- "substantially equivalent" is a term adopted by corporations to describe the quality of genetically engineered foods.
It is not supported by reputable genetic engineers because it fails to appeal to the scientific process in
terms of testing. In fact, many GE's have pushed for more rigorous testing of foods and other transgenic
substances on the market instead of having them declared simply as being equivalent to "natural" foods with a
limited set of qualifying characteristics. My personal opinion (biased by a specialty in biomedicine) leans me to
a set of standards of testing like those adopted by the FDA. Years of evaluation often uncover potential dangers.


GMO's

Post 15

MisterBealy

Good answers, you've been thinking - and I was all ready to accuse of you being blind to the downside of science, oh well! For my part, I can assure you that I hold chemistry's record of tragedy and pollution in all the contempt it deserves, but I'm not as luddite as I appear. I strongly feel that we should learn from our mistakes - DDT, thalidomide, plasticisers, nuclear power, smoking and so on. It all gets tied up in politics with someone wanting to make a quick (or slow) buck. I'd be happier if GM derived foods were subjected to the same tests as medicines. I still wouldn't want to eat them, but that's just me being irrational. Of course they're not profitable after a hundred million dollars worth of clinical trials. What I resent is having them forced on me with no right to opt out so that biotech firms can make a bundle of money when we don't need them. I was going to try a scenario on you whereby thirty years from now GM technology had been abandoned in the same way as DDT and to ask you to picture yourself as a 15 year old having to explain why given certain information resources, but it's probably time I let this go. As you've probably guessed I have a big problem with cloning too, but it's verging on Orwell or Huxley so I won't bore you with it.

I had forgotten that I wasn't debating with pacifists on a post-Quinn vision, which is occupying a lot of my brain power these days. Getting bogged down in a GMO debate would be backtracking - GMOs, pollution and kids gunning down their classmates are all symptoms of the same problem and it's that problem that needs attention - so I apologise for beating up on you. If you feel like finding out more about where I'm coming from then I'd recommend a book called Ishmael by Daniel Quinn (or one of its sequels, My Ishmael or The Story of B).

Good luck with the microbiology and genetics - keep thinking and try not to kill anyone.

N.

PS, [You may know this already] Malthus got it wrong. He assumed that population grows exponentially while food production can only increase arithmetically. He missed a subtlety: a population can only grow exponentially if it eats an exponentially expanding quantity of food. When the available food stops growing the population levels out. Rather than expanding our food supply to feed the starving, we need to stop expanding our food supply to stop having to expand the food supply. Not only do we not need to produce more food, we need to not produce a food surplus. This theory has been backed up with animal tests. I don't have the references, but I could find them if you're interested.



GMO's

Post 16

A Popular Pariah

There is no need to feel as if you have been beating up on me. I have this same genre of conversation
just about everyday with my peers. I glad to see that you recoginized the fallacious reasoning behind
Mr. Malthus. I have had the unfortunate experience of encountering a large number of "scientists" who
quote his apocryphal message when failing to take into account its fatal flaw.

As for your fear of cloning, I don't know of any genetic engineers who want to outright clone a human being
simply because we can do it. The ethical issues associated with it are a stigma few professionals want to
be associated with. Body parts and organ systems, however, are a different issue (although I doubt a sentient
being will arise from a cloned myocardium). Ironically, when it comes to cloning, it's the physicists that
should have an eye kept on them. For some odd reason, a few of them want to clone themselves (perhaps
to continue research on that pesky unified field theory)


Oh come now,

Post 17

Inductance

Yes this behaviour is consistent with you being involved with science.
See http://www.h2g2.com/P97373


Key: Complain about this post