Transgenic technology

[darkstar]

If this hasn’t already been repeated elsewhere, I wouldn’t mind getting a lively discussions going on the pros and cons of GM technology.

The strongest issues for abandoning this technology IMO:

Multinational Company’s use of this technology to further there own benefit, regardless of implications.

Multinational Company’s control of aquaculture

Increased use of unsustainable farming practices, eg round up ready crops.

“Unknown factor” we just don’t know what could happen, and related escape of transgenetic DNA into the wild.

That it is so powerful that abuse could leads to devastating results.

The strongest issues for furthering the development of this technology IMO:

Its just a development of selective breeding and hybridisation technology.

Could see development of environmentally friendly crops.

The technology is more “natural” in a biological sense than many other current technologies.

That GM organisms could survive a “technology collapse” and still help improve living conditions. (As in a

car is no good if the petrochemical industry no longer exists, but a horse is)

I would just love to hear what you have to say on the matter

[Hagakure]

i am pro GM but think rigorous testing is always required.

what i find the scariest is the level of knowledge people opposing it have. (not all of them by any means but the majority)

you get comments like "you'll never catch me eating genes"

i think some environmental minister said something to that effect recently.

the thing about this technology is it is so powerful it can be very good or very bad.

with proper regulations we can fix a lot of problems.

i think the regulations present at the moment are fairly adequate.

[woof woof woof]

I second that HagaK!

stressing on rigorous testing. And as much isolation to prevent genes crossing over too much.

[ramon]

i think the regulations present at the moment are fairly adequate.

I think the regulations at the momment are woefully inadequate.

The GM companies have already seen to it that they are not legally responsible for any unintended consequences. Therefore they stand to keep all the profit they make, but if they end up fucking up the enviroment we all end up paying the cost not the GM company.

Not a wise way to ensure a company will behave in a enviromentally friendly manner, I think.

I agree that GM has huge potential but I think it should be contained in a similar manner to the way they work with the worst infectious diseases.

When we more fully understand the technology ( 20 years or so ) then we should be able to decide whether we realease this into our enviroment or not

[darkstar]

Pro GM examples I have heard about:

The example of insulin producing E. coli replacing the harvesting of pig or bovine insulin is one of the good examples of a life saving application of GM that is safer for the consumer than conventional technology. The old method was inefficient and lead to a “dirty” product that was often harmful to the consumer.

Golden rice a GM crop that produces has far more beta-carotene, and can fight malnutrition in borderline communities.

And a whole bunch of crops able to grow / reclaim land wrecked by salination.

Any one see a potential application of GM pets, the “glow fish” is the current example that I’ve heard about. Not likely to tern up is OZ any time soon, due to very tough laws that only multinational companies can cut through all that red tape to get a GM crop/animal approved. And there seems to be no need for such animals except in research or as a novelty.

[Benzito]

I've seen the 'glowfish' at my local petshop, in Western Sydney. They are definitely in oz!

It is some form of danio, I recall, but had a name like a Knize cactus.

"DF254, glowfish" or something like that.

I just don't like the whole idea of 'playing god'. Humans must make something, somewhere extinct every day, but we want to try and create 'new' flora and fauna!

How about we keep what we have, alive, and then try and make new things?

[darkstar]

Ooops….

Well I was misinformed

[Ymir]

im currently doing my honours in genetic engineering and i'm continually frustrated by the lack of knowledge that people have on the issue!

as was mentioned earlier the "you wouldn't catch me eating genes" is actually representant of roughly 75% of the population. as an exercise for an ethics class, we had to go find some arts students and find their opinions on GM, and most of them didn't realize that ALL food contains DNA (cept twinkies which are made from love), and further they didn't think transgenic plants could be grown organically.

the safety precautions required whilst working with these plants are actually the same as working with diseases. i work in some PC2 labs and greenhouses which essentially are pressure controlled environments designed to contain and filter all air movement and ensure that not even a single grain of pollen can escape.

additionally there are numerous regulatory bodies which control the field testing of GM plants, and most of the applications are denied, only a tiny proportion are able to be field tested. the OGTR will review an entire plants relatedness to similar local species, the chance of pollination by wind, the insect profile in relation to pollination, size of rootstock, the method used to remove and destroy all traces of the crop when testing is complete etc.

the chances of a transgenic gene "escaping" from a GM plant or bacteria are additionally tiny. in fact, has there ever been a case of ANY significant gene transfer occurring between species (disregarding sexually reproducing bacteria, and proliferative plasmids) which has caused a measurable effect? not a microsatellite evolution, but a phenotypic change? Really I want to know, if anyone has any examples please post them! DNA is all the same stuff no matter the organism, and the transfer of some intronic crap will have no effect whatsoever.

check out

http://www.ogtr.gov.au/pubform/legislation.htm

http://www.ogtr.gov.au/ir/process.htm

for more info on the regulation of GM field trials

also feel free to tell me im wrong where ive made a mistake, but this is my understand of the issue so far.

whoa on re-reading this, it sounds a little nasty. it's not directed at anyone here, just a venting of frustrations which i face from time to time.

[Legba]

Ymir. please tell us what could possibly go wrong if this technology was exploited by people whose interest is profit above all else. u seem to be well informed on th subject. thanx

[Ymir]

it's true, the mentality of "anyting to make a buck" does exist, but it's not the technology that bad, it's the people using it. essentially this tech is just being exploited in the same way that big corporations have been doing for as long as they have existed. eg, develop a product that can be produced cheaper than the competitors, enter a new market, say a developing country, underwrite all competitors until they go out of bussiness, and bingo you have a monopoly and the populus is reliant upon you for your service.

companies like monsanto have developed brilliant potentially life saving products, eg rice with essential dietry vitamins to combat malnourishment, but then they have to go and F**K over real people to suck every last drop of profit from a market. i think that this tech is good enough that you dont need to destroy people to sell it! it will be bought because it's a great beneficial product! once again, a great new idea, exploited by humans.

in terms of actually generating an exploitative product, i dunno. they recently discovered a herbicide resistant, drought resistant, frost resistant, highly proliferative strain of coca in south america. the south american gov has been trying to minimise the spread and thus abuse of this plant, but is stumped as to how to remove this "super" strain. so it's been sugested that it was genetically engineered by an unscroupulous scientist with funding from a cartel.

theres no real benefit in creating a "super" strain of wheat or corn or whatever tho cause all that will happen, it rapid growth, soil depletion, death, no more plants. there has to be a competetive adventage for an organism to survive. a lot of biowepons people couldn't understand why their lovely bugs kept losing their pathogenicity, (they kept turning out harmless). it turned out to be that being extra deadly was not an advatage and so they simple stopped being toxic, there was no advantage gained by being pathogenic, and so their less pathogenic bretherin out competed them and took over.

i honestly think that GM tech is a great innovation with numerous beneficial applications, but humans as always are the weakest link.

[Ymir]

i suppose if you were really really cold hearted you could genetically modify a plant to express all of the required proteins to create an addictive product, eg nicotine.

then simply grow addictive apples. people wouldn't be able to get through the day without eating some of your delicious product. they would wake up and bite into that satisfying first apple of the day, and eat apples after great sex with their partners, and potentially never know what suddently started the apple craze of 2005.

im not sure if this is even technically possible yet, it's not as simple as all that, but with the propper research by a big corp, it may eventualy occur. we may all be slaves yet.

[Legba]

lol. thanx Ymir. dont tell apo about th apple. he'll try and smoke it :D

ok. i agree with gm in principle. i disagree in practice. i dread what it may lead to and i don't think there's anything that can stop it, unless the earths poles move 12-15 degrees in the year 2012, or thereabouts.

i believe this universal law applies here... "Shit Happens"

[MrBumpy]

Ymir : you don't need trangenics to create a nicotine containing fruit... it already can be done by grafting... haven't you heard of tomacco? http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,6...tw=wn_tophead_3

-bumpy

[Ymir]

thats fantastic! now if only we can mass produce it.....the poor fools!

MUHAHAHA!

[Darklight]

GM topics have def been posted before but it was a while ago and a new thread won't hurt

im currently doing my honours in genetic engineering and i'm continually frustrated by the lack of knowledge that people have on the issue!

This is the classic discrepancy between science and ethics. Scientific research in almost all fields has now progressed beyond the point where most people can understand the ethical implications in time to negotiate appropriate uses for the technology. This is no justification for leaving decision making to elites of any kind, but the present system of commercial use dictating the pace and direction of progress is in desparate need of change, and it's an elite of its kind as well. I offer no solution to this, cos I don't have any.

Specialists in most fields are always moaning that no-one understands the significance of their work. Yes, the general population is woefully uninterested in understanding processes that shape our future- but how much knowledge is enough to make informed choices in so many areas? What does it hurt to wait and understand better- not just the science but the overall human impact of such work?

the safety precautions required whilst working with these plants are actually the same as working with diseases. i work in some PC2 labs and greenhouses which essentially are pressure controlled environments designed to contain and filter all air movement and ensure that not even a single grain of pollen can escape.

Well that's the theory anyhow. Practice is remarkably different. I have worked in PC2 facilities, and while the ones I was working in were good and almost acceptable by my standards, I heard some horror stories from workers in other facilities- rats running in and out, and pest infestations unchecked in PC2 glasshouses, backdating and backfilling of records to cover arses etc. These may well have been corrected in those facilities by now, but what level of lack of compliance is sufficient to let which amount of acceptable levels of modified material to escape in the environment- especially once its too late. If this is first world compliance, how can we expect countries where facilities are at a premium ( I'm thinking China and India, both heavily invest in biotech, but any other poor and densely populated country is a prime candidate too )

The technology is so old now that patents are expiring for things like biolistics guns and you can pick up plans for them online. It's not backyard tech- yet, but its close. Which regulatory body is going to be able to keep up in the future?

additionally there are numerous regulatory bodies which control the field testing of GM plants, and most of the applications are denied, only a tiny proportion are able to be field tested. the OGTR will review an entire plants relatedness to similar local species, the chance of pollination by wind, the insect profile in relation to pollination, size of rootstock, the method used to remove and destroy all traces of the crop when testing is complete etc.

I'm seeing national news reports where genetic contamination exists several years beyond field testing in at least one crop. No I don't have an URL but google prolly does, and it's news only, I haven't chased up references to it, but that doesn't mean it can be discounted.

And pollen contam isn't the only problem- Gm gets in the food chain as well, while its growing and as a result of any genetic contamination residual to testing and production. I lack the knowledge ( but who can say for certain ) as to long term environmental effects, but where the genetic material is patented, any trace of it in future crops can, I believe, result in legal action.

Not to mention the effects on hard pressed local populations who are dependent on their saved seed as a cheap source for future crops. Jacking in to the GM habit, even once it's kicked, could result in a loss of those resources where genetic contamination has taken place and precious seed stock confiscated during legal action.

the chances of a transgenic gene "escaping" from a GM plant or bacteria are additionally tiny. in fact, has there ever been a case of ANY significant gene transfer occurring between species (disregarding sexually reproducing bacteria, and proliferative plasmids) which has caused a measurable effect? not a microsatellite evolution, but a phenotypic change? Really I want to know, if anyone has any examples please post them!

I suspect that by the time such an incident is reported and confirmed in reputable publications ( such work is unlikely to be seriously funded as there is no current commercial interest of any note when compared to pro-GM commercial interests )- it may be too late.

also feel free to tell me im wrong where ive made a mistake, but this is my understand of the issue so far.

I have concerns with the technology. The dominant one is that of the selection genes which are transferred along with the desirable expressed traits; such selection genes usually confer for roundup or antibiotic resistance, so that non-transformed tissue will not grow on media containing antibiotics/ roundup/ whatever it is. We may well be abe to justify being able to produce year round frost resistant tomatoes. But why do we need them to be antibiotic resistant? For how long do the resistance/ selection genes prevail?

I understand that Monsanto or Pharmacia or whoever they are now were working on a process to re-engineer the selection genes so that they were removed post- transformation. I have no idea how far that work has progressed or whether it was abandoned. I'm not a fan of whole plant transformation, for the reasons I've outlined above.

IMO crop GM should be sterile, to prevent transfer, no matter how theoretical. Let's face it, the starting material is never going to be as cheap so self reliance is both out of the question by the terms of the seed patent, and it would provide the best insurance any community anywhere can have against contamination of their own legitimate stocks, so it would be a marketing point as well.

In terms of GM food-as-medicine for third world communities, I have a certain amount of ambivalence, even though I approve theoretically of the idea. Most malnourished communities IMO are likely to be victims of a greater instability or inequality where the cause is better treated than the effect. Easy for me to say tho, I get enough vitamin A in my diet and I'm not reliant on my heritage lettuce seed for all my daily nutrients.

Best use of GM is for secondary metabolites for medicinal etc use IMO, where transformed material NEVER touches the ground or leaves the flask- autoclave then furnace only. And if GM needs be used at all for food crops ( really, there is enough food for all, equitable distribution, crop selection and storage are the real problems ) And there have def been problems here- Showa Denko/ l-tryptophan for example, teaches us that legislative response to process fuckups hides the problem rather than addressing the real issue of responding to inevitable human error

whoa on re-reading this, it sounds a little nasty.

Not to me cob But it does proselytise a bit, but so do I

Edited October 26, 2005 by Darklight

[Hagakure]

responding to darklight's post

the PC2 labs i have encountered have been pretty strict.

i think non adherrance to the rules doesnt really come into this debate.

that is a law enforcement issue.

besides lets say we treated GMOs like regular plants. how often do the wheat, arabidopsis whatever plants start growing outside of their fields enough to be a threat. pollen may be an issue but most GMOs are targetted to mitochondrial or choloroplastic plasmids which are degraded and not in pollen.

the chances of a transgenic gene "escaping" from a GM plant or bacteria are additionally tiny. in fact, has there ever been a case of ANY significant gene transfer occurring between species (disregarding sexually reproducing bacteria, and proliferative plasmids) which has caused a measurable effect? not a microsatellite evolution, but a phenotypic change? Really I want to know, if anyone has any examples please post them!

I suspect that by the time such an incident is reported and confirmed in reputable publications ( such work is unlikely to be seriously funded as there is no current commercial interest of any note when compared to pro-GM commercial interests )- it may be too late.

im sorry but that is pushing it way too far darklight.

the odds of a gene jumping from a plant like rice to another species is incredibly small. the whole gene (say 2000 bp) needs to be selected and transferred in its entirety from a total genome of 460,000,000 bp for rice.

assuming some method of transferral exists the gene then needs to be inserted into a functional part of the next species genome with a functional promoter etc.

the only methods of gene transferral i can imagine are through viruses mistakingly packaging host DNA which they then infect next host with. Odds of this being anything of a risk as far as GM is concerned is tiny.

and there would definately be funding and interest for research of gene transferral - you can be sure of that

i want to writte some more on this but am pressed for time

will come back to this later

[Ymir]

nice post Darklight, it's true specialists do moan a lot along the lines of "nobody understands what we're trying to do here" but really....its kinda true. havn't you ever said:

"well today i was cloning some plants.."

and they've interupted with:

"huh! cloning! insnt that bad!"

using cloning as if it's a dirty word. i think that there is a real lack of understanding about genetic and molecular science in general, and with good reason, it's kinda tricky to learn it. i think that genetics has become abit of a negative buzz word, particularly because of the poor procedures carried out by lazy people, eg rats in the PC2 lab, and the residual antibiotic resistant genes let over from selection. these problems can be overcome with vigilance, however it remains that the actual science itself is sound, it's just the practical application of it by flawed humans which leads to trouble.

it's a real shame that many big corps use GM to exploit people, eg saving seed, but this isnt a problem with the science, its the fact that people are greedy and callous.

i still believe that the tech itself is good, but its application is currently in the hands of "anything for a buck" individuals.

[darkstar]

I know this is a bit off topic, but I think its valid if taken in the context of this discussion:

The fear of some unknown evil that will be inflicted to the environment or to humans (really what it mostly boils down to) by the “escape” of an artificial gene construct, is negligible compared to the Known, well understood and dangers of “natural” (I use this term lightly) mutable antibiotic resistance that is right now being breed into pathogens by overuse of antibiotics.

And that’s a direct result of human stupidity, “antibiotics in everything” attitude. Almost all (I would say all, but I don’t clam to know every example) antibiotic resistant genes are just borrowed from these organisms.

But this issue receives none of the publicity of the evils of GM

[Darklight]

havn't you ever said:

"well today i was cloning some plants.."

and they've interupted with:

"huh! cloning! insnt that bad!"

Nah, they usually think I'm cloning pot. And when they find out I don't, they ask me if I wouldn't mind cloning theirs. Mind you most ppl around here are familiar with the concept, there's a lot of gardening goes on around here

i think that there is a real lack of understanding about genetic and molecular science in general, and with good reason, it's kinda tricky to learn it.

I've always wanted to better understand genetics, I have only the vaguest grasp of the topic

i think that genetics has become abit of a negative buzz word, particularly because of the poor procedures carried out by lazy people, eg rats in the PC2 lab, and the residual antibiotic resistant genes let over from selection. these problems can be overcome with vigilance,

I'm not certain if we can ever totally account for ending human laziness or even general fallibility.

But also I've met ppl from all walks of life, including well qualified biologists, who aren't comfortable with the social and environmental implications of GM. I've even met a few ppl who were working on GM who aren't impressed by the ramifications, but they like the labwork and playing with the pretty toys. There are a few good reasons to have such reservations on an ethical issue so a spectrum of opinion is not surprising

however it remains that the actual science itself is sound, it's just the practical application of it by flawed humans which leads to trouble.

I def agree with you there.

it's a real shame that many big corps use GM to exploit people, eg saving seed, but this isnt a problem with the science, its the fact that people are greedy and callous.

i still believe that the tech itself is good, but its application is currently in the hands of "anything for a buck" individuals.

Yep, that's what I meant by a growing lag between an understanding of ethical implications and the application of new technologies

Thanks for your excellent thread though, its good to have this discussed on both sides

[darkstar]

"such selection genes usually confer for roundup or antibiotic resistance, so that non-transformed tissue will not grow on media containing antibiotics/ roundup/ whatever it is."

"But why do we need them to be antibiotic resistant?"

Darklight you Answered your own question!

The need to select one transformed cell out of millions is the reason antibiotic resistance genes are used; once the transformed cell is selected there is nothing that can be done about removing the antibiotic resistance gene.

Biota (I think) has used a enzyme that brakes down a disaccharide (sugar-sugar) that plants normally can’t use, so when Cell Culturing (heterotrophic growth) that sugar only is used the media as a carbon source, as a selectable marker, instead of a antibiotic resistance gene.

And I bet you that they have patented it so other companies can’t do it!

"For how long do the resistance selection genes prevail?"

Theoretically forever, but in reality they’ll only hang around if the gene increases the fitness of the organism

“ANY significant gene transfer occurring between species?”

The small stuff is important as it is the only thing that can happen in the short time that we humans are alive for, I read somewhere there are eight distinct sites in the human genome that have been formed by viruses taking chunks of foreign DNA with them when they infected our hairy ancestors and now are now essential for survival, Viruses – Human’s are at opposite ends of the scope of life, and there is a lot of gene transfer going on!

The definition of different species is that they cant produce fertile offspring, so sex is out of the question , just left with viral transfer witch can only take little bits of DNA with it (about the size of most GM modifications in fact)

[Hagakure]

i think a huge amount of our genome comes from viral transfer of wrongly packaged DNA.

In no cases, however, are funcctional genes transferred. more like a chunk of random code is placed in which through other mutations may one day become a gene or something important.

antibiotic resistance is used to select for transformed cells after infection with an agrobacterium tumefacien or gold particle blasting or whatever. only cells in your culture that have incorporated your DNA will grow so you can select them and grow them into full plants.

its necessary to have some selection method and off top of my head antibiotic resistance would be most effective. i guess you could have fluroescent transformed cells, cut them out and grow them up but you would have glowing GM plants which would freak everyone out even more (though i wouldnt mind them)

that antibiotic resistance isnt a real problem. first of all the chances of a gene being inserted into another species is very rare secondly there is no selection mechanism for the transformed bacteria or whatever. the fields are not sprayed with this antibiotic and any transformed bacteria would be diluted out in the gene pool.

on the patent topic patents are the only way that this research can actually be done. if there was no patent system then corporations would keep what they find secret leading to a larger dominance of multinationals and science would slow down dramatically. Science these days is incredibly expensive. these patents pay for the science to be done and the wages of the people doing it.

and finally rats in a PC2 lab, while they may mess up the science and are just poor practice in principal, are probably no risk in terms of a large scale GM incident. Unless they were rats that had watched their master train in the art of nijitsu only to see him murdered and during the struggle with the masters assasin escape only to have their DNA altered in PC2 lab by the toxic ooze (along with four turtles of course)

[Auxin]

The definition of different species is that they cant produce fertile offspring

Since when? If thats the definition than botanists have made a huge mess of things, inter-species crosses that produce fertile offspring are pretty common.

My position on GM is quite simple:

If the theoretical ideals Ymir states are put into practice properly I'm all for genetic engenering... within reasonable moral limits of course, ie. if its used for the benefit of living beings (say, more nutritious grain or mass producing some broad spectrum anti-HIV interferons from yeast or somethin) its good :-) , things inherently conductive to suffering (breeding bio-weapons for instance) Bad :-( , neutral stuff (blue roses 20 cm wide that glow in the dark) hey, its cool too if it doesnt have the potential for harmful side effects.

[darkstar]

Since when?

"It (B.S.C) was initiated by Plato and Aristotle. These populations are stable, e.g., horses remain horses over many generations. And they are distinct, a cat can produce fertile offsprings only with other cats, but not with dogs. This stability and distinction suggests to consider cats and dogs as clearly distinct entities."

"For a long time, ornithologists almost universally used the biological species concept (BSC). This definition of "species" is based on species being reproductively isolated from each other."

But yes in a way the idea of a species is something that we humans invented for our own convenience, biu IMO that line of thought is unproductive as most concepts only exist for our need to communicate, (as in its all good to debate species being a flawed concept till you need to tell a toxic species from a edible one then all of a sudden you need to accept it and use it)

Give me Examples of reproductively viable hybrids!

[darkstar]

Oh and I almost forgot, natural selection leading to the idea of evolution kind of chucked a spanner in the works as species are no longer thought of as stable but constantly changing (the birth of modern biology), in a way this further supports / justifies the use of GM.

[Rev]

My answer is that the public are too stupid and have too short attention spans to regulate this technology

likewise the ones peddling it are also too stupid and are too corrupt to be entrusted with it

look i do have a soft spot for my species but really lets be honest! we are limited by out universal faults

we are not as proven by our track record capable of managing things as dangerous and complex as this

greed, self interests, denial, politics, secrecy. delusional cosmologies, laziness, diversion

all these things..

and all the safeguards in the world wont help cos its the weak link that always lets us down

some lab assistant not washing hands

some bungled corporate robbery or political act of vandalism allowing organisms to escape

or 2 dimensional scientists who only know their speciality and are dumber than the layman in another equally relevant field

and so on

i think GM is better put away than played with. Humans are just the wrong animal to be playing with it