On Thu, 15 May 2003 16:15:49 +0100, Stephen Howard
wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2003 14:19:15 +0200, Tim
wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2003 12:46:41 +0100, Stephen Howard
wrote:

In other words, nature sorts it out in its own inimitable fashion.
Ah, but it's not inimitable, is it ? That's what GE is. Imitating.

Imitating what, precisely? Whipping a spare gene out of a fish and
whacking it into a cabbage? What's that imitating??

Tranlsocation of one gene, rather than 15000. A small scale, but it's the
only way to make sure you transfer only one.



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'.
That's a very simplistic view of evolution, isn't it?
You and I know there's more to it than that.

Simplistic it may be, but it is wrong?
In as much as saying "the bee wanted to suck nectar so eveolved a longer
proboscis" is wrong. Certainly misleading.

There are lots of specialisms in nature where life has adapted to take
advantage of the local resources - are you saying that bees ( etc )
won't evolve to meet new environments? And what if they can't?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm just having trouble with the "intention" of
natural selection to do things, rather than it being chance. evolution
said 'uh-huh, no can do'.



I quite agree there - but in that case we act as mere matchmakers.
You can bring together two people who might not normally meet, but
that doesn't mean they'll get on with each other. And if they do get
on, perhaps it will be in unexpected ways.

Going on from your matchmaking analogy, I'd see it as rather like
getting a shirt or tie that you saw someone else wearing, and looks
good, and get "your" person to put it on. Only one item, so you can see
if it looks good on them. Sometimes it will, sometimes it won't.

Yes, and then they can whip it off if they look like a plonker and the
worst that happens is everyone else gets to s******.
Make that kind of mistake at the gene level and you're talking about a
problem an order of magnitude more serious than the embarrassment of a
cheesy shirt.

Absolutely, but the chances of making yourself look like a plonker are
greater if you start wearing all their clothes at once. It's easier to to
change one item (gene)at a time and then say - oops, 70's disco is not for
me, while still in your bedroom (Lab).



The point here is that there's a lot of interplay that goes on behind
the scenes that I'm not convinced we fully understand as yet.
True. I don't think many would disagree there.


In reality I'd say it's more like two buckets of sand being mixed up.
So, what would be less likely to produce any great unexpected changes -



mixing 2 buckets of sand, or just swapping a couple of grains over?

But sand is inert - it won't evolve, mutate or otherwise change its
properties. It's a poor analogy for a gene.

All analogies are poor. But do you see what I was trying to say ?

I saw the analogy...that what's being attempted is so small as to be
hardly worth consideration - but it fails to acknowledge the fact that
once the operation is done it may create unexpected results in unknown
quarters.

No, I was trying to say that if you mix 2 buckets of sand ant you get a
monster plant, then you don't know what it was that made it like that.
Whereas if you swap one grain you can tell what it was that did it.


I rather feel that nature's methods make your scalpel look like a
blunt sword.
It's not MY scalpel. If you just fuse germ cells, as happend in the
development of modern wheat strains for exaple, who knows what you're
making? Reduce the number of changes being made, and you have more
chance of finding any problems.

It's that element of 'chance' that's the problem, you see.
It's just not good enough to say 'hey, we can dabble with this and
tweak that.... and hope to hell we catch any adverse effects'.

Well, it's not just hoping, they should be looking pretty hard.

Yes, they should be..but y'know, it's 5.30 on a Friday afternoon, and
there's a booze-up going down and who really cares if some small
beetle in some distant part of the globe suddenly finds that "fings
ain't what they used to be".
Human nature.
It gets even tougher when no-one even knows that beetle exists.

Exactly. You'll probaly find that the scientists themselves are pretty
concientious, it's the people who make the marketing decisions to sell who
are in my mind the big danger. That's why it should be controlled, and
monitored and not left to the companies themselves or public pressure to
change thier minds -because we all know how much interest major companies
take in what the public think (ubntil they stasrt going bust). The problem
remains that the technology can be good or bad, just like every other
technology mankind has developed. It's the application that is the danger.
That's what should be controlled.


And just when d'you stop looking?

That's exactly the sort of question that has to be answered. And I don't
have an answer. But can only be answered by careful testing and
discussion, not by joining either of the entrenched camps and slinging
mud and accusations at each other, which seems to be happening more and
more often.
So far we've managed to not insult each other after so much writing. Is
this a record for newsgroups?

I agree, and I feel that such questions have yet to be answered -
which is why I'm opposed to dabbling with nature at this level at this
time.
Don't misunderstand me, I look at what's being proposed with a degree
of hope - I don't dismiss the prospects out of some vague religious
beliefs or an irrational fear of the future...rather I fear FOR the
future.
We haven't even finished cataloging the full diversity of life on
Earth, we haven't even cured the common cold... and there are still
people out there who think a person's beliefs or skin colour makes
them beneath consideration.
We're trying to run before we can even crawl.

You have to start somewhere.


And yeah, it's refreshing to get stuck into a thread and be able to
stick to the issues - but I suspect that's because both you and I are
more interested in the debate rather than cheap point-scoring.
I hope so. I think our points of view overlap considerably though, it's
just the details of our opinions we're arguing about.


The balance of nature isn't relevant to transgenic plants??

I don't think it is directly relevant to our discussion at the moment.
Generally yes. But, with teh right approach and development, maybe GM
plants could provide a way of gently easing them out of thier deadlocked
pesitcide use in the future. Which would surely be a good thing.

There are already other means of doing that. Sure, they require more
time and effort... and ( here it comes ) money!
Not all the farmers have the money. Those in the developed countries
probably do but there are millions of peasant farmers who can barely afford
to feed themselves let alone afford other more expensive methods to break
out of the viscious circle.


If you'd have said 'nemetodes' to a geezer planting his spuds half
century ago, he'd have probably wondered whether to kiss you or knee
you in the nuts.
I agree that there's room for development, I just feel GM is the wrong
path.

Certainly, but I think GMOs are *a* path - one which should be trodden
carefully and a step at a time. And a technology that shouldn't be driven
by profit. But unfortunately so many things are.

Without those unknown genes, how many holes will you create, and what
will fill them?
But we're not talking about building organisms from scratch, where
there would be huge great holes all over the genome. We're talking
about taking a whole genome and adding/changing just one or two genes.

So you have smaller holes, is all. And small holes have an annoying
habit of becoming large holes.

...some heal up.

Only some though...it only takes one.

Using a material analogy. No, you'd have little patches of different a
colour rather than holes.

Hole...patch of different colour...extra lump...it's still something
that's changed - and it has an effect that's proportionally greater
further on down ( or up ) the line.... a cascade effect.

And as you well know, the gene stands at the tip of the inverted
pyramid and interacts all the way up and through the plant's whole
structure...

CAN do, depending on the gene and where it is. Most genes are only
active for short periods and only in certain tissues. Which is why you
don't get red, scented roots on a red, scented rose bush. Those genes
are only activated in the relevant part(s) and the relevant time(s).

That's fine - in a self-contained environment. I'm not supposing that
GM will turn out plants that get up out of the pot and start eating
babies -
I know you're not, but there are some that like to use similar imagery.



which then interacts with other organisms in the same
fashion... and so on ad infinitum. I'm not convinced that anyone is
fully aware of just what the knock-on effects might be.

No one is saying they are, except maybe the multi-nationals, but no-one
believes them anyway (at least I hope not).

That's the nub of the matter.
You and I could argue the finer points until we're blue in the face -
but until there is absolute certainty as to the effects of GM then a
debate is all it should remain.
It's just too big and too fundamental an issue to even consider toying
with in the real world whilst words like 'might', 'chance' and
'maybe' still apply.

We don't know everything about anything. You cannot be 100% sure that it
won't rain today, so instead of taking a brolly just in case, you stay in ?
(actually, living in Britain, that was a pretty bad analogy, wasn't it?)

Tim.

On Thu, 15 May 2003 16:15:55 +0100, Stephen Howard
wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2003 14:36:14 +0200, Tim
wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2003 12:52:10 +0100, Stephen Howard
wrote:

Just because something's unpleasant to US doesn't mean it doesn't have
a valuable part to play in nature. We'd be knee deep in carcasses if
it wasn't for the 'nasty' bluebottle.

Absolutely. But the places these GMOs are likely to be used is on
agricultural land. Not really a natural environment is it.#

Yes it is.
OK, not natural in the sense that if you left nature to itself you'd
be unlikely to come across acres of wheat - but the fact that big
fields of single crops DO exist makes them part of the natural
environment.
Likewise the car - not natural, but nonetheless something that has a
dramatic effect on the environment by mere virtue of being in it.

You cannot bung a few dozen acres of GM crops down and not expect it
to interact with the environment in which it exists.

And compared to the effects man has had on the environment, even in
places that are called "natural" and "wild", the effects may be
negligable.

May be???
There's that unsettling uncertainty again.

Then no one should do anything, because whaever we do, [that unsettling]
maybe something horrible will happen.
Tim.

....Probably the most "natural" part of the country is the stagnant rock
pool just below high tide.

I'm not sure 'stagnant' is the appropriate word for a pool receiving an
influx of sea water twice a day.


Ok, just below spring high tide, then if you want to be picky.

:-P
Tim.

Researcher,

Is there any scientific proof that one particular gene is responsible for
only one trait in the subject plant?

Is there any scientific proof that two (or more) genes do not act in concert
thereby being responsible for three (or more) traits?

Geoff

On Fri, 16 May 2003 09:11:15 +0100, geoff
wrote:

Researcher,

Is there any scientific proof that one particular gene is responsible for
only one trait in the subject plant?

Is there any scientific proof that two (or more) genes do not act in
concert
thereby being responsible for three (or more) traits?

Of course it cannot be proven, you can't *prove* the absence of something
(although you can often be pretty sure sometimes).

A gene would code for a single protein, however, this protein may have
differing effects in different tissues at different times, and in different
organisms. Tim.

"Travis" expounded:

animaux wrote:
BT spliced into corn is killing monarch butterfly larva, that's a fact.

And these facts are located where?

It was heavily reported a couple years back, a Google search would
turn it up.

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

On Fri, 16 May 2003 09:46:16 +0200, Tim
wrote:

On Thu, 15 May 2003 16:15:49 +0100, Stephen Howard
wrote:

Well, it's not just hoping, they should be looking pretty hard.

Yes, they should be..but y'know, it's 5.30 on a Friday afternoon, and
there's a booze-up going down and who really cares if some small
beetle in some distant part of the globe suddenly finds that "fings
ain't what they used to be".
Human nature.
It gets even tougher when no-one even knows that beetle exists.

Exactly. You'll probaly find that the scientists themselves are pretty
concientious, it's the people who make the marketing decisions to sell who
are in my mind the big danger. That's why it should be controlled, and
monitored and not left to the companies themselves or public pressure to
change thier minds -because we all know how much interest major companies
take in what the public think (ubntil they stasrt going bust). The problem
remains that the technology can be good or bad, just like every other
technology mankind has developed. It's the application that is the danger.
That's what should be controlled.

Absolutely. I don't have any problem with the science per se - more
the cackhanded way in which it seems to be applied.
Certainly at this stage of the game the last thing they need to be
addressing is the manipulation of plants to enhance cosmetic
qualities.
It smacks of 'hey, look what we can do'.
I don't think that anyone can berate the public's lack of faith in the
corporate bigwigs, even if the science appears to hold water.

We haven't even finished cataloging the full diversity of life on
Earth, we haven't even cured the common cold... and there are still
people out there who think a person's beliefs or skin colour makes
them beneath consideration.
We're trying to run before we can even crawl.

You have to start somewhere.

Of course - but I think we're decades away from letting this science
out into the wild with the appropriate assurances that issue demands.

I don't think it is directly relevant to our discussion at the moment.
Generally yes. But, with teh right approach and development, maybe GM
plants could provide a way of gently easing them out of thier deadlocked
pesitcide use in the future. Which would surely be a good thing.

There are already other means of doing that. Sure, they require more
time and effort... and ( here it comes ) money!

Not all the farmers have the money. Those in the developed countries
probably do but there are millions of peasant farmers who can barely afford
to feed themselves let alone afford other more expensive methods to break
out of the viscious circle.

I understand that, but that issue points more to bad funding and
corrupt regimes rather than a need for GM technology.
Even something as unsophisticated as a reliable water supply can make
all the difference in the world.
There are still practical issues that can be addressed, we haven't run
out of options.

If you'd have said 'nemetodes' to a geezer planting his spuds half
century ago, he'd have probably wondered whether to kiss you or knee
you in the nuts.
I agree that there's room for development, I just feel GM is the wrong
path.

Certainly, but I think GMOs are *a* path - one which should be trodden
carefully and a step at a time. And a technology that shouldn't be driven
by profit. But unfortunately so many things are.

Agreed.

That's fine - in a self-contained environment. I'm not supposing that
GM will turn out plants that get up out of the pot and start eating
babies -

I know you're not, but there are some that like to use similar imagery.

It's an emotive topic - which is why I mentioned the 'hey, look what
we can do' approach....it only serves to further alienate people who
have reservations about the technology coupled with an understandable
lack of knowledge about it.

That's the nub of the matter.
You and I could argue the finer points until we're blue in the face -
but until there is absolute certainty as to the effects of GM then a
debate is all it should remain.
It's just too big and too fundamental an issue to even consider toying
with in the real world whilst words like 'might', 'chance' and
'maybe' still apply.

We don't know everything about anything. You cannot be 100% sure that it
won't rain today, so instead of taking a brolly just in case, you stay in ?
(actually, living in Britain, that was a pretty bad analogy, wasn't it?)

As with any new branch of technology there has to be, sooner or later,
a leap of faith.
The irony is that if we continue to farm as we do now then I can well
imagine that there will be a definite need for GM crops ( as bugs and
weeds develop resistance to chemicals, and resources dry up ).

Unfortunately I doubt that my deciding to maintain an organic garden
will have little impact on the world as a whole...but I have to start
somewhere!

Regards,



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

Not all the farmers have the money. Those in the developed countries
probably do but there are millions of peasant farmers who can barely
afford to feed themselves let alone afford other more expensive methods
to break out of the viscious circle.

I understand that, but that issue points more to bad funding and
corrupt regimes rather than a need for GM technology.
Even something as unsophisticated as a reliable water supply can make
all the difference in the world.
There are still practical issues that can be addressed, we haven't run
out of options.

Like the recent summit on world water development. What a sell out. Back to
big corporations and less than useless "prestige" projects.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993435




If you'd have said 'nemetodes' to a geezer planting his spuds half
century ago, he'd have probably wondered whether to kiss you or knee
you in the nuts.
I probably would have as well :-)


Unfortunately I doubt that my deciding to maintain an organic garden
will have little impact on the world as a whole...but I have to start
somewhere!

I do my bit too. Houselhold "organic" gardeners are probably the best,
truest organic growers there are. There are alot of organic farmers where
I live (Austria), and the rightly country is proud of their "natural" (read
rustic) ways. But they have a saying which translates as : The only
difference between normal and organic farmers is that the organic farmers
spray at night.

You never know who to trust.

Tim.

On Fri, 16 May 2003 09:51:23 +0200, Tim
wrote:



And compared to the effects man has had on the environment, even in
places that are called "natural" and "wild", the effects may be
negligable.

May be???
There's that unsettling uncertainty again.

Then no one should do anything, because whaever we do, [that unsettling]
maybe something horrible will happen.

I accept that there's always risks involved with the business of life
- but I much prefer to deal with the risks that come from interacting
with nature rather than tweaking it at a fundamental level.

Regards,



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

"Polar" wrote in message
...
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

Now now according to Countryfile it's only their burps which contain
methane.
Duncan

"Charlie" wrote in message
...

"Tim" wrote in message
newspro7npy1iwxhha1@localhost...
Actually I'd like a tomato plant that produces beefsteak as well.
Perhaps
with some peas and carrots on alternate branches.
Tim.

How about a tomato plant the grows basil on it too? Convient...

Charlie.

Aren't we in danger though, I mean I once saw a program about genetically
altered tomatos and they were deadly,
"Attack of the Killer Tomatoes "
I think it was called, hell of a documentary.
Duncan

On Thu, 15 May 2003 20:30:53 +0100, "Tumbleweed"
wrote:

Not much of a choice if its a meaningless word.
And on the other hand, eco-terrorists scaremongers come up with labels that
scare the public, and prevent a choice that way, since they brainwash the
public into believing that every genetic change is bad unless it occurred
randomly.


The real terrorist are the blinded followers of uncharted science.
GMO foods are cross pollinating organic crops, they are limiting the
world seed bank and move towards monoculture. Any gardener with half
their wits understands the dangers of monoculture and world food
production.

GMO crops limit my ability to be free of GMO, now you're polluting my
crops.

Sustainable farmers and organic farmers are being imposed upon by bad
science.


"Nature, left alone, is in perfect balance.
Harmful insects and plant diseases are always present,
but do not occur in nature to an extent which requires the use of poisonous chemicals.
The sensible approach to disease and insect control is to grow sturdy crops in a healthy environment."

Masanobu Fukuoka, One Straw Revolution--1978

In uk.rec.gardening Sue & Bob Hobden wrote:
: "Tim wrote in message

: I also think GM food has great potential. For example, currently I suffer
: from the effects of many natural pesticides our food plants employ - the
: powerful acids in spinach - the phytoestrogens in legumes - and so on.
:
: Personally I can't wait for scientisits to genetically engineer some
: of the anti-nutrients out of the vegetables I eat - and use mechanical
: barriers - instead of toxic poisons - to prevent pests.

: You suffer from natural pesticides AND you want GM foods. I think you aught
: to study what genes they are transposing as a lot of them are those very
: "natural" pesticides you dislike.

Well, obviously you can make things worse as well as improve them.

It's the same with selective breeding of crops.

GM is similar to the breeding done under domestication - but more
powerful, fast and directed.

: Did you hear about Monsanto taking a farmer to court because his crops had
: been contaminated by their trials and their lorries carrying the their seed
: away. They accused him of stealing their product/research and they won!!!
: How arse about face is that.

I didn't, no.

Monsanto appear to me to be a company with a terrible track record, though.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

In uk.rec.gardening Stephen Howard wrote:
: On Thu, 15 May 2003 10:37:35 GMT, Tim Tyler wrote:
:Stephen Howard wrote:

:: 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?
:
:Nature doesn't have our best interests at heart.
:
:Remember that it produces Deadly Nightshade, Hemlock and Poison Ivy.

: Isn't that all the more reason not to screw around with it then?

A bit late for that ;-)

Humans will transform the natural world.
I can't realistically see any way out of that.

Western housewives may have had some success in slowing progress by
depriving GM food companies of market success - but it won't make
much difference in the long run.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/

In uk.rec.gardening Victoria Clare wrote:

: Forget that: with all the resources of the plant world at their disposal,
: these are the most imaginative and useful they can come up with?

: They're all just a bit dull. I mean, a fart-removing pot plant? Not
: going to be number one on the gift list, is it?

The "transgenic indoor ivy that removed toxic chemicals from household air
100 times better than regular plants"... would be extremely useful to
health-conscious individuals - /if/ it worked better than dedicated air
purification machines. I'm not sure that is very realistic, though.
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/