h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

as a biochemist working in inborn errors i think i can hold the technical argument quite well thanks. But you miss the point, no nation state has the right to potentially endanger the lives of all, genetic manipulation has just this ability. In comparason to the genecide of the Nazis massive and horrendous that it was genetic manipulation has the potential to wipe out entire species of which we are but one. Its not coincidence that the biggest investors in this technology are the millitary.

Complete b******s. How the hell can enabling maize roots to release citrate anion endanger the lives of all of us? If you are any kind of scientist worth your salt you ought to have some idea of the notion of 'balance' in weighing decisions. As far as I am concerned, real benefits outweigh very hypothetical risks here. And when it comes to wiping out species, I think we've managed perfectly well without invoking the influence of GM crops, thank you.

see previous comments re: risk and risk management

Well, what are the risks? Spell them out. And while you're at it, don't forget to spell out the benefits as well.

Everything involves risk. One particular issue which you ought to understand. Take for instance MMR. Measles is on the increase again because people think that their kids might become autistic. Never mind the fact that measles encephalitis is a worse way to go than CJD (f that is possible).

re: mmr.... see entry on risk (read more type less)

You haven't answered my question. What are the risks? And how do they outweigh the benefits?

Starter for 10

Because most Third World countries have tropical environments, which are rich in biological diversity, they are especially vulnerable to genetic pollution. Most of the plants we now grow as food crops originally came from the tropics – this means that when crops are grown in tropical countries they are much more likely to have related plants in the wild with which they can cross-pollinate. In Central and South America, for example, there are hundreds of indigenous varieties of tomato, and yet genetically engineered ‘FlavrSavr’ tomatoes were reportedly field-tested in countries there without the knowledge or consent of the authorities.

In poor countries where ecconomic imperitives are greater the greater the risk of corner cutting or non-observance of protocol.
the risk of recombinant DNA (rDNA) does not start or finish with the organism into which they are transplanted. As previously stated risk management is based on the assumption that sufficeint is known about the system being managed, fine in a test tube but biodiversity has given us multiple degrees of freedom. The greater the number of degrees of freedom the the greater the variability and unpredictability of the outcomes.

And i havent even started on virus inclusion or transmission by naturally occuring plasmids....

Right: I agree with you on the first point. But I don't agree with you on the second point.

It's a matter of detail. In some circumstances the use of GM crops will be perfectly acceptable, in others it won't. the 'two legs good, four legs bad' attitude of Greenpeace doesn't help resolve this issue in the slightest. They deal in opinions rather than facts.

ethics is a matter of opinion... informed or predudiced depends on the core beliefs of the person.

Personally i agree with your second point... i just think deployment of GM foods and biotechnology is potentially a trojan horse for those marketing their goods. if its so bloody wonderful do it in their own backyard first rather than pretending its for the good of mankind.

Risk is everywhere. People use bridges and planes with the full knowledge that they could die. The bridge could collapse, the plane could crash etc. etc. Now GM crops have shown no evidence of ill-effects but some people seem to think they are deadly! It's truly bizarre. Greenpeace are good at their job: Scaremongering. Unfortunately they are not so good at science.

Everything has the potential to endanger lives, it just happens that GM is one of the least dangerous things man has come up with. In 2001 130million acres of GM crops were planted, 5.5 million farmers using them. There has been no food crisis, as much as the tabloids (primed and in gear, prepared by the lucrative BSE/salmonella/foot n mouth disasters) would love it.

The "FlvrSvr" tomato was non-transgenic. It just had a downregulated gene that delayed ripening.

The biotechs are not forcing GM on the third world. Quite the opposite in fact. Companies will only sell stuff where they can get Intellectual Property protection. In third world countries at the moment that is not present. Where the myth comes from that GM is being "forced" onto the poor I do not know. I think the US GM acreage covers 40% of the land, quite a big back yard wouldn't you agree?

Ste

i still stand by my observations on risk and degrees of freedom... but the rest is well argued.

p.s. genetic regulation also carrys potential risks

I think the "degrees of freedom" argument against GM crops is one of the best I have heard against them. But I think it's just "fear of the unknown" dressed up in fancy clothes ( no offense). I would agree with you if we were starting anew and knew nothing about the plants or the ecosystem or had not planted any GM plants. But that simply isn't the case, in my opinion we know enough to effectively manage the tiny apparent risk that might be there.

If science only operated on what it didn't know then where would we be today? What we do know is that more people die from peanuts that GM crops (where is the Greenpeace outcry over peanuts?).

People need feeding and GM is the way to go. To just say that "there is enough food to go around, it's capitalism's fault" is just naive. China is aggresivly persuing GM technology to feed is massive and expanding population. It's ironic that a communist government that has the capacity to distribute food evenly is going down this road with such enthusiasm.

All the best,

Ste

The argument you mentioned is always quoted. Somehow GP see the complete global re-engineering of the food distribution system as being easier and preferable to simply allowing less developed countries to make up their own minds about GM crops!

Also, Dr. Patrick Moore (not the astronomer but founder of GP) has recently come out *in favour* of GM and publically disowned its anti-science attitude. Hee-hee.

While we're on the subject of the Third World, here's an article I wrote which is in PR at the moment concering a far greater threat than GM: A774100. Any comments (preferably NOT abusive) are welcome.

i'm not anti-science nor particularly risk averse but the problem for me (and i acknowledge its personal to me) is we dont know what we dont know. here are some of the things we do know.

Transgenic organisms have dna from 2 different species.
prior to GM technology this occured on occasion naturally via inclusion of DNA strands in virus or plasmid particles. in the vast and i truely mean vast number of occasions this had no effect on the genome. there are however exceptions, its one of the driving forces in evolution (and drug resistance in bacteria). the more GM modified organisms in the environment the more potential there is for transfer of DNA by this route.

i'll give you a non GM example of the impact of multiple variables coming together to cause human disaster. Strangely enough its caused by farming techniques and errupts with disapointing regularity.

Flu Epidemics.
Flu viruses have their origin in birds, however bird viruses can not in the main jump the species barrier from birds to man. So how does it happen? the answer is a fascinating one, it happens because in the east pigs and ducks are kept in close proximity. bird viruses can on occasion infect pigs, some pig viruses can infect man (and visa versa).

And bingo !!!!! a new flu virus is born, because its avian in origin there is little natural resistance to the virus in humans and literally millions die.

Man, agriculture, DNA, multiple variables, .... sound familiar?

Here's a link to that mentions Dr Moore's comments regarding GreenPeace: http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech_info/pr/moore.html

A whole, single eukaryotic gene with all of it's introns and exons cannot possibly be transferred about the place by a virus! A virus doesn't even have enough room for it's own genes.

What about conventional breeding that introduces the genes of one organism to another? What about every crop and animal that has been produced this way? What about those risks?

Great multi-post earlier by the way!

Ste

viruses are not perfect in the way they reproduce or more accurately in the way they take over the cells own systems to produce virus particles. sometimes fragments of the host cells DNA are included in some of the particles. usually this this produces a syringe full of non-sense... but not always.

As for the double entry ... it happens

normal sexual reproduction is usually confined to same species... it least it is in my bedroom

Ste... the scary thing is... we are both right