Genetic modification

[The_simpsons]

I wonder if this has been done so far, if not, is it today possible/conceivable?

Im talking about engineering plants for producing secondary metabolites. Like, for example transplanting genes from a coca plant (the ones responsible for cocaine synthesis), and transfer it to say, a dandelion. So is it possible to make, say a dandelion, to produce cocaine today?

Or for example a more useful metabolite such as taxol, cocaine was just a example, even though the idea of a genetically engineered fastgrowing weed producing expensive cocaine sounds tempting:P.

[SkepticLance]

Yes. Definitely possible in theory. Though it may not always be easy.

 

A similar thing was done with golden rice. A gene was taken from a weed, and transferred into rice, making a type of rice that manufactured beta carotene, which is converted in the body to vitamin A. The new rice was tinted slightly yellow giving it the name 'golden rice'.

[Vlad007]

Why would it not be possible? All we have to do is find a way to do so. though it may take a very long time to do so, i think that eventually humans will find a way and screw us all.

[SkepticLance]

To Vlad

 

Why do you think it has to be a disaster?

Humans have had the A-bomb for 60 years now, and have used it in anger only twice, at the very beginning. Though there are idiot politicians in this world who are very aggressive to other nations (I have not used the Bush word), most are sensible enough to avoid anything that causes widespread damage. GM will be far more value than harm, in my very humble opinion.

[Vlad007]

Why? Because we are changing what nature intended. look at how we used coal. Wonderful effects on the planet, right? Everything that we have made that has changed nature, we had destroyed something, and changing our genes is changing something big.

[iNow]

If nature did not "intend" that we could modify genes, then how come we were able to figure it out while ourselves being part of nature? Arbitrary and non-relevant are your speculations on nature's intentions...

 

We are part of nature.

We can modify genes.

 

IF (and that's a monster if that is far from valid) nature could be described as having intentions, then clearly the intentions led us to have the knowledge and abilities we do (but, nature doesn't have intentions, so really your post was moot).

[Vlad007]

that's my point. we CAN modify genes, i'm just saying that in the process, we will screw up a lot of people...

[SkepticLance]

I totally agree with iNow.

 

Humans are not idiots. Or at least the scientists are not (mostly) idiots. We learn. We learned to make pesticides biodegradable. We learned to avoid chlorinated phenols. We learned not to use the A-bomb. We already know to treat GM with a degree of caution, and we have been using it for 12 years on a massive scale with no significant problems.

 

New technology is mostly a blessing to the human species. It has led to us having the longest average lifespan of any time in our history, and the greatest health and vigor. It gives us food on the table, and the ability to travel and communicate world wide, leading to the most intellectually rich period of our history. We aint about to stop now, and life is set to become even richer.

[Vlad007]

I agree with most of the things you are saying. I'm just saying that in the process of finding a way to modify genes, we are going to mess up a lot of people... especially our first few experiments.

[antimatter]

It's all speculation, and most importantly; opinion. You can be skeptical and pessimistic, and think that we're going to make a horrible mistake, or you can be more optimistic in human nature. I think we have learned from our large quantity of mistakes, and really there's not all that much room for error if we do our 'homework'.

There's a Stephen King story sort of like this called The Jaunt. If we really put in effort into figuring out what we can do right, and wrong, there shouldn't be all that many (if any) mistakes.

[Vlad007]

Well, i think that it might be able to go both ways, but QUAZAR? sorry...that was Ben...anyway... i think that it will go to the screwed side rather than the incredible super people side.

[antimatter]

No one said anything about 'super people'...

[TransomicAves]

Vlad,

We don't need GE to "screw a lot of people", I think we are doing a pretty good job of that even without GE. But on the lighter side of things, the possibilities Biotech will open is limitless. Look at what it already did for Diabetics - due to Insulin production, millions now survive & live a normal life. And next we'll have Potent Dandelions ! =>

[Vlad007]

Omfg. How many times do I have to say this... I think that we could very possibly do very well with genetic modification. I'm just saying that there is also a large % error, and if we do screw up, we will have big problems.

[jimmydasaint]

IMHO, the real problem is not with the technology which can solve food shortage problems or with the intentions of the scientists involved, it is with the greed of Biotechnology companies. If you can engineer crops that can grow in conditions of drought or in a nutrient-poor environment but do NOT produce seeds, you have a population of dependent poor farmers who will be forced to pay you annually just to stay alive. I think the ethics of genetic modifications of crops are questionable at the level of the companies and the Governments who use it as a means of social control.

[SkepticLance]

jimmy

That is just plain paranoid.

Our whole economic system is based on greed, and it works well because of that greed. Biotechnology companies are no different to any other company. The antidote to greed, where it gets out of hand, is well policed and appropriate government legislation. If there is a problem with biotech companies, then it is due to lousy laws and lousy policing.

[ecoli]

jimmy

That is just plain paranoid.

Our whole economic system is based on greed, and it works well because of that greed. Biotechnology companies are no different to any other company. The antidote to greed, where it gets out of hand, is well policed and appropriate government legislation. If there is a problem with biotech companies, then it is due to lousy laws and lousy policing.

 

I'd like to add an informed judicial system that knows how to interpret those laws. But yes, you're right on.

[Vlad007]

Haha. are you kidding me? If things are lousy because of bad laws and bad rules, then stupid people are idiots because of the government. what you just said makes no sense whatsoever...

 

Unless you are just talking about biotech companies. then it makes a little sense. But also, then when people make bad decisions at the biotech factories, then is it blamed on the government?

[SkepticLance]

Vlad

 

That is not what I said.

Our system is based on greed, which is restrained by regulation, policing and the justice system. Nothing is ever perfect, and politics, when it is good, consists to a large degree of refining systems to improve them. In that sense, things can always be made better. However, that does not mean things are really bad to start with - just imperfect.

 

A lot of it is an attempt to achieve balance. We have companies (all kinds - not just biotech) trying to gain an advantage in the marketplace, and looking for legal loopholes to do so. Government finds out about these loopholes and plugs them, and the companies look for others. It is a kind of arms race. Nothing is perfect, but that does not suggest that things are corrupt or rotten either. My own view is that, compared to any other time in history, things overall are pretty good.