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

The rasons certain genes don't appear in certain taxonomic groups is that, free from human interference, the species/ genus/ family/ whatever has no need to produce it - for example, cows don't need human proteins in their milk, and so they're not there. It's just evolution at work.

However, it can be an advantage for humans to have human proteins in cow milk, and so we might try and insert them by genetic engineering. (I'm not sure if that was ever actually done).

It might be useful to have an 'antifreeze' gene, like some fish have? That's a good idea - why don't we ask a geneticist to research it?

The problem, from where I'm sitting, is that a particular gene 'for' a certain trait in a creature may also do other things within that creature - which may not be predictable.

Imagine a genetically engineered plant that has had a gene inserted in its DNA to make it resistant to attack from a particular insect. The 'resistance' gene has a side effect of modifying, slightly, a particular protein within the 'new' plant that makes the seed less nutritious to birds. Another side effect causes the leaves to secrete a substance that is distasteful to small animals.

How long before we notice those bird & small animal populations failing? How long, then, before we found the cause?

If such a thing is possible, rely on Sod's law. Once that crop has seeded, it's too late.

I reckon it's worth a bet that in five or ten years there'll be scare stories in the media not too different from that.

exactly - they'll be just that, typcial media scare stories, with virtually no substance.

I hope you're right, Arnie (except for the 'virtually' bit)- but what are your reasons for saying so?

My reasons are based on reading the posts by Orcus on this thread, along with talking to my friends with advanced degrees in biology, and my own personal attendance of many, many scientific seminars regarding genetics.

But basically Orcus knows this way better than me, and has explained it at length in this thread.

OK, Arnie, I'll take the hint - in a minute.

I'm *NoT* questioning any effects of *eating* GM stuff.

I *Am* questioning the wisdom of:

a) Genetic engineering, from the point of view of unforseen consequences. (a gene 'for' something may have other, unrelated effects).

b) Widespread cloning, from the point of view of reducing diversity (eg Dutch Elm disease).

I'll now go back to lurking. 'Bye.

<<"a) Genetic engineering, from the point of view of unforseen consequences. (a gene 'for' something may have other, unrelated effects).">>

In nature, genes get mixed up and mutations happen all the time. Sometimes, things go bad. The world hasn't ended. What is special about the comparably minute experiments of genetic engineers?

>Imagine a genetically engineered plant that has had a gene inserted in its DNA to make it resistant to attack from a particular insect.

This has already been done. A number of plants have been engineered to carry a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, which produces a toxin that kills insects that try to eat it. So far, I do not believe there have been any side effects on humans, because the different toxins used tend to be specific to one or a few orders of insect.

Unfortunately, the insects have recently been reported to have evoled resistance. However, these transgeic plants are still more viab;e than their unmodified cousins.

Apollyon & Bouncy: That's given me answers I can relate to.
Still not 100% convinced, but don't have the wherewithall to take it further so I'll leave it there.

Thanks, everyone.

RtB

I'm posting this to two SEx threads:
"Cloned meat" and
"Wind genarators & Infrasound"

On re-reading, it seems that I was prone to Telling rather than Asking, where I have only weak foundations.

I apologise for being over-enthusiastic.

I shall also post to my journal.