Do you Approve of Genetic Engineering?

[Mr Skeptic]

Just wondering, what are people's thoughts on genetic engineering? Do you approve, or disapprove? Do you think it is dangerous, or unhealthy? Vote, and give your opinion on it.

[SkepticLance]

Humanity has this interesting habit of changing its mind on ethical matters. In the 1960's most people thought that artificial insemination on humans was unethical. Today it is widespread and is an accepted means of achieving reproduction. Even lesbians are able to obtain this service.

 

Today, we have widespread opposition to genetic engineering. Like AI, this will change.

 

This is like the major opposition to the cloning of humans. Actually, right now, that would be unethical, for very practical reasons of increased deformities in the affected children and in very high levels of miscarriage, which can be emotionally devastating to the affected mother. But within 20 years I expect these technical problems to be solved, and within 100 years cloning of humans will be commonplace and accepted.

 

Those of us with better foresight should be able to see past current superstition, and judge things like genetic engineering on the basis of its benefits, now and in the future, against its detrements, and come up with an analysis devoid of dogma and superstition.

 

On this basis, I judge genetic engineering as something with significant current benefit, and massive future benefit, with very little downside.

[Daecon]

What if you would approve on both humans and food?

 

Which selection should someone choose?

[Mr Skeptic]

What if you would approve on both humans and food?

 

Which selection should someone choose?

 

I assumed that if you approved of it on humans, you would have no problem with it in food.

[Daecon]

Okay.

 

Well I advocate both genetic engineering and cybernetics.

 

Hmm... Does that make me a "trans-humanist"?

[YT2095]

how about Yes, but only with the proper precautions?

 

there`s no option for that in the poll.

[Rev Blair]

I think the whole thing is a false line, first of all. Every Holstein on earth has DNA from one Quebec bull, and that happened before genetic manipulation was possible.

 

That bull has now been cloned and his "son" continues to contribute DNA to the herd.

 

Now I don't think the level of "close breeding" done in purebred cattle herds is a good idea, but it has nothing to do with genetic engineering.

 

There is real engineering, like that done by places like Monsanto for their Round Up ready canola etc. that I think is a really bad idea. Now don't get me wrong, I love Round Up. It's a miracle herbicide...or at least it was. Its overuse has led to resistance in other plants though, and the well water in some rural areas stinks of it during spraying season. Sure it breaks down quickly, but it doesn't break down immediately.

 

That's kind of secondary...Round Up came before Round Up ready canola...but it was the genetic engineerin that really led to the overuse of the herbicide.

 

In the same way, genetic engineering can lead to huge monocultures. I think everybody here understands how dangerous a lack of genetic diversity in any given species can be.

 

So I don't hesitate to eat genetically engineered crops and have health concerns about genetically engineered meat...we're not all going to grow a third arm or anything...but I do worry about the secondary effects that various technologies can have.

[Mr Skeptic]

how about Yes, but only with the proper precautions?

 

there`s no option for that in the poll.

 

Um, oops. I guess I kind of messed up the poll. Maybe start a better one, but what should it look like?

[SkepticLance]

To Rev

 

You might be interested to now that there is also a canola that is genetically modified to be resistant to atrazine. Atrazine is a MUCH, MUCH worse herbicide than glyphosate (active in Roundup). It degrades more slowly; is more toxic to people and to soil animals, and is a very potent 'gender bender' for amphibians, and is a suspected cause of dramatic drops in wild frog populations.

 

The interesting thing is that glyphosate resistant canola is the target for major protest action by the anti-GM brigade, while atrazine resistant canola is not. Why??? The reason is that the latter was a natural mutation that was selected and propogated. In my opinion, both canolas were genetically modified - just one by man and one by nature. The latter is the one leading to real abuse of the natural environment.

 

To Mr. Skeptic.

 

Please don't go down that path. 'Adequate precautions' is an incredibly subjective definition. GM crops today undergo up to 1000 different laboratory and field tests before approval. The anti-GM mob define this amount of testing as inadequate. I define the anti-GM mob as irrational, unreasonable, and off their heads.

[Mr Skeptic]

To Mr. Skeptic.

 

Please don't go down that path. 'Adequate precautions' is an incredibly subjective definition. GM crops today undergo up to 1000 different laboratory and field tests before approval. The anti-GM mob define this amount of testing as inadequate. I define the anti-GM mob as irrational, unreasonable, and off their heads.

 

Oh, that's definitely a path that must be thoroughly explored. After all, some kind of precautions must be taken, and someone needs to figure out how much is enough precautions. I'd consider GM to be potentially far more dangerous than nukes, if it was intentionally used to make weapons. On the other hand, it will become far more valuable than nuclear power IMO.

 

I'd agree that it was a badly considered poll option. A better question would have been whether current precautions are sufficient, excessive, or insufficient.

 

I think I should redo the poll. Anyone have suggestions on how to improve it? I think I'll make it multiple choice, something like this:

 

Genetic Engineering...

*should be used on humans

*should be used on food

*should be encouraged by research grants

*should be allowed, but not encouraged

*should be banned

*should have stricter precautions

*has sufficient precautions

*has too many precautions, needlessly restricting its development

 

anything missing on this?

[Rev Blair]

You might be interested to now that there is also a canola that is genetically modified to be resistant to atrazine. Atrazine is a MUCH, MUCH worse herbicide than glyphosate (active in Roundup). It degrades more slowly; is more toxic to people and to soil animals, and is a very potent 'gender bender' for amphibians, and is a suspected cause of dramatic drops in wild frog populations.

 

That doesn't really surprise me. it's kind of like summer fallowing. It's looked up fondly by the uninformed...much preferable to spraying. Of course we still sprayed back then, generally with much worse chemicals, and summer fallowing pounds the hell out of the soil.

 

I do miss it though...sitting on a tractor in the hot sun, sipping beer and sweating a lot. 4 MPH with a deep tillage and a set of harrows all summer long. I used to wear cut-off jeans with work boots and a hat made from a single piece of string. A slight breeze and the dirt grew into your pores, a good wind and the farmer next door got all your best top soil. All very romantic and good fodder for a country song.

 

Doesn't make it good farming, just the best science of the time, and it certainly wasn't chemical free.

 

The guy my brother helps seed and harvest now started cutting his spraying a couple of years ago. He only sees his land maybe five or six times a year. Most of the weeds are gone because he never tills. Last year he mowed before the weeds could go to seed.

 

We're learning, I think. Another century and we might get it right.

 

My concerns are mostly economic/political. We'll never get it right if we let Monsanto, Dupont and Cargill dictate things. Instead we'll churn out some short term profits and end up on the sad end of a Woody Guthrie song.

 

Woody never heard of glyphosates, and he'd be spinning in his grave at the mess we've made, but he understood the dynamic and implications of agriculture.

[SkepticLance]

To Rev

 

I have no problem with the use of chemicals in agriculture, as long as it is done in a properly managed and educated fashion. I would oppose the use of atrazine for the reasons I gave earlier, but I see no real problem with glyphosate, which is quite rapidly biodegradable, and low in toxicity to soil animals, birds, fish, amphibians and people.

 

I have a plot of land which is overgrown with kaikuia weed. I am replanting it in native rainforest species. To prepare for planting, I spray the weed with glyphosate, and plant my native trees in the patch of dead weed. If I did not do this, the weed would strangle the young tree. When the trees are tall enough, they will shade out the weed and thus kill it. Until then, I have to keep spraying to keep it from harming the trees.

 

I would get more upset about the widespread use of copper sulfate as an organic spray to control fungal attack. Copper sulfate is a liver toxin to people and has killed people, and is extremely toxic to earthworms - is not biodegradable and can stay in soil for decades. The use of this chemical shows that organic farmers are just as stupid and environmentally irresponsible as other farmers everywhere.

[Rev Blair]

Yeah, I was kind of surprised when I heard that organic farmers were using copper sulphate. I had some very limited experience with it back in my darkroom days, and it was generally considered about the most dangerous chemical in the darkroom.

 

My concern with glyphosate, other than the political/economic one is it's overuse. Like I said, in some areas the well water stinks of it during spraying season. A lot of that is just bad farming...there are still a lot of farmers who rip up their land every few years, allowing the weeds back in.

 

There are also some anecdotal things that aren't specific to glyphosates that concern me. It seems that everybody in rural areas has some kind of cancer now, for one thing. There are also a lot of respiratory problems. My own brother had his bowel spontaneously split and one of the questions they asked at the hospital was if he was around agricultural chemicals. He was. It was never mentioned again.

 

It's not just Round Up though. A lot of farmers use tank mixes now because Round Up no longer kills everything. Which chemical they use depends on what kind of weeds the roundup isn't killing. We are very dependent on chemical fertilizers as well. Then there are the fuel additives, the off-gassing from the inside of trucks and tractors, the chemicals coming out of the building materials in the house etc...

 

Hell, the number of decks made from pressure treated lumber, cedar, and redwood has skyrocketed in recent years. Each of those things carries its own health risks.

 

How anybody could do a proper study to take this anecdotal evidence and discover which chemicals, or mixture of chemicals, are causing the problems kind of baffles me. Then how do you separate that from other things, like diet? I'm not a scientist, but it seems to me that designing an accurate study would be very difficult.

 

I do think that studies need to be done though, because something is going on. The timing suggests GE crops and/or the chemicals that go with them, but a lot of other things changed at the same time.

[insane_alien]

I think genetic engineering is fine. we've pretty much been doing the long version of it with farming and dog breeding and similar for millenia now anyway.

[gmoafrica]

I think the question should read like "Do you approve of the science behind genetically modified foods?" Many a times, I think we are unjustifiably criticizing genetically modified foods. We need to get to the root of this debate. And I think getting to the root of this debate means sticking to scientific facts rather than getting emotional about genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Monsanto has, in the last couple of years, been gathering views from farmers and policy makers about potential applications of genetically modified organisms. Their voices can be found on the company's web site called Conversations About Plant Biotechnology. I am sure some of you will consider some of these people biased towards Monsanto, but it's always good to listen to them. I've already done so and I find it a bit hard that a scientist as prominent as Norman Borlaug can be herded to say and do things he doesn't believe in. Or an economist as popular as Jeffrey Sachs. or a scientist like Clive James. On my own blog, GMO Africa, I'm encouraging people to try to stick to scientific facts when debating the pros and cons of genetically modified foods. This is the only way we can tell who is telling the truth and who's misleading the world.

[SkepticLance]

To Rev

 

The question of chemicals and their impact is a good one, but not appropriate to this thread. I am starting a new thread under the title 'chemophobia'.

[Rev Blair]

Understood, SkepticLance, although I find the implications of one are very much tied up with the other when it comes to agriculture.

[Mr Skeptic]

Understood, SkepticLance, although I find the implications of one are very much tied up with the other when it comes to agriculture.

 

I see what you mean, what with crops genetically engineered to be resistant to certain herbicides. However, stuff like the copper sulfate don't seem to be relevant to this, other than that "organic" foods can sometimes be more scary than GM.

[Donut.Hole]

Wow, MrSkeptic, you sure chose a debatable subject. Genetic engineering, in this day and age, may be the only definite way to bounce back from all the problems that the world's been having. Population and amount of food could be regulated with genetic engineering, and maybe even near-extinct animals could make a comeback from it.

 

But if it's done too much, it could get out of hand. I'm not an expert on this stuff, so I don't want to see a trail of posts saying how wrong I am, but whenever humans take the reigns of nature, bad things tend to happen. And besides, genetic engineering could wipe out certain beneficial or simply different traits if the same template were repeatedly used. This could be a bad thing, as we could be affecting a specieis as a whole by wiping out certain chatacteristics.

 

Genetic engineering should be allowed, but only under very specific, carefully regulated conditions. It's risky, this stuff, and people shouldn't fool around with it. Take Enrico Fermi, Einstein, and Curie. They played with the wrong things and you can see what happened.

[SkepticLance]

GE misused has the power to cause real problems. The worst would be if it was used in bio-warfare. We have a case already where a mouse-pox virus was engineered and the relatively benign virus became a very lethal killer of mice. To do the same to smallpox could create something able to kill humans by the billion.

 

However, I really cannot see any way to stop governments applying GE to bio-warfare. I am cynical enough to doubt that governments abide by international treaties, either. I suspect the treaties just drive the research underground, to make it even more secret.

 

However, I think we have to leave bio-warfare out of this discussion. Talking about that is like asking if nuclear fission is useful, and concentrating the discussion on the A bomb.

 

Outside of bio-warfare, I believe GE will be a great boon to humankind. It is in its infancy now. The earliest modified crops are just 12 years old. Most such crops to data have been made by commercial companies and used to make money, with the other benefit being to make life a little easier for farmers.

 

The irony is that the few crops engineered for altruistic reasons have been scuppered by the anti-GM mob, who claim their main thrust is to fight against multi-national corporations. Thus, golden rice (vitamin A enriched) which could save literally millions of human lives, has never left the laboratory, since the anti-GM mob have successfully lobbied various governments to stop its release.

 

If we can only stop that kind of idiocy, then GE can be a great boon.

[Rev Blair]

Golden rice didn't really have much vitamin A in it though...not enough to do what it claimed to do...and there was a risk of it pushing out other kinds of rice. Lack of genetic variation is already becoming a problem with rice and corn, and people are rightly concerned as a result. That kind of monoculture leaves us open to world-wide crop failures.

 

I don't think that's a reason to ban GE crops, but it does mean that they have to be carefully managed. Our present economic and political models simply aren't designed for that.

[Mr Skeptic]

Golden rice didn't really have much vitamin A in it though...

 

Keep in mind that unlike some vitamins, Vitamin A can accumulate in the body to toxic levels. The golden rice does show an impressive aspect of GM -- we may be able to make plants which have all the required vitamins, which would be a boon to those suffering from malnutrition in poor countries.

[SkepticLance]

Golden rice is now in its Mark II version, which has enough beta carotene to supply a child with vitamin A at levels preventing disease. The genes for this can be cross bred into any number of rice varieties, maintaining genetic variability. The anti-GM mob are still working hard to ban this variety, and hence condemn 500,000 children each year to death.

 

There is now a food crisis under way. Waiting in the wings to make this much worse is a new form of stem rust which attacks wheat. Current wheat varieties cannot resist this disease, and many millions of people could die of starvation due to crop losses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/opinion/26borlaug.html?_r=2&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

 

We MUST breed a new strain of wheat to resist this disease, or else genetically modify wheat to achieve the same end. Millions of lives depend on it, and we cannot afford to be held back by the superstitions and dogmas of the anti-GM crowd.

[pioneer]

I like the idea of genetic manipulation in theory. But in practice, since life sciences are not fully rational, but are too dependent on statistical empiricism, there is a degree of alchemy involved. Simple things like medications typically do what they say, but often tend to have unpredictable side effects. Instead of a single chemical affecting a protein, the side affects will stem from deeper in the cells at the level of the DNA, without any preliminary requirement of cause and affect predictions, until after the fact. They are turning lead into gold, but many of these attempts will find out later it was just gold plated. We need to be real about the limitations of alchemy. But even the alchemists were able to hit home runs here and there, so we can't fully dismiss this approach.

 

Most of those who are concerned are deemed irrational. But the reality is the pot calling the kettle black, calling empirical alchemy a rational science. Maybe the theory is not advanced enough to move into reason. But even a gambler has winning streaks using the laws of statistics. There will be those days we need to keep our eyes open for.

[SkepticLance]

Re alchemy

 

In the 1950s and 1960s crops were modified by mutation. The gene plasm was exposed to radiation or to mutagenic chemicals. Thousands of different mutations resulted, and the crops that were grown from these were tested and weeded out until only beneficial (to humans) mutations remained.

 

Dozens of these mutant crops are still being grown, to the benefit of the entire human species. I would suggest that THIS approach was alchemy, not GM. Random mutation carries the risk of unpredictable results, much more so than using known genes.

 

Today, a small number of genes are routinely inserted into various plants. The results are generally well predicted, since these are well known genes, with well tested effects. Even so, the final result undergoes safety tests by the hundreds before being permitted to become part of our normal agriculture.

 

Do you call this alchemy?