On Wed, 14 May 2003 20:58:42 +0100, Janet Baraclough
wrote:

The message opro5uwoh1wxhha1@localhost
from Tim contains these words:

Just a question to put things in a bit of perspective. There are
thousands of different sorts of plants all growing together "out there".
What's the rate of natural gene transfer between them? Do you know of
any cases, especially any that
may have been damaging ? I don't but I'm not an expert. I'm sure
somebody must know.

Transgenic plants are not combinations of plant genes from different
plant species.

They can be. As long as they are separate species I suppose, then it
counts.
And would you be against it or for it if, say a lab introduced the gene for
a wonderful scent from one rose to another, that had resisted all cross-
breeding techniques so far ? That's even within the same species, most
likely.
Just as in nature there are so many variations to consider.


The "inter-species" issue under discussion, means genes
from completely separate species; such as corn/fish.

Do you know what a species is? The classic definition of species being
organisms that can't or don't interbreed isn't always clear-cut.
Genes from one species, either a fish or wild relative of rape, or a tomato
introduced into rape---what's the difference? It's the effect the gene has
on the new recipient of the gene. If the gene is unlikely to have no real
effect - say just make the flower smell nice (something which I wish they
could do to oilseed rape flowers, yuck), is it to be subject to the same
blanket rules as a gene that codes for herbicide resistance? What if the
plant codes for a drug that can only with great difficulty and expense be
made conventionally and that would cure or improve the lot of thousands of
children who would otherwise suffer? Would you deny them the chance to be
able to afford the treatment? I don't know either.


You don't suddenly see a clematis developing rose thorns in your garden
very often,

Exactly. Those species *don't* combine in nature. So what makes you
think that creating a transgenic rose using scorpion genes, for example,
is just like natural gene transfer?

There are organisms that are unrelated and do transfer genes - viruses and
bacteria for example - and can act as as intermediates. Or even more
simply, a normal infection. How often do you pass on genes from the common
cold to your children? (Actually that's a bad example, because the cells of
a foetus positively swarm with virus-like proteins at certain stages, that
may well be the expression of virus genes included in our DNA, so the
answer would really be "every time, probably").

No, you won't get a thorny clematis, but you might get a clamatis that's
resistant to wilt, maybe. A viable rose polen grain breaks down just as a
real clematis pollen starts tunelling through the stamen and drage a bit of
rose DNA with it...any number of scenarios. Who knows? How often does this
happen ? Is it significant to all the other mutations and changes that
occur naturally? There's a dearth of background data to enable us to make a
sensible comparison and estimate of the risks.

If genes aren't transferred in nature - why would the genes added to a GM
plant be more likely to go wild? They would be just as likely to, of
course, or just as unlikely. (mostly to closely related varietes which do
interbreed - and that will always be a problem of course, and one which
should be carefully considered by the makers, and of course, happens
frequently in nature anyway, but few people complain about that).
[There's an interesting article on the New Scientist web archive here
http://archive.newscientist.com/secu...mg17523585.700]
I hope you can access it.

Now, if you're morally against GM plants because putting a jellyfish gene
into a raddish is simply wrong then that's fine and a valid point of view
to boot, but if your objection is because you're worried about those genes
(either potentially dangerous such as those producing plant toxins, or more
benign ones) going wild and spreading (which we all should be,perhaps, or
at least concerned) then my argument is a valid one.

Sorry about this pretty long-winded responce, I just wanted to try and
raise some points that might help people see that it's not a simple black
and white case. It's all too easy to loose sight of the whole picture and
get intrenched on one side. In case you wonder which side of the fence I'm
on,I probably am stil sitting on it.
I think the technology should be very carefully controlled, and used with
cation, but I am also sure that there are times when its use may be
justified. But I would personally draw the line at long-shelf-life tomatoes
and similar. A carefully controlled plantation of sterile plants producing
a rare or expensive drug for the "good of mankind" would probably be quite
acceptable to me. Just as specialy bred bacteria and yeasts produce many
drugs already, but I don't hear a huge outcry about the dangers of them
escaping - that's only one small step away from ful scale bio-engineering.
Not to mention all the varieties of experimantal lab organisms already
being used.

Tim.