Do you Approve of Genetic Engineering?

[foodchain]

I really don’t think humanity as at a point for it to become applied, but I would go along with research as long as it stayed that way until serious understanding set in. For what its worth basic understanding of biology would point to why its a bad thing to ruin the environment but people go about such anyways; I really could care less to have genetic engineering applied in such conditions.

[dichotomy]

I think what Rev is getting at is that it’s all well and good to patent seeds, but what happens when it’s in the hands of a few multinationals? And what happens when/if all major farms are using their patented seeds?

 

The central question seems like is should be - is GM science responsible for GM related political actions? And if it is, is science responsible for regulating itself? or is politics responsible for regulating science?

 

If history is anything to go by, I think only the ones with the biggest guns can sort these types of questions out?

[Rev Blair]

My concerns are based on what GM crops mean in the real world. We aren't all going to grow another arm or get ass cancer from consuming them or anything like that. Hell, if I thought eating GM crops would grow me another arm, I'd be gobbling them down in buckets.

 

You aren't quite right about Percy Schmeiser though. According to his neighbours, and I've sat in the beer parlour with them, he worked very hard to develop his own Round Up resistant crops for years. He hadn't purchased Monsanto seed for a very long time. What appears to have happened is that some Round Up resistant seed, either from Schmeiser's bins (if you've dealt with canola in the real world, you know that there's always some left in the corners) or from passing trucks (again, if you've dealt with it in the real world, you know how easily it travels on the wind) ended up mixed with with his other seed and, because he was actively promoting anything that showed resistance to Round Up, took over.

 

Sloppy methods? Sure. Criminality? Not a chance.

 

Monsanto won the case not on Schmeiser having actively and purposely done anything wrong, but the simple presence of their gene in his crop.

 

As for Pioneer...so what. The University of Saskatchewan developed the best wheat on the planet (that'd be hard red spring) and they don't get a cut of every seed sale. The CWB helped them develop it and their reward has been constant harrassment from both Washington and the current Canadian government.

 

Those are public institutions though. No corporate profits.

 

The issue of changing the law requires going to court. Under our current system, the most likely way to do that is to break the law, then fight the charges through the court system.

 

There were about six of us who ever heard of Percy Schmeiser before his case hit the Supreme Court of Canada. Of those who pretend to be farmers in the Canadian Parliament, only about a half dozen of them have ever sat in a tractor seat for any length of time, and most of them only did so reluctantly.

 

In the last decade, Canada has lost about 5000 small farmers a year. That used to mean anybody farming less than 1000 acres, now it means anybody farming less than 5000 acres. Many, likely most, small farmers work off the farm in order to help make ends meet.

 

In the US, those numbers are even worse. Look into Willie Nelson's "tax problems" and the reason for the Farm Aid concerts to learn more about that.

 

Have a close look at the current food crisis.

 

Have a look at Paul Bremer's edicts in Iraq.

 

Have a look at aid in the developing world.

 

This all ties into GM crops, the corporations that develop and supply them, WTO policy, subsidy programs, and all the rest. It can't be attributed strictly to GM crops, but they play a large part. It's kind of nebulous, to say the least. It's certainly all interconnected.

 

It's very much a political problem...take away the political influence of the makers of the seed, make them compete on level playing field, and they'd be gone in a year. That doesn't mean that it's not a problem though.

 

Again, science loses its purity the second it even thinks about heading out the lab door.

[SkepticLance]

To Rev

 

The Percy Schmeisser case was reported world wide. I really do not care what was said in a tavern. The court found that he had broken the law by stealing a copyrighted seed. The courts had lots of resources available to establish the facts. I find myself doubting that a few guys getting drunk together could come up with more accurate data. Schmeisser has managed to turn himself into a poster boy martyr for such groups as Greenpeace. In my opinion, this is evidence for his guilt - not innocence.

 

Canada has lost 5000 small farmers per year??? So what? The future lies with large scale agriculture. Let's not get hung up on sentimentality about cottage agriculture. The world needs, and will get, the efficiencies of scale.

 

The current world food crisis devolves back to President moronic idiotic Bush junior. Plus a minor contribution from a temporary Australian drought. A year or two, a little rain in Australia, and a new President, will fix it.

[iNow]

really do not care what was said in a tavern. The court found that he had broken the law by stealing a copyrighted seed. The courts had lots of resources available to establish the facts. I find myself doubting that a few guys getting drunk together could come up with more accurate data.

 

Just to be clear, though, courts don't prove truth. They simply demonstrate which side made the better argument and was able to sway the jury. My point is crystallized when you see how many people who had been convicted of murder or rape (for example) are released from prison and completely exonerated after 20 years of them rotting in a cell.

 

I'm not arguing one way or the other, just find this point worthy of consideration here.

 

Canada has lost 5000 small farmers per year??? So what? The future lies with large scale agriculture. Let's not get hung up on sentimentality about cottage agriculture. The world needs, and will get, the efficiencies of scale.

Your condescending dismissal misses a pretty key point. This is that considering the scope of the issue, centralized and large scale agriculture cannot do it by itself. The only way it will work is if "cottage agriculture" and local growing is nurtured and assisted. While "large scale agricultre" can help with massive quantities of grains and other similar outputs, the only way people will be able to sustain themselves and their families will be to grow on their own and trade locally with other growers to supplement their needs.

 

 

The current world food crisis devolves back to President moronic idiotic Bush junior. Plus a minor contribution from a temporary Australian drought. A year or two, a little rain in Australia, and a new President, will fix it.

Well, while I can appreciate your frustration, I don't share your certainty on this, nor your localization of the problem source to just one person in a position of authority. I do hope that things improve with new leadershop, but unfortunately real solutions are not the result of hope alone... nor will they ever be achieved if we continue to misframe the issue itself.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

In relation to my 'condescending dismissal' of cottage agriculture.

 

This is partly based on our experience in NZ. In 1984 we got a new government that had little sympathy with the way farmers had been mollycoddled before that (my father was one of those farmers - a small scale dairy farmer). The new government took away all subsidies and made small scale agriculture uneconomic.

 

Farmers went bust all over the land, and others bought their farms cheap and turned them into large scale enterprises. Today, with no subsidies or financial assistance from taxpayers, New Zealand's farming industry is one of the most efficient on Earth and makes enormous amounts of money. It is the number one mainstay of our economy.

 

I am a firm believer in agriculture being forced to stand on its own feet. This requires the economy of scale. To achieve this will mean temporary pain and long term gain. There is not a hell of a lot of room in this for cottage agriculture!

[iNow]

I'm sorry to hear about the situation with your dad. Those can be very stressful and difficult to overcome. I can appreciate that.

 

Your post raised a new question in me, though, something I hadn't previously considered. If you'll permit, I'll ask it here.

 

Why DO so many farmers struggle without the availability of a subsidy? Why do so many farmers starve when withheld from the state's tit? What's going on here that makes hard work and effort not enough to stay afloat? I'm not sure anyone here knows a good answer, but I thnk it might become a *fruitful* conversation.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Economies of scale.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

 

Thanks for your comments re my Dad. He is dead now, but at the time rose to the occasion. My Dad was very intelligent, and knew an opportunity when he saw it. I won't tell you exactly what happened, but I suspect you can guess.

 

As to why so many farmers fail without subsidies. I cannot answer that for every situation. I can only tell you what I observed myself. You have heard of street smarts, no doubt. Well, there are also farm smarts .....

[Rev Blair]

The Percy Schmeisser case was reported world wide. I really do not care what was said in a tavern. The court found that he had broken the law by stealing a copyrighted seed. The courts had lots of resources available to establish the facts. I find myself doubting that a few guys getting drunk together could come up with more accurate data. Schmeisser has managed to turn himself into a poster boy martyr for such groups as Greenpeace. In my opinion, this is evidence for his guilt - not innocence.

 

The facts the court found support what I said though. They didn't find that he had purposely sought to steal Monsanto's seed, just that he was growing it and should have had it tested...sloppy methods, not criminality.

 

There is no place in the law for that though. The law says that Monsanto owns the gene and any plants or seeds that contain the gene. It doesn't address how they got there, just puts the onus on the landowner to either have Monsanto remove the offending plants, or pay Monsanto for their seed.

 

Canada has lost 5000 small farmers per year??? So what? The future lies with large scale agriculture. Let's not get hung up on sentimentality about cottage agriculture. The world needs, and will get, the efficiencies of scale.

 

It's not sentimentality though, and trying to belittle it as such shows a complete lack of understanding of the issues.

 

Farms, small scale farms, used to provide most of the world's food. They were small businesses that provided a lot of employment and they were diverse enough that we had food security at home as well as an export market.

 

Large scale agriculture tends, according to studies down in the US and Canada, to be harder on the land and to produce less money for local economies.

 

The current world food crisis devolves back to President moronic idiotic Bush junior. Plus a minor contribution from a temporary Australian drought. A year or two, a little rain in Australia, and a new President, will fix it.

 

No actually, it goes back to Droolin' Ronnie Rayguns changing the subsidy regime in the US. Instead of trying to keep prices up and subsidizing food, they pushed prices down and gave subsidies to huge agri-corps.

 

It is far more complex than you present it to be as well and includes WTO policies, increased desertification in the developing world, tied aid programs, suburban sprawl, the demise of the suburban garden, poor farming methods including the loss of mixed farming practices, and a host of other issues.

[halogirl]

i completely support genetic engineering, in fact that is the line of work i am aiming for, imagine being able to ensure that your child didn't have a specific disease.

the only part i disaprove of is determining the sex of the person.

[lucaspa]

i completely support genetic engineering, in fact that is the line of work i am aiming for, imagine being able to ensure that your child didn't have a specific disease.

the only part i disaprove of is determining the sex of the person.

 

That's one application of genetic engineering: preventing genetic diseases.

 

However, you don't "completely support" genetic engineering, because you disapprove of picking one sex over the other.

 

Let's try some other examples that you may not approve of:

1. Genetically engineering the child to be like Michael Jordan and be a great basketball player. Or genetically engineering for any enhanced capability such as strength, endurance, intelligence, etc.

2. Picking the immunological determinants so that the child will be a perfect match for you so it can donate organs to you in case you need it (a primitive example of this was done in England).

 

The world moves on, and we learn from our mistakes. There are literally thousands of types of potatoes, and many are now being introduced as breeding stock.

 

Not always. Bananas are monoclonal and, yes, we've already had one variety of bananas wiped out in the 1930s, but we went right back to using just one variety.

[SkepticLance]

Lucaspa

 

I was talking potatoes. Lets not get mixed up between potatoes and bananas.

 

As for bananas, there are large numbers of varieties there also - just one mutant that is seedless - the Cavendish variety. And even that is under threat from black Sigatoka disease. Sadly, because we cannot cross breed, lacking seeds, we are limited to GM as a means of solving this disease and saving the world banana crops. Otherwise, the only alternative is to drench the trees in fungicide.

 

A resistant GM variety is under test in Uganda.

[halogirl]

i dunno i don't think theres anything wrong with determining physical appearance or physical strength, this would maojorly change the rules of sports, but appearance would only change the people that they are attracted too. so your're right i don't fully support genetic engineering because i think that determining the sex of a person could dramatically change the ratio of different sexuality(not that its necesarily a bad thing) but at the same time it would be very reasonable to give each generation a better chance then the first, you know like " better, faster, stronger" imagine our descendants being able to learn at twice the rate we do, they would be able to discover so much more and make a truly sudden and dramatic change. this would truly be amazing so i am for genetic engineering. also it would be bad if we ensured genetic compatibility simply for organ farming, but controlling it would mean there was constant diversity.

[SkepticLance]

To halogirl

 

Controlling gender is not really genetic engineering. There are lots of ways of controlling gender, from selecting sperm to killing babies (common in China). However, it does not involve inserting or removing specific genes from the genome, and thus does not fit the thread topic.

[halogirl]

big deal, it would most likely be an option if people ever began to use genetic engineering in humans. the question is would we begin before or after conception? that would be the decisive part in deciding on the sex of the child.

[foodchain]

I imagine genetic engineering if applied like any regular commodity would quickly change from being just something used to curb disease. In fact if you look at say any particular item in America for instance or the world really the envelope is always pushed, who knows where it would end really and I have serious doubts that such is appropriate overall when compared to our level of understanding at large.

 

I do not think it would be long before the entire biosphere was "suffering" genetic engineering. Could you imagine that the pentagon would simply leave such alone, or other nations militaries? What if moral crusaders decide that certain traits are bad and start manipulating children with such? You can already see the possible downfall in regards to genetically engineered viruses. I just truly doubt that humanity really could open up genetic engineering on a common scale and not have it become a Pandora’s box is all. Human laws/thoughts are hardly absolute, there is no ability at all that you would be able to control it after the fact.

 

What if like the modern pharmaceutical industry works towards you could be born with the forever happy gene? I am hard pressed to say humans understand at large evolution or ecology to any point in which I would feel comfortable with genetics becoming applied rather then just a research basis. Most the problems we face today can be dealt with without having to invoke the genetic engineering card. One of the big problems we as a specie face is simply overpopulation and resource consumption, but then again most the time it would seem if people hold themselves above the reality that the rest of life has and continues to deal with. In the end also I seriously doubt for genetic engineering to be able to solve any of these problems really.

 

Genetics like nuclear energy is a great achievement with glorious possibilities, but the understanding or environment required to use such is something I do not think humans live in or posses really to achieve such.

[SkepticLance]

To foodchain

 

You are looking well into the future with some of the possibilities you just discussed. I am not happy trying to predict that far ahead. The whole of society will have changed, including many of our values, and the way we see the world. Perhaps the things you discuss will happen. Perhaps they won't.

 

I see that as a problem for our descendents to sort out. We should be looking instead at the things that will happen in the nearer future, since that is our particular responsibility. I do not see it as our role to mould the future for generations to come. We can only set up the opportunities and allow posterity to choose which to utilise.

 

Otherwise it is a bit like parents trying to control every facet of their childrens' lives, which we know is wrong.

[halogirl]

its true that there could be some serious repercussions along with genetic engineering,unless we came up with some kind of code that the work can be done by.

ex. (1) the control of genetic strands will have nothing to do with physical appearance.

you know something like that, this could easily prevent the repercussions you speak of.

[SkepticLance]

To halogirl

 

Why should we be paranoid about using GE to control physical appearance? God knows how many billions of dollars are spent today on mostly futile efforts to improve physical appearance. Physical appearance is clearly of paramount importance to billions of humans.

 

What harm would it do for a parent to arrange for their offspring to be born bilaterally symmetrical, and with a physiology that kept them slim? Or some other harmless feature which makes them look nicer?

[foodchain]

To halogirl

 

Why should we be paranoid about using GE to control physical appearance? God knows how many billions of dollars are spent today on mostly futile efforts to improve physical appearance. Physical appearance is clearly of paramount importance to billions of humans.

 

What harm would it do for a parent to arrange for their offspring to be born bilaterally symmetrical, and with a physiology that kept them slim? Or some other harmless feature which makes them look nicer?

 

 

 

That’s just the thing though. You have to cross over into very unscientific matters when it would come to regulating GE ultimately. Here is a question, say in America would the benefits of genetic engineering be simply for the rich? I think if you for instance could give a severe memory boost for people would that not make some people have permanently a natural advantage over everyone else? You lose all equality in that would you not? It does not sound like much but my money would be that money would try to make itself into some kind of superior race if it could, I don’t see how that would not lead to massive civil unrest, simply put a normie would never be able to really compete.

 

The idea I am trying to pass off is that you would make available the ability for say people to try and work towards the "perfect" human being, if such a thing is not merely a joke overall but it would occur. You would have that occurring, simply put as you point out its already strived for massively everyday with billions and trillions of dollars, it would take seconds for GE to get sucked into that vacuum.

 

Also its hardly like we understand exactly how the molecular basis of life works when it comes to issues like behavior. A lot of what we call perfect could simply be cultural conventions. I could hardly care less to give GE free reign in a culture that is in so many ways ripe with outright ignorance really. I think on a scale the cons are the majority by far over the pros currently.

[SkepticLance]

Re GE for beauty.

 

I think there are short term and long term outcomes here.

 

In the short term, using GE to make offspring beautiful will create inequality. In the long term it should achieve the opposite - increasing equality.

 

In the short term, GE will be expensive, and available only to the wealthier people. However, GE is permanent and passes down the generations, which means the benefits will be spread more widely, the greater the number of generations that pass.

 

Of course, the long term trend for all novel technology is that it gets cheaper with time. Thus, the benefits of GE for beauty will become more widely available as time passes, as it gets less expensive.

 

Over enough generations, most sources of ugliness will be simply eliminated from society, and we will have wonderful equality - everyone will be beautiful!

[foodchain]

Re GE for beauty.

 

I think there are short term and long term outcomes here.

 

In the short term, using GE to make offspring beautiful will create inequality. In the long term it should achieve the opposite - increasing equality.

 

In the short term, GE will be expensive, and available only to the wealthier people. However, GE is permanent and passes down the generations, which means the benefits will be spread more widely, the greater the number of generations that pass.

 

Of course, the long term trend for all novel technology is that it gets cheaper with time. Thus, the benefits of GE for beauty will become more widely available as time passes, as it gets less expensive.

 

Over enough generations, most sources of ugliness will be simply eliminated from society, and we will have wonderful equality - everyone will be beautiful!

 

Actually going from concepts like a molecular clock alone for one the GE aspect would have to be constant and incorporate itself into genetic material at a constant. Plus how do you gauge how something like that would spread out over a population density of millions and billions in the long run? Not to mention the idea that genetically modified substrates would provide a parallel environment for evolution outside of GE from the interaction with say bacteria alone.

 

You would also start to have to get into chromatin modification such as what stays eu or hetero and not only that you would have to be able to control the entire phenome in relation to any particular genome, or epigenome and epigenetic, or the entire norm of reaction bit and phenotypic plasticity, which then even gets into enzyme pathways and all the other little amino acid or molecular/cellular components of any organism. Its not gene to trait in some simple blueprint like fashion, you have to account for the dynamics of organism/environment.

 

After you do manage to beat all of this and come to be able to "program" the molecular basis of life for say a specific trait which would basically require ungodly amounts of understanding currently for say even a human subject you still have to deal with how do you even get that far, such as doing studies genetically on humans ultimately which I am sure would be guised in the beginning with "new" advances or "genes" on the market which would have all kinds of negative kickbacks as evolutionarily speaking people have died from reactions involving tooth fillings that would not kill other people.

 

After again you somehow manage to control this non static reality to a point I imagine would rival the uncertainty principal in just the physical chemistry aspect alone you still deal with having to control the outside environment perfectly so it can try to stay fixed. That’s a lot of noise to beat more so on recombination, hey you might get a resurgence of almost inbreeding though to save on costs, which would then mean more GE opportunities for growth and cash flow. It would become a wholly unscientific endeavor primarily motivated for pure cash gain.

 

I mean for the most part I think todays GE involves injecting stuff or cutting stuff out and just recording what happens really, then blasting the subject with all kinds of chemicals and recording what happens. Its hardly a perfect science.

[Mr Skeptic]

Yes, in the current state, GM is far from the point where it could effectively be used on humans. First we need to figure out how to use it properly in animals.

 

As to the "problem" of a superior human... well, that's the point. Make humanity better. And yes, it will start with the rich, but it can pass along more easily than be created. I mean, it can't be that hard to get some sperm from a rich kid. In any case, all superior genes should eventually be passed down to everyone after a few generations, even without intentionally trying to get them.

[SkepticLance]

No-one is suggesting that GE of beauty in humans can be done soon. There are heaps of traits that will have to be used. Bilateral symmetry is a good one. However, we know that these traits ARE passed on genetically (ever looked at the female offspring of Hollywood's sex goddesses?).

 

GE will be expensive and complex to begin with, but all such technologies become cheaper and easier with time. Over the next 100 years, we will see robotics, including nano scale robotics becoming common and cheap. If we cannot apply those technologies to making human GE easy, then my faith in human ingenuity is misplaced!

 

My guess is that, within 200 years, pretty much all humans will be genetically modified in ways that we currently regard as superior - better looking, better athletes, healthier, longer lived, better intelligence etc.

 

Nor do I see anything wrong with this. Why not? We are just giving everyone the genetic opportunities that are currently restricted to a favoured few. If we are to create a barrier beyond which we must not cross, perhaps we could suggest the introduction of animal genes into humans???

 

On the other hand, I can think of a fair number of alien genes that would be of great benefit. For example : a round trip to Mars would probably kill the astronauts by radiation poisoning. However, there are genes for DNA repair that would solve that problem. Is there anything wrong with making people less vulnerable?

 

At the end of the day, it is not our problem. All these, and more, will be decided by those who will not be born for decades yet.