4. A transgenic houseplant that efficiently removed odors such as
hydrogen
sulfide from the air.

No. We don't have hydrogen sulfide in the UK

Steve Harris

Depends how much cabbage one has eaten!
--
Drakanthus.


(Spam filter: Include the word VB anywhere in the subject line or emails
will never reach me.)

Stephen Howard wrote:

On Wed, 14 May 2003 02:56:56 GMT, wrote:

Thanks for all of your responses, pro and con. All responses to my
questions help me compile useful statistics.

I will respond to some of your questions and comments.

First, many of your comments seem to come from a perspective of belief in
traditional farming practices, combined with fear and distrust of scientific
agriculture. I would point out that, at one time all of these old
technologies were new and untested. Selection and mass planting of
cultivars has generally been benign, but there are examples of traditional
crop plants that have had negative ecological effects. The near extinction
of wild relatives of rice due to gene flow from crops in Taiwan is an
example.

Secondly, several responders have stated that genetically modified plants
will lead to ecological disaster. On what basis is this alarm raised? The
primary ecological effect of GM plants to date has been the decreased
pollution with pesticides of groundwater under BT cotton fields. Please
document your accusations.

There you go then - if it's possible for mankind to make a right royal
screw-up by simply "pick 'n mixing" natural varieties, how much
greater is the potential for disaster by forcibly fooling about at the
genetic level.
Clearly there are many interactions that we do not yet understand.

That there may be no documentary evidence of ecological disasters with
regard to genetic modifications as yet doesn't preclude the potential
for an incident.
Whom do we trust - x million years of evolution, or some geezer in a
lab clutching a degree?

Hear hear!

Several good points raised. There are plus and minuses.. I do not
think that GM is required for effective food production.. There have
been MANY negative cases on ecology.. Problems with natural polinators
are just one effect. Escaped 'GE' plants that are resistant to
herbicides are another.

I have mixed grounds on GE for medical purposes. Morally I personally
live on a knife edge when it comes to criticising companies with a
questionable representative such as Novartis (a very large agropharm
chem company), Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz etc as I rely on several of their
products to stay alive. if they didn't exisit in the medical world,. I
would be wormfood.

That said their drive for profit is at times hard to believe.

Just my 2 cents

//
JW

"Perrenelle" wrote in message
news:TWXva.824960$L1.238840@sccrnsc02...
Please help out a researcher studying useful applications of transgenic
plants by answering three simple questions below.

The reason behind this questionnaire is to determine whether genetically
modified household and garden plants would be accepted by gardeners.
Please
reply either to the newsgroup or to me directly.

Would you purchase the following genetically modified plants? Assume that
the price of the plant was reasonable. Please specify which you would be
interested in, if any.

1. A flowering houseplant (for example a scented geranium) modified to
produce three times more aroma than regular flowers.
I would buy
I would not buy it

2. A transgenic indoor ivy that removed toxic chemicals from household air
100 times better than regular plants.
I would buy
I would not buy it

3. A genetically modified blue rose.
I would buy
I would not buy it

4. A transgenic houseplant that efficiently removed odors such as hydrogen
sulfide from the air.
I would buy
I would not buy it

Thanks for your help!

Perrenelle


1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No

Something tells me that sooner or later nature will turn around and bite us
on the bum for being so ignorant of her ways!
L

"Tim wrote in message
Bob wrote:

: I would be interested BUT only if these plants were also made sterile,
: as all GM plants should be.

That's the luddite position.

I don't think it will last - in the future most probably all living things
will be "transgenic".
--

Thanks for that, I'm therefore proud to be a "Luddite".
Better than being responsible for the GM parsley fiasco in France, the GM
Sweetcorn pollen fiasco in the UK. I wouldn't mind if it was an exact
science but it isn't, even those doing it can't be certain about the outcome
as the introduced gene often causes other dormant genes to react.
I for one don't think we are knowledgeable enough yet to use GM outside the
lab.

--
Bob

www.pooleygreengrowers.org.uk/ about an Allotment site in
Runnymede fighting for it's existence.

In article , "Sue & Bob Hobden"
wrote:

"Tim wrote in message
Bob wrote:

: I would be interested BUT only if these plants were also made sterile,
: as all GM plants should be.

That's the luddite position.

I don't think it will last - in the future most probably all living things
will be "transgenic".
--

Thanks for that, I'm therefore proud to be a "Luddite".
Better than being responsible for the GM parsley fiasco in France, the GM
Sweetcorn pollen fiasco in the UK. I wouldn't mind if it was an exact
science but it isn't, even those doing it can't be certain about the outcome
as the introduced gene often causes other dormant genes to react.
I for one don't think we are knowledgeable enough yet to use GM outside the
lab.

Oh, they're certain of the outcome. The outcome is POWER and PROFITS.
They'll control all the primary methods we have for feeding ourselves &
profit by every mouthful we bite. When it goes all wrong, the profiteers
will never have to pick up the costs of cleaning up after themselves, &
won't be the ones left in the dust starving.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

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

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?

Janet.

On Wed, 14 May 2003 10:42:09 +0100, Someone who spammed me
wrote:



paghat wrote:
In article , "Kat" wrote:


"Vox Humana" wrote in message
. ..

[...]


Well, they ARE banned in Leviticus.

-paghat the ratgirl


Yes - but what isn't?

Interestingly (and disgustingly) enough, I was doing some research in
a book by a British scholar named, I think, Judith Morgan (not sure)
called "Women in the Mishnah" (Mishnah = compendium of commentaries by
the Sages on the Five Books of Moses).

Sexual relations between a whole range of blood and marriage relatives
are forbidden in Leviticus, but there is no mention of *daughters*
being forbidden. Of course this doesn't mean that daughters were
routinely raped by fathers; that would have been a cardinal sin.
Anyway that's more the style of the U.S. deep Saouth and rural France
(La Jument Verte by Marcel Ayme). But I have always wondered why
daughters were not among the "thou shalt not uncover the nakedness
of.."

Also, somebody in the "Mishnah" book was quoted as opining that it's
OK to penetrate a 3-year-old, because the hymen will regrow (and then
she will presumably be saleable).

I guess it was a man's world then, and still is in some cultures.

--

Researcher

On Wed, 14 May 2003 08:56:21 GMT, Tim Tyler wrote:

In uk.rec.gardening paghat wrote:

: I'd vastly prefer to correct the problem that caused the indoor air to be
: full of toxic chemical gasses.

Dispense with your material posessions and move to the country.

What, and breath the methane from all those cow farts?


--
Polar

On Tue, 13 May 2003 23:22:50 GMT, "Vox Humana"
wrote:


"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article , "Vox Humana"
wrote:

"paghat" wrote in message
news
How about flowers with plaid blooms, keyed to specific family tartans.

Or plants that have been crossed with fireflies that produce flowers
that
glow in the dark.

Aha, you must've seen the same article about the recombinant DNA
experiments that produced living glow-in-the-dark tobacco plants, &
glow-in-the-dark mice, by splicing in firefly genetic information!! Who
says science fiction can't happen?


I didn't see it, but I guess I have an active imagination! I can just see
entire lawns flashing out Morse Code and the religious fanatics who claim
that the plants are sending obscene messages that threaten the stability of
the nuclear family.

Speaking of the nuclear family, I guess you've noticed that Dubya
wants us to start manufacturing cute little battlefield-sized nukes.
Not, of course, to be classified as WMD!!

those flashing plants, they will be obliterated by blasts from our
new death-ray satellites, as we merrily proceed to weaponize space.
Well under way, as I am told...




--
Polar

"Sue & Bob Hobden" expounded:

I would be interested BUT only if these plants were also made sterile, as
all GM plants should be. (yes it precludes any fruiting plants)
Sweetcorn has to be the most dangerous plant to try GM on and is an
indication of the stupidity of the scientists/bean counters involved.
With sterility there is no chance of a cross escaping into the real world.
The thought that it may be my plant that contaminates the world is
horrendous.

I received a link to a newsletter about organic foods and all related
subjects: http://www.organicconsumers.org/organicbytes.htm . I
printed out each one and am reading them now. Scary stuff.

--
Ann, Gardening in zone 6a
Just south of Boston, MA
********************************

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.

There you go then - if it's possible for mankind to make a right royal
screw-up by simply "pick 'n mixing" natural varieties, how much
greater is the potential for disaster by forcibly fooling about at the
genetic level.
Clearly there are many interactions that we do not yet understand.

The difference being that "pick-n-mix" cross breeding transfers any number
of unknown genes, whereas a GM organism would have only a very few, well
known, genes transfered.
The difference between the sledge-hammer and scalpel approaches. Which one
is best ?
Tim.

Speaking of the nuclear family, I guess you've noticed that Dubya
wants us to start manufacturing cute little battlefield-sized nukes.
Not, of course, to be classified as WMD!!

those flashing plants, they will be obliterated by blasts from our
new death-ray satellites, as we merrily proceed to weaponize space.
Well under way, as I am told...

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993414


And the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (nuclear "bunker buster")? yes, and
of course it doesn't fall under the nuclear proliferation treaty as it's
not a new weapon rather an "upgrade" to an existing one. Bit of a dodgy
argument there if you ask me.
[http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993016]

Tim.

On Thu, 15 May 2003 10:56:30 +0200, Tim
wrote:


There you go then - if it's possible for mankind to make a right royal
screw-up by simply "pick 'n mixing" natural varieties, how much
greater is the potential for disaster by forcibly fooling about at the
genetic level.
Clearly there are many interactions that we do not yet understand.

The difference being that "pick-n-mix" cross breeding transfers any number
of unknown genes, whereas a GM organism would have only a very few, well
known, genes transfered.
The difference between the sledge-hammer and scalpel approaches. Which one
is best ?

You see...there it is again... 'any number of unknown genes'.
Precisely my point. If there are 'unknown genes' then there are
unknown properties.

Ever tried crossing a Leek with a Honeysuckle? Had any success?
Most likely not, because somewhere down the line evolution said
'uh-huh, no can do'.

It's interesting that you regard the incredible intricacies of natural
selection as being akin to a 'sledgehammer approach'. I rather feel
that nature's methods make your scalpel look like a blunt sword.

Nature builds on balance - this is why folks who consistently use
pesticides get locked into using them, they create their own
imbalances. Nature doesn't stop working simply because mankind pitches
in with a few crude attempts at tipping the scales - if you leave a
hole, nature will fill it... and not necessarily to your advantage.
Without those unknown genes, how many holes will you create, and what
will fill them?

Regards,



--
Stephen Howard - Woodwind repairs & period restorations
www.shwoodwind.co.uk
Emails to: showard{whoisat}shwoodwind{dot}co{dot}uk

Xref: kermit rec.gardens:227214 uk.rec.gardening:142682

In uk.rec.gardening Polar wrote:
: On Wed, 14 May 2003 08:56:21 GMT, Tim Tyler wrote:
:In uk.rec.gardening paghat wrote:

:: I'd vastly prefer to correct the problem that caused the indoor air to be
:: full of toxic chemical gasses.
:
:Dispense with your material posessions and move to the country.

: What, and breath the methane from all those cow farts?

They're better for you than those car exhaust fumes - but if they bother
you, I understand there's still cheap land on the west coast of Scotland.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/