On 12 Aug 2003 12:18:37 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Mooshie peas wrote:
On 10 Aug 2003 10:34:31 GMT, Brian Sandle
posted:

Our scientists have not been able to make many important parts for the
human body as an alternative to getting them from human donors. I don't
see how they can keep up with the constant change of life's genome, the
fluidity and ecology needed for health, even in cotton.

They are making great strides in human tissue growth, I believe.

I know they have been culturing an infant foreskin into lots of
square meters of skin in USA, which may be a reason why circumcision
has been held on longer in USA. I think the infant donates but I
suspect the culturer gets well paid.

Is that all you know about?

It is shown by the biotech slump.

That shows the fickleness of the stock market gamblers.

They have given it a fair go.

Biotech century ending?
[...]
Sorry, I always distrust those with an axe to grind. The science comes
off second best, IME.


This miniseries charts the further collapse of the biotech empire,
particular in the supposedly `highly lucrative' biomedical sector
since the latter part of 2000. It is now desperately grasping for
support from the taxpayer by hyping genetics and bio-defence. Don't be
fooled.

[...]
MRC Acknowledges GM Food Risks

Sorry, I always distrust those with an axe to grind. The science comes
off second best, IME.

The more advanced science people are pointing out that the
technologists are risky.

They've got something nasty and contagious?

Now here is topic we have argued about recently. You haqve been
trying to say that the use of antibioitc resistance genes is oh so
safe, based on your faulty `central doctrine'. You think you know
better than the MRC?

Using antibiotics is even riskier. It's all to do with cost/benefit.


Linkname: MRC Acknowledges GM Food Risks
URL: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MRC-pr.php
size: 184 lines

[...]
The risks mentioned in the Report include the potential transfer
of antibiotic resistance genes into pathogens, the uptake of DNA
from GM foods by human cells or micro-organisms in the
gastrointestinal tract and more indirectly (though beyond the
scope of the report) health-related ecological disturbances
caused by the genes or dissemination of the genes. While
underplaying the transfer of GM DNA to micro-organisms and human
cells, it at least recommends further research.

It also advocates removal of antibiotic resistance genes from GM
constructs used in the production of food, but falls short of
calling for their removal in animal feed, even though there is
growing evidence that bacteria can pass from farm animals to
human beings - E. coli 0157 is a well known example.