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

Hmm - an interesting and topical entry...

first off: I know it's tempting to wander off topic in these things - and GM is a big interlinked subject, but you'd be better off concentrating on GM foods: GM on the whole is just to big a topic... if you want to talk about human GM, drop a conversation on this entry: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A514612 - it'll hopefully be retitled soon - and when it gets updated it'll be much happiness.

Indeed, the whole entry might do better as an update to http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A156511 - which you link to. What do you think?

First of, this entry will probably get moved to the "sin bin", as the first post doesn't contain a link to the page, and other atricles with that problem have been moved there.
This whole are seems to be full of problems, of which this article contains quite a few of them.
Genetic engineering of humans gets mentioned as a totaly good thing, and then ignored. Ethics gets only a passing mention. TRANSGENIC (from different species) genetic engineering seems hardly worth a mention. despite it being a minefield.
GM for third world aid gets mentioned, but doesn't happen. GM is VERY expensive, so most third world targeted GM either ties you into buying the compaies VERY EXPENSIVE compatable furtalizer, or has a sterile seed modification so that you have to buy more seed next year rather than planting the stuffyou saved from last year which is common practice in the third world.
The uk/usa split is caused by the usa having NO restrictions, so farmers have to buy gm, and then want to be able to export it, making it a trade issue.
The uk and lots of europe have had a lot of food scares, and a lot of scientists agrivating them, so they view it as precautionary, and a health issue.
neither side seems to want to accept the basis for the viewpoint of the other, so this will keep being nasty for quite a long time.

Aurora (at least, I think that's the author's name....) - Any response to the latest comments here? Are you still wanting to pursue putting this through Peer Review?


Mikey

I'm still here, but I'll probably just delete it - I don't have the time to put all the work into the entry, since I've got my exams starting this Monday.

Thanks for all the comments

~~Aurora~~

Before you can have any hope of having this article edited, you are going to need to deal with the last section of your article, where you answer the question in your title with your own preference in this debate.

Researchers are not supposed to use the first person in writing articles for several reasons, but in this case, it would be because, ultimately, you have not presented an overwhelming case for making one decision or the other. What is left is your preference.

Personally, I would say that, if anything, you have made a case that there are too few hard facts available to make an intelligent decision.

At this point in time, the question comes down to whether you or anyone is justified in trusting the scientists to restrain their curiosity and tinkering, the manufacturers and farmers who are intersted in selling for profit, the politicians who are testing the wind with an eye to re-election without having the knowledge to make informed decisions, the public who have the same lack of knowledge without the access to the politicians advisers yet don't hesitate to make decisions based on fear, the news people who have a vested interest in selling copy despite their claims of impartiality, the environmentalists who care more for the extinction of a sand fly than the loss of life to hunger, the economists who care more for the issues of supply and demand than the potential danger to environment that might well end the questions of supply and demand all toghether, the third world people who just want to go to bed with food in their stomachs on a regular basis, the first and second world people whould like to keep everything they have but don't want to feel guilty about it and wouldn't mind if it were a bit cheaper as well, and all of us together who can't begin to be able to know what changing one little thing might do in the grand scheme of things but still want all that we can have.

You have posed a question which ultimately can be only answered with another questions, when in the past has Man ever hesitated to take the next step forward to what he wanted? Sometimes we have regretted and sometimes we have rejoiced. Perhaps, now that we have the ability to anticipate the dangers we might choose to stop where we are and never take another step forward. Perhaps we don't dare to stand still.

If you truly want to pose the question you have asked, you are going to need to take yourself out of the article and put all of us in it.

Barton

There's no need to delete your article. You have every right to have it here. It's just that it needs changes before it could be edited.

Barton

On closer reading, I wouldn't want to have been the Scout who recommended the /other/ entry (A156511) - which for 50% of its contents deals with properly naming GM foods, and for the other 50% talks about the dangers. I fail to see balance over there.


Now for this entry:
There's very obviously balance, as both pros and cons get their say.

The part "...much cheaper because little of it will need to be imported..." is somewhat idealistic because one of first actions of GM seed makers was to (at least attempt to) manipulate the seeds such that the crop derived from them is infertile, of course in order to stay in the business.

I see another 'con' point in the simple word 'time': what if consumption of GM food bears unforeseen results which only show up /years/ later? The GM companies need to go to market as soon as possible, and their lobbyists will eagerly believe any "long-time" (ie: 2-year or 5-year) study which doesn't reveal any risks. Just for comparison: Contergan was an approved medicine, and very lately its desastrous effect on the human fetus became obvious. The same could happen with GM food.

I recommend to take out the second para ("This is unlikely to happen" plus the para "With the modifying of humans..." which IMHO are not on topic.

Attempting to find a compound conclusion is a /huge/ thing, and you made clear that further discussion is still necessary. From this point of view, an entry about the subject matter won't ever be finished. I see an Edited entry here if you restrict its contents to matter which won't change over time, and better drop the discussable (sp?) bits.

Anyway, just my $.02

Congratulations, this entry has been approved for editing! It will be placed in the queue for sub-editing and editing. This could take a while. To find out what's happening to your entry, go to the official Sub-Editor's Page. You will recieve an e-mail when your entry has been edited, containing another congratulatory note and the new entry number (A number).

*Michael Notforyou*
Official Scout, h2g2
Researcher U113408

Editorial Note: This thread has been moved out of the Peer Review forum because this entry has now been recommended for the Edited Guide.

If they have not been along already, the Scout who recommended your entry will post here soon, to let you know what happens next. Meanwhile you can find out what will happen to your entry here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/SubEditors-Process

Congratulations!