Why messing with genetics in nature is not all good

[GeminiinimeG]

imagine the posibilities of gm humans, i dont mean babies but us the curent people, would that serve a purpose, perhaps elongating peoples lifetimes or perhaps leting us heal in an amazing manner thats impossible for the current race of humans, perhaps super humans are the evolution created by an animal and not by natural selection, the animal is MAN

[bascule]

I don't want to speak for bascule, but his arguements seem to suggest the same.

 

I'm certainly for letting science take whatever risks it needs to in order to save the lives of millions, knowing that the scientists and the powers that be have a much better grasp of the situation than I do. When laymen try to tell science what it can and can't do, problems arise...

[ecoli]

There would still be genetic diversity. I can't think of anything more diverse than intorducing new genes. There would be so many new paths for evolution to take.

 

With the normal genome' date=' the options are limited to the genes present and how natural selection can act upon them. Imagine how adding more genes would effect the genome. The new options would lead into many new types of expression. Lack of genetic diversity? Opposite, actually.[/quote']

 

But gm has been known to have the oppisite effect. Farmers breed the "perfect" crop, so they have no need to grow any other strains. Then, the environmental stresses change - say there is a particulaly harsh winter - and none of the crops, because there is only one species of genetically similiar plants, can adapt. As a result, all the crops die.

[jowrose]

look, i wouldn't consider a student a layman. I have enough information to support my opinion, regardless of what you people think. for the last time, we dont need gm crops to help starving people in africa (which was a most excellent example by helix, i think it was). oh yeah, wasn't it helix who said that all genetic engineering could be done by selective breeding? hmm, lets ponder that. if that's possible, why are gm crops needed? so i guess i could selectively breed plants to survive 1,000 degree temperatures couldn't I. or to live without water for 5 years. how come nobody but me realizes this? how come I am the only one arguing for research? How come I am the only one who does not have blind faith in the government to do all the necessary testing? am I just stupid?

[ecoli]

Wait... that post confused the hell out of me. Are you for or against GMOs, jowrose?

[bascule]

look, i wouldn't consider a student a layman.

 

Compared to the experts at the EPA, FDA, and USDA regulating GMO crops and the scientists conducting the actual research, we are all laymen.

 

 

I have enough information to support my opinion, regardless of what you people think.

 

Can you link to a peer reviewed paper which supports any of your claims?

 

for the last time, we dont need gm crops to help starving people in africa

 

So you're saying just let them starve?

 

yeah, wasn't it helix who said that all genetic engineering could be done by selective breeding? hmm, lets ponder that. if that's possible, why are gm crops needed? so i guess i could selectively breed plants to survive 1,000 degree temperatures couldn't I. or to live without water for 5 years.

 

Could these things even be done with genetic engineering? I think you're running into inherent limitations of the cellular platform there...

 

how come nobody but me realizes this? how come I am the only one arguing for research? How come I am the only one who does not have blind faith in the government to do all the necessary testing? am I just stupid?

 

I think your attitude towards GMO crops would be altered dramatically if they were the only thing that could save you from starvation.

 

Bottom line, all I'm seeing out of you is a lot of unsubstantiated FUD about GMO crops... which in my mind puts you in the same league as people who spend their lives trying to prove that high voltage power lines cause cancer, ignoring all the science that shows that non-ionizing radiation can't harm DNA, and therefore can't cause cancer...

[ecoli]

What I want to know, is that if GMOs are so great, why are so many people in places like Europe shunning them?

[bascule]

What I want to know, is that if GMOs are so great, why are so many people in places like Europe shunning them?

 

Because they aren't starving? They're white bread overfed yuppies...

[jowrose]

do we need gm crops to help africans? really? i can't understand why that would be. they're starving, and i am not apathetic about that. They need food, that's inarguable. but why gm food? why can they not plant regular crops in the temperate zones of middle africa? why can't american and european governments begin extensive shipping of foodstuffs? I think the lack of food is more of a leadership problem than an environmental one. I dont believe gm crops are necessary.

 

and no, bascule, i was making an exagerration. i do not think any plant could survive 1,000 degrees... But i have read that scientists were planning on inserting a salmon gene into a tomato plant to make hte plant resistant to cold. now could you seriously do that with selective breeding? INSERT a new gene? no, you cannot. you are wrong. gm does things selective breeding could never do.

 

ecoli, i am for gm crops, i think that have a ton of potential to help people everywhere (aka not only africa). however, i believe a lot of research, not only government-sponsored research, MUST be done on possible environmental side effects before use of these crops can become widespread. this is something humanity has not dealt with, and we must be cautious. bascule, I have made this argument probably 15 times on this thread. is there no truth in it? why do you consider me ignorant for wanting foresight?

[bascule]

now could you seriously do that with selective breeding? INSERT a new gene? no, you cannot. you are wrong. gm does things selective breeding could never do.

 

Coding insert mutations can insert new genes.

 

Honestly, I don't understand this rationalle. Mutations have been causing genes to radically transform since the dawn of life, but if intelligence is behind the process then it's the recipe for a doomsday scenario?

 

What disaster are you specifically afraid of and how are the testing processes inadequate to ensure that such a scenario does not befall us? And please don't answer "WE DON'T KNOW." I mean, give it a try, come up with a few disaster scenarios regarding GMO organisms then think to yourself how a rigorous testing process would be able to catch these in advance.

[ecoli]

ecoli' date=' i am for gm crops, i think that have a ton of potential to help people everywhere (aka not only africa). however, i believe a lot of research, not only government-sponsored research, MUST be done on possible environmental side effects before use of these crops can become widespread. this is something humanity has not dealt with, and we must be cautious. bascule, I have made this argument probably 15 times on this thread. is there no truth in it? why do you consider me ignorant for wanting foresight?[/quote']

 

I mistsakenly took this for hypocrisy. Please except my apology.

[jowrose]

its ok ecoli. i can understand why that would seem hypocritical.

 

bascule, mutations are different that inserting genes. a random genetic mutation might cause a rabbit to have lighter fur rather than brown, enabling him to survive better in winter environments. or perhaps an organism is randomly mutated by increasing his ability to see or hear predators better. aka a hawk. but these are most often very slowly accomplished, and take many many generations to create a "finished" gene. however, like you said, more abrupt mutations can occur. however, genes to not suddenly "appear," giving an organism some fantastical ability. organisms, with the exception of bacteria and viruses (well viruses aren't really organisms but you know what i mean) are relatively stable beings. It is when these mutations happen quickly, and when genes are inserted that could NEVER be there in nature is what gets me worried.

 

Scenarios? ok, here's one off the top of my head. say a plant is genetically engineered to resist a strain of pesticides. a reasonable idea. say one of these plant's seeds is released into the environment where it interbreeds with a similar, less desirable, organism. now you have a plant you dont want that will never be killed with pesticides. can you see a bad thing happening?

 

Most genetic modifications that i think would be probable involve increasing vitamins and minerals produced by a plant, or enabling the plant to survive better in different environments. the vitamin/mineral modifications could harm surrounding animal populations, while the survival modifications could influence an ecosystem as a whole. when a newly introduced plant runs rampant through an ecosystem, more often than not bad things will happen. take algae for example. Up in minnesota, where i used to go on vacation, bottoms of boats were searched when they were taken out of a lake to be sure there was no algae that could be spread to a different lake.

 

And what is so important about using gm crops for africa? what makes them better than regular crops? you keep trying to guilt trip me into thinking that i am wanting to kill africans because i dont want gm crops to be introduced too quickly. whats wrong with regular crops? if you are worried about the water issue, it wouldn't matter would it? if you can engineer a plant to grow in less water, it will still be far less nutritious because there will be far less water in the consumable portion of the plant. couldn't we help africans more by shipping food over, or by introducing crop technologies so food could be grown in the temperate regions of africa? and isn't it possible that the problem is more with leadership than with the crops themselves? why dont you answer some of my questions rather than simply pointing out inaccuracies you think are within my opinion?

 

out of curiosity, is your icon mocking me or is it just something you created? no offense meant if it is the latter.

[bascule]

bascule, mutations are different that inserting genes. a random genetic mutation might cause a rabbit to have lighter fur rather than brown, enabling him to survive better in winter environments. or perhaps an organism is randomly mutated by increasing his ability to see or hear predators better. aka a hawk. but these are most often very slowly accomplished, and take many many generations to create a "finished" gene. however, like you said, more abrupt mutations can occur. however, genes to not suddenly "appear," giving an organism some fantastical ability. organisms, with the exception of bacteria and viruses (well viruses aren't really organisms but you know what i mean) are relatively stable beings. It is when these mutations happen quickly, and when genes are inserted that could NEVER be there in nature is what gets me worried.

 

You can't say something could "NEVER" be there in nature and genes can suddenly appear giving an organism some "fantastical ability" (that's the whole idea of beneficial mutations which natural selection favors)

 

Scenarios? ok, here's one off the top of my head. say a plant is genetically engineered to resist a strain of pesticides. a reasonable idea. say one of these plant's seeds is released into the environment where it interbreeds with a similar, less desirable, organism. now you have a plant you dont want that will never be killed with pesticides. can you see a bad thing happening?

 

I can't see that happening. That'd be like saying you created, say, a flying pig, and it interbreeds with a rat, and suddenly you're beseiged with flying rats. The whole idea of speciation is that you end up with groups with compatible DNA, and if you create, say, pesticide resistant corn, it can't spontaneously interbreed with Russian Knapweed to produce pesticide resistant knapweed. And on an unrelated note, pesticides are designed to kill insects, not plants...

 

Most genetic modifications that i think would be probable involve increasing vitamins and minerals produced by a plant, or enabling the plant to survive better in different environments. the vitamin/mineral modifications could harm surrounding animal populations, while the survival modifications could influence an ecosystem as a whole. when a newly introduced plant runs rampant through an ecosystem, more often than not bad things will happen.

 

This is a potential problem with the introduction of any new plant into an ecosystem in which it hasn't existed before. Tamarisk and Russian Olive are two examples of plants which spread rapidly through an ecosystem, the Tamarisk being brought to North America from Egypt and the Russian Olive from Southeastern Europe/Western Asia. These plants didn't have a deleterious effect on the ecosystem. This hasn't ever been a consideration of farmers who introduce large fields of crops to environments in which they didn't exist before. And even so, what wildlife are you saying will be harmed in Africa?

 

And all of this aside, they can engineer crops that don't go to seed, so any issues of viral spread will be completely mitigated.

 

And even so, how does any of this morally weigh against the starvation of millions?

 

And what is so important about using gm crops for africa? what makes them better than regular crops? you keep trying to guilt trip me into thinking that i am wanting to kill africans because i dont want gm crops to be introduced too quickly. whats wrong with regular crops? if you are worried about the water issue, it wouldn't matter would it? if you can engineer a plant to grow in less water, it will still be far less nutritious because there will be far less water in the consumable portion of the plant. couldn't we help africans more by shipping food over, or by introducing crop technologies so food could be grown in the temperate regions of africa? and isn't it possible that the problem is more with leadership than with the crops themselves? why dont you answer some of my questions rather than simply pointing out inaccuracies you think are within my opinion?

 

African countries have been trying for decades to increase their crop yields using conventional methods, which much combat the problem of water scarcity, poor soils, and an inhospitable climate. Norman Borlaug won the nobel prize in 1970 for his efforts in food science, using selective breeding to try to combat just these problems, and it was estimated that his efforts saved the lives of a billion people.

 

But it's not enough, the yields are still insufficient to feed the population and it's estimated that 50,000 African children starve to death every day. Using GMO you can produce high yield crops tailored for a dry and inhospitable climate and feed these people today.

 

You act as if no one has tried to use conventional farming methods to try to solve this problem. They have, for decades! It's not enough.

 

out of curiosity, is your icon mocking me or is it just something you created? no offense meant if it is the latter.

 

I've been using this avatar since 2003...

[bascule]

bascule, I have made this argument probably 15 times on this thread. is there no truth in it? why do you consider me ignorant for wanting foresight?

 

No, there's not, because there is considerable foresight on the part of the EPA, FDA, USDA, and the scientists working on these crops. I assure you every legitimate disaster scenario you can possibly think of they have already thought of, and are testing for to ensure that it's not a problem.

 

Basically, you're calling the scientists involved in GMO research incompetent, and saying that you're better able to forsee problems with these crops than they are. That's extremely arrogant.

 

Furthermore, you're part of a large crowd which has spread FUD about GMO crops, and because of that FUD several African countries have banned the use of GMO crops.

 

Alarmist groups continue to pursue countries which have allowed the use of GMO crops, hounding them with FUD as they use these crops to feed their starving populations. This is cruel arrogance...

[jowrose]

my bad bascule, bout the avatar...

 

well i guess you're right and i'm wrong. i'm done arguing. maybe i'll go back to the threads where i am more knowledgeable... like potato guns.