|
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Reply-To: "Bob Hobden"
NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-129-95-83.in-addr.btopenworld.com (81.129.95.83) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1065357683 15303596 81.129.95.83 (16 [93475]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Path: kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!host81-129-95-83.in-addr.btopenworld.COM!not-for-mail Xref: kermit uk.environment.conservation:52024 uk.rec.gardening:168861 uk.rec.natural-history:17741 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:137071 alt.animals.rights.promotion:14374 uk.business.agricultu131111 "Oz" wrote in message ... BUT my point is that scientists cannot predict these "mutations" caused when they start inserting foreign genes into something, they happen unexpectedly and cause unexpected results in the Lab . Indeed, that's why the plants get screened first. In fact they probably go through a conventional breeding program as any 'useful gene' does, with plenty of time to check any aberration. So far I don't think there is a single example you can point to in the field. I am sure and indeed hope that there is sufficient study done to ensure nothing seriously wrong gets into the environment, but you obviously agree such things do turn up which rather proves my case. Lots of mechanical designs go wrong at the design stage. That doesn't mean you scrap the design completely, normally you refine it to overcome the problems. Almost nothing (electrical, mechanical, whatever) brought to market avoids this refining stage. Consequently I cannot see anything novel or worrying in your argument. We are back to that Parsley that flowered and contaminated the wild parsley growing nearby. Should that have been allowed out of the Lab? I don't think so, not with a wild plant nearby able to cross with the GM plant. It was an accident they said, it shouldn't have been allowed to flower they said, well who the hell was in control of that experiment, GM scientists! Fills me with confidence regarding their abilities. But we obviously read the same evidence in different ways and reach different conclusions. We also differ in our thoughts regarding who is controlling this science and why. No, I think the difference is that you cannot place your knowledge accurately into the reality of both farming and nature. Interesting comment! Don't forget big business here too, or have you conveniently forgotten who is controlling most of the GM science and why. Big deal. The car manufacturers 'control' cars, electronics manufacturers 'control' electronics and drug manufacturers 'control' drugs. The seed manufacturers get their patents and copyrights ripped off by 2nd and 3rd world farmers within 12 months. Interesting that last point, again it confirms my opinion that it's too soon to be in use, this time because legal controls on use obviously aren't working in some countries. -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... "Jim wrote in message Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? bacteria swap genes about that are completely foreign and bacteria then get into everything With what do they swap genes? their hosts, each other, viruses, Jim Webster -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Reply-To: "Bob Hobden"
NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-129-95-83.in-addr.btopenworld.com (81.129.95.83) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1065357919 15572775 81.129.95.83 (16 [93475]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Path: kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!eusc.inter.net! fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!host81-129-95-83.in-addr.btopenworld.COM!not-for-mail Xref: kermit uk.environment.conservation:52026 uk.rec.gardening:168864 uk.rec.natural-history:17743 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:137072 alt.animals.rights.promotion:14375 uk.business.agricultu131113 "Franz wrote in message Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? Can't you understand that here is no gene more foreign than one which results from a random natural mutation? The damn thing did not even *exist* before. Are you sure on that? I though a mutated gene was one that simply changed not came into spontaneous existance. And you don't seem to get to grips with the fact that around 999999 out of 1000000 natural mutations are deleterious and most of them are removed by selection in subsequent generations. Will that happen with GM then? No, so why mention it. -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Jim wrote in message Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? bacteria swap genes about that are completely foreign and bacteria then get into everything With what do they swap genes? their hosts, each other, viruses, I know viruses do but was not aware bacteria themselves swap genes except during sex as normal, I thought it was a virus that transferred the genes back and forth at other times. But perhaps I'm splitting hairs. -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
The message
from "Jim Webster" contains these words: "Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... Not what I've heard. Herbicide resistant crops so they can be sprayed with more herbicides. simple thought will tell you that that must be wrong herbicides cost money GM seed is slightly more expensive why would you pay more money for seed on which you have to use more herbicide, again spending more money? So that the huge interests who control the market for your product, get higher profits from selling expensive seed and more herbicide. Janet. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... Interesting that last point, again it confirms my opinion that it's too soon to be in use, this time because legal controls on use obviously aren't working in some countries. the laws do not even exist in some countries, and even if they are, the funds do not exist to police them, and even if policed, all you get is a peasant with no money, land worth nothing, and a large lawyers bill Jim Webster -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Bob Hobden writes
"Franz wrote in message Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? Can't you understand that here is no gene more foreign than one which results from a random natural mutation? The damn thing did not even *exist* before. Are you sure on that? I though a mutated gene was one that simply changed not came into spontaneous existance. Eh? What is the difference between that 'changed' to give RR resistance, and a gene added to give RR resistance? Doubling of genes is not at all unheard of, in fact it's quite common. And you don't seem to get to grips with the fact that around 999999 out of 1000000 natural mutations are deleterious and most of them are removed by selection in subsequent generations. Will that happen with GM then? No, Yes. It's a gene like any other. Only continual selection keeps the genes as you want them for a crop plant. so why mention it. Just to point out that mutations are as common as muck, and always have been. That is unpredicted and unpredicatable changes have been the normal course of events for life from at least 1,000,000,000 years. Strangely the world hasn't ended. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. DEMON address no longer in use. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Oz" wrote in message ... Bob Hobden writes Bob Hobden's note to which Oz replied here has not shown up in my mail, so I am replying to Bob here, slightlu out of sequence. "Franz wrote in message Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? Can't you understand that here is no gene more foreign than one which results from a random natural mutation? The damn thing did not even *exist* before. Are you sure on that? I though a mutated gene was one that simply changed not came into spontaneous existance. Yes, I am quite sure of that. A mutated gene is a gene which is not the gene which existed at that spot before the mutation occurred. It is therefore a new gene which exists at that spot after the mutation has occurred. It may express itself in a way which bears no obvious relationship to the gene which originally occupied that spot. Eh? What is the difference between that 'changed' to give RR resistance, and a gene added to give RR resistance? Doubling of genes is not at all unheard of, in fact it's quite common. And you don't seem to get to grips with the fact that around 999999 out of 1000000 natural mutations are deleterious and most of them are removed by selection in subsequent generations. Will that happen with GM then? No, Yes. It's a gene like any other. Only continual selection keeps the genes as you want them for a crop plant. so why mention it. Just to point out that mutations are as common as muck, and always have been. That is unpredicted and unpredicatable changes have been the normal course of events for life from at least 1,000,000,000 years. Strangely the world hasn't ended. Franz (in reply to Bob, not to Oz) |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Jim wrote in message Interesting that last point, again it confirms my opinion that it's too soon to be in use, this time because legal controls on use obviously aren't working in some countries. the laws do not even exist in some countries, and even if they are, the funds do not exist to police them, and even if policed, all you get is a peasant with no money, land worth nothing, and a large lawyers bill Quite! My point exactly. -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... "Jim wrote in message Interesting that last point, again it confirms my opinion that it's too soon to be in use, this time because legal controls on use obviously aren't working in some countries. the laws do not even exist in some countries, and even if they are, the funds do not exist to police them, and even if policed, all you get is a peasant with no money, land worth nothing, and a large lawyers bill Quite! My point exactly. so why are you worried about peasants being dispossessed or being forced to pay vast sums to the big companies? Jim Webster |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Oz" wrote in message in reply to... Bob "Franz wrote in message Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? Can't you understand that here is no gene more foreign than one which results from a random natural mutation? The damn thing did not even *exist* before. Are you sure on that? I though a mutated gene was one that simply changed not came into spontaneous existance. Eh? What is the difference between that 'changed' to give RR resistance, and a gene added to give RR resistance? Where it came from and how, an unnatural source that I am not yet sure "Nature" can always cope with in it's normal way. From your replies I understand you are sure. So we will have to differ on that. Doubling of genes is not at all unheard of, in fact it's quite common. And you don't seem to get to grips with the fact that around 999999 out of 1000000 natural mutations are deleterious and most of them are removed by selection in subsequent generations. Will that happen with GM then? No, Yes. It's a gene like any other. Only continual selection keeps the genes as you want them for a crop plant. Being GM crops (or any crops) these genes will not be allowed to disappear by natural selection will they. So your comment was irrevelent. With regard to any escaped GM genes, they could die out or quite the reverse, they could make the wild plant more suited to it's environment and the one with the GM gene would then start to take over ousting the original plant. That's one of the old worries about GM. No doubt the GM scientists are watching those wild Parsley plants in France with great interest. -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Franz tried to confuse me ( don't take much) Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? Can't you understand that here is no gene more foreign than one which results from a random natural mutation? The damn thing did not even *exist* before. Are you sure on that? I though a mutated gene was one that simply changed not came into spontaneous existance. Yes, I am quite sure of that. A mutated gene is a gene which is not the gene which existed at that spot before the mutation occurred. It is therefore a new gene which exists at that spot after the mutation has occurred. It may express itself in a way which bears no obvious relationship to the gene which originally occupied that spot. We are splitting hairs here and are both correct if you think about it. :-) There are no more genes after the mutation or change of one (or more) of them. -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Bob Hobden writes
We are back to that Parsley that flowered and contaminated the wild parsley growing nearby. Should that have been allowed out of the Lab? I don't think so, not with a wild plant nearby able to cross with the GM plant. It was an accident they said, it shouldn't have been allowed to flower they said, well who the hell was in control of that experiment, GM scientists! Fills me with confidence regarding their abilities. I am not familiar with this particular event. Perhaps you could detail who did the work and what genes were transferred. Interesting comment! Don't forget big business here too, or have you conveniently forgotten who is controlling most of the GM science and why. Big deal. The car manufacturers 'control' cars, electronics manufacturers 'control' electronics and drug manufacturers 'control' drugs. The seed manufacturers get their patents and copyrights ripped off by 2nd and 3rd world farmers within 12 months. Interesting that last point, again it confirms my opinion that it's too soon to be in use, this time because legal controls on use obviously aren't working in some countries. The tough. US or EU laws do not apply in other countries and they will go their own way no matter what the US or EU thinks. Of course if you want GM work to move to india or china (as it increasingly is) where there are very few controls, then carry on banning it and so giving the other countries a free rein to do what they like without fear of competition. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. DEMON address no longer in use. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Bob Hobden writes
"Oz" wrote in message in reply to... Eh? What is the difference between that 'changed' to give RR resistance, and a gene added to give RR resistance? Where it came from and how, I didn't ask you where it came from, I asked what was the difference in effect. an unnatural source It wasn't unnatural, it was a natural mutation. that I am not yet sure "Nature" can always cope with in it's normal way. Why not, nature has been coping with mutations for 1,000,000,000 years. How much more evidence do you want? BY the way I notice you avoid answering these questions, I presume because you have no answer to them. From your replies I understand you are sure. So we will have to differ on that. I see. 1B years worth of evidence isn't good enough for you. Doubling of genes is not at all unheard of, in fact it's quite common. And you don't seem to get to grips with the fact that around 999999 out of 1000000 natural mutations are deleterious and most of them are removed by selection in subsequent generations. Will that happen with GM then? No, Yes. It's a gene like any other. Only continual selection keeps the genes as you want them for a crop plant. Being GM crops (or any crops) these genes will not be allowed to disappear by natural selection will they. So your comment was irrevelent. 1) I notice you are evading the question. 2) To allow crop genes to disappear is trivial. Simply stop growing the crop. With regard to any escaped GM genes, they could die out or quite the reverse, they could make the wild plant more suited to it's environment and the one with the GM gene would then start to take over ousting the original plant. Quite, and the mechanism is pretty obvious and I already explained it. Now you explain what scenario in nature makes rr-genes successful in the wild (that is outside a farmed field). That's one of the old worries about GM. Only by those who know nothing about nature. No doubt the GM scientists are watching those wild Parsley plants in France with great interest. I await you posting the details. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. DEMON address no longer in use. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... "Oz" wrote in message in reply to... Bob "Franz wrote in message Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? Can't you understand that here is no gene more foreign than one which results from a random natural mutation? The damn thing did not even *exist* before. Are you sure on that? I though a mutated gene was one that simply changed not came into spontaneous existance. Eh? What is the difference between that 'changed' to give RR resistance, and a gene added to give RR resistance? Where it came from and how, an unnatural source that I am not yet sure "Nature" can always cope with in it's normal way. From your replies I understand you are sure. So we will have to differ on that. but remember that GM always uses an existing, natural gene. Natural mutation creates something new and essentially untested Jim Webster |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Oz" wrote in message "Oz" wrote in message in reply to... Eh? What is the difference between that 'changed' to give RR resistance, and a gene added to give RR resistance? Where it came from and how, I didn't ask you where it came from, I asked what was the difference in effect. No you didn't. Anyway that's one of my worries, the effect of these manmade mutations as you call them, I don't know the difference in effect, especially over time. an unnatural source It wasn't unnatural, it was a natural mutation. that I am not yet sure "Nature" can always cope with in it's normal way. Why not, nature has been coping with mutations for 1,000,000,000 years. How much more evidence do you want? BY the way I notice you avoid answering these questions, I presume because you have no answer to them. But this is something new, very new, and whilst you are certain about the science I'm not yet. Quite simply, I'm a bit more cautious than you mainly because I don't trust scientists to do what's good for the world, or hold back untill they have mastered the science fully. It's something we will have to differ on. From your replies I understand you are sure. So we will have to differ on that. I see. 1B years worth of evidence isn't good enough for you. GM science has not been around for 1b years. Doubling of genes is not at all unheard of, in fact it's quite common. And you don't seem to get to grips with the fact that around 999999 out of 1000000 natural mutations are deleterious and most of them are removed by selection in subsequent generations. Will that happen with GM then? No, Yes. It's a gene like any other. Only continual selection keeps the genes as you want them for a crop plant. Being GM crops (or any crops) these genes will not be allowed to disappear by natural selection will they. So your comment was irrevelent. 1) I notice you are evading the question. Think I answered it fully. 2) To allow crop genes to disappear is trivial. Simply stop growing the crop. Well yes that's true, so what I should have said is GM crops will not be allowed to disappear by natural forces untill the scientists decide to allow it. With regard to any escaped GM genes, they could die out or quite the reverse, they could make the wild plant more suited to it's environment and the one with the GM gene would then start to take over ousting the original plant. Quite, and the mechanism is pretty obvious and I already explained it. Now you explain what scenario in nature makes rr-genes successful in the wild (that is outside a farmed field). Why outside a farmed field, that's where it is in it's own nich in nature. In that nich it will be supreme. Outside it's home teritory it will be in competition with the non mutated form. That's one of the old worries about GM. Only by those who know nothing about nature. No doubt the GM scientists are watching those wild Parsley plants in France with great interest. I await you posting the details. I think it's time this was brought to a close. You are never going to see my side of the argument and I'm certainly not ready to see yours, I don't wear rose coloured glasses and am a suspicious sod by nature. -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
The message
from Oz contains these words: (snip) Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. You've convinced me of that, if nothing else. Janet. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
The message
from Oz contains these words: (snip) Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. You've convinced me of that, if nothing else. Janet. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Oz" wrote in message You tell me to get some knowledge, fine, but it's all in the interpretation and that changes with life's experiences. From your comments I see my replies to your blind faith in everything GM are obviously annoying you, and that's not my ball game. THE END! :-) -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Oz" wrote in message You tell me to get some knowledge, fine, but it's all in the interpretation and that changes with life's experiences. From your comments I see my replies to your blind faith in everything GM are obviously annoying you, and that's not my ball game. THE END! :-) -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Bob Hobden writes
"Oz" wrote in message You tell me to get some knowledge, fine, Have you got any? but it's all in the interpretation AHH, so your one of those people who 'interpret' knowledge when it doesn't suit them. Knowledge is not 'interpretation'. and that changes with life's experiences. Only when you haven't the knowledge to understand it. From your comments I see my replies to your blind faith in everything GM You forget I have directly pointed out areas that are likely to be hazardous, which is more than you managed. are obviously annoying you, No, it's your inability to face facts and answer some very very simple questions. That is, your unwillingness to think it out for yourself. and that's not my ball game. THE END! :-) OK, another bigot. -- Oz This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious. DEMON address no longer in use. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 23:45:31 +0100, "Bob Hobden"
wrote: "Oz" wrote in message You tell me to get some knowledge, fine, but it's all in the interpretation and that changes with life's experiences. From your comments I see my replies to your blind faith in everything GM are obviously annoying you, and that's not my ball game. THE END! :-) D'oz cares not for consequences, if there is a buck to be made, for less work he'll cut that corner, like most British farmers, they are ruled by money and the rest of us be damned. The subsidy mentality is now biting us back globally. . . . . . . . . The facts expressed here belong to everybody, the opinions to me. The distinction is yours to draw... /( )` \ \___ / | /- _ `-/ ' (/\/ \ \ /\ / / | ` \ O O ) / | `-^--'` ' (_.) _ ) / `.___/` / `-----' / ----. __ / __ \ ----|====O)))==) \) /==== ----' `--' `.__,' \ | | \ / ______( (_ / \______ ,' ,-----' | \ `--{__________) \/ I'm a horny devil when riled. pete who? -=[ Grim Reaper ]=- 6/97 .""--.._ [] `'--.._ ||__ `'-, `)||_ ```'--.. \ _ /|//} ``--._ | .'` `'. /////} `\/ / .""".\ //{/// / /_ _`\\ // `|| | |(_)(_)|| _// || | | /\ )| _///\ || | |L====J | / |/ | || / /'-..-' / .'` \ | || / | :: | |_.-` | \ || /| `\-::.| | \ | || /` `| / | | | / || |` \ | / / \ | || | `\_| |/ ,.__. \ | || / /` `\ || || | . / \|| || | | |/ || / / | ( || / . / ) || | \ | || / | / || |\ / | || \ `-._ | / || \ ,//`\ /` | || ///\ \ | \ || |||| ) |__/ | || |||| `.( | || `\\` /` / || /` / || jgs / | || | \ || / | || /` \ || /` | || `-.___,-. .-. ___,' || `---'` `'----'` I need a drink, feel all giddy...hic! |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
In article ,
"Bob Hobden" wrote: From your replies I understand you are sure. So we will have to differ on that. I see. 1B years worth of evidence isn't good enough for you. GM science has not been around for 1b years. But lateral gene transfer has been around, proably since before true cells evolved. Down amongst the protists there isn't a tree of life, its a web. How do you classify a bacterium with 20% of its genome from this lineage, 30% from that lineage 45% from this one and sundry genes from other places? Bacteria with genomes like this exist, just because we have only recently developed the tools to analyse them does not mean it hasn't been going on for billions of years. Human mediated lateral gene transfer (aka GM or GE) is, to evolution not different from natural lateral transfer. If you wish to argue that it is then you need to present reasons for any difference. There is nothing intrinsicly different in the dna a human causes to be transfered from that transfered by a virus, a bacterium or a sucking insect. Peter -- Peter Ashby School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded. Reverse the Spam and remove to email me. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Subject: A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the
EconomicInterests of the Life Science Industry From: "pearl" Date: 07/10/2003 13:27 GMT Daylight Time Message-id: The food chain: In 1996, scientists discovered that ladybugs that had eaten the aphids that had eaten genetically engineered potatoes died. Well, they were unlikely to have died before eating the aphids weren't they? Undead zombie ladybirds, there's gotta be a star trek show in that hasn't there..? -- Rhiannon http://www.livejournal.com/users/rhiannon_s/ Q: how many witches does it take to change a lightbulb? A: depends on what you want it changed into! |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
Xref: kermit uk.environment.conservation:52336 uk.rec.gardening:169340 uk.rec.natural-history:17809 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:137305 alt.animals.rights.promotion:14478 uk.business.agricultu131335
In article , "pearl" wrote: snip list of misrepresented results. Superviruses: Viral promoters are invasive agents used by genetic engineers to trick a cell into accepting and integrating an alien gene into the cell's own DNA. Some scientists predict that releasing viral promoters into the gene pool could lead to the creation of superviruses and novel infectious diseases for organisms at every level of life -- from bacteria to humans. These people are very good are doing Cassandra impressions but are less able to point to mechanisms by which this might come about. A promoter is not magical, there is nothing about it that makes it more likely than any random piece of dna to be incorporated into anything. There is nothing in them that makes it likely they will be incorporated intact. The genomes of 'higher' plants and animals are riddled with endogenous retroviruses in various states of decay. If the doommongers are correct in their guesses of probability the boundaries between different species would be so porous all life would have collapsed into an amorphous blob as soon as it started to differentiate. If you have a mechanism by which this can happen many people would be glad to hear from you. Apart from anything else it could have major technology uses. These are just some of the dangers that are discernible in the premature marketing of genetically engineered products. The biotech industry is eager to point to their so-called successes while keeping their failures under raps. No, they are a jaundiced and biased spin on some aspects of a technology that has and does provide us with many very useful products. From the enzymes in your washing powder to the latest pharmaceuticals. You also write as though the discovery of some of these is a tragedy. they are examples of checks and balances working. If noone was looking we wouldn't even know about these things. Again this is an argument for proper, informed rules and regulations, not wholesale banning. Because the govt. drove the farm scale trials through they now have a sound basis in international law to limit GM crops in this country. The anti brigade would have denied them this by ripping it all up, denied us the science we need to make an informed choice. Why? because they didn't want us to make an informed choice. They wanted us to make the choice based on fear and superstition. You may want to live your life this way, I don't. peter -- Peter Ashby School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded. Reverse the Spam and remove to email me. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
OK, another bigot. Or another potcalling kettle black -- Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Jim wrote in message .... Bob, Franz etc etc wrote in message Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? Can't you understand that here is no gene more foreign than one which results from a random natural mutation? The damn thing did not even *exist* before. Are you sure on that? I though a mutated gene was one that simply changed not came into spontaneous existance. Eh? What is the difference between that 'changed' to give RR resistance, and a gene added to give RR resistance? Where it came from and how, an unnatural source that I am not yet sure "Nature" can always cope with in it's normal way. From your replies I understand you are sure. So we will have to differ on that. but remember that GM always uses an existing, natural gene. Natural mutation creates something new and essentially untested To all those that are still following this thread in both camps can I ask that you download and read the .pdf file of "Contents, foreward and Executive summary" of the Gm Science Review. (UK) First Report. July 2003. to be found at. www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/default.htm My conclusions are that it confirms my call for more scientific research before general release as valid. But what do you all think? It's all in the interpretation. :-) -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Jim wrote in message .... Bob, Franz etc etc wrote in message Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? Can't you understand that here is no gene more foreign than one which results from a random natural mutation? The damn thing did not even *exist* before. Are you sure on that? I though a mutated gene was one that simply changed not came into spontaneous existance. Eh? What is the difference between that 'changed' to give RR resistance, and a gene added to give RR resistance? Where it came from and how, an unnatural source that I am not yet sure "Nature" can always cope with in it's normal way. From your replies I understand you are sure. So we will have to differ on that. but remember that GM always uses an existing, natural gene. Natural mutation creates something new and essentially untested To all those that are still following this thread in both camps can I ask that you download and read the .pdf file of "Contents, foreward and Executive summary" of the Gm Science Review. (UK) First Report. July 2003. to be found at. www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/default.htm My conclusions are that it confirms my call for more scientific research before general release as valid. But what do you all think? It's all in the interpretation. :-) -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Jim wrote in message .... Bob, Franz etc etc wrote in message Can't you understand the difference between natural mutation and the insertion of a completely foreign gene, one that would not get there naturally? Can't you understand that here is no gene more foreign than one which results from a random natural mutation? The damn thing did not even *exist* before. Are you sure on that? I though a mutated gene was one that simply changed not came into spontaneous existance. Eh? What is the difference between that 'changed' to give RR resistance, and a gene added to give RR resistance? Where it came from and how, an unnatural source that I am not yet sure "Nature" can always cope with in it's normal way. From your replies I understand you are sure. So we will have to differ on that. but remember that GM always uses an existing, natural gene. Natural mutation creates something new and essentially untested To all those that are still following this thread in both camps can I ask that you download and read the .pdf file of "Contents, foreward and Executive summary" of the Gm Science Review. (UK) First Report. July 2003. to be found at. www.gmsciencedebate.org.uk/report/default.htm My conclusions are that it confirms my call for more scientific research before general release as valid. But what do you all think? It's all in the interpretation. :-) -- Regards Bob Use a useful Screen Saver... http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ and find intelligent life amongst the stars, there's bugger all down here. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
... It's all in the interpretation. :-) Isn't it always ;-) M |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Michelle Fulton" wrote in message ... "Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... It's all in the interpretation. :-) Isn't it always ;-) especially when there are a lot of major companies who stand to loose serious money if GM becomes the norm. Some chemical manufacturers are already feeling a pinch as demand for their products falls on the world market, and they see cheap generic glyphosphate (produced by a lot of firms, often smaller and based in countries like India) taking more of the market. It has to be expected that these companies will take steps to ensure that this process is retarded and are probably throwing money about to do this Jim Webster M |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Michelle Fulton" wrote in message ... "Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... It's all in the interpretation. :-) Isn't it always ;-) especially when there are a lot of major companies who stand to loose serious money if GM becomes the norm. Some chemical manufacturers are already feeling a pinch as demand for their products falls on the world market, and they see cheap generic glyphosphate (produced by a lot of firms, often smaller and based in countries like India) taking more of the market. It has to be expected that these companies will take steps to ensure that this process is retarded and are probably throwing money about to do this Jim Webster M |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Michelle Fulton" wrote in message ... "Bob Hobden" wrote in message ... It's all in the interpretation. :-) Isn't it always ;-) especially when there are a lot of major companies who stand to loose serious money if GM becomes the norm. Some chemical manufacturers are already feeling a pinch as demand for their products falls on the world market, and they see cheap generic glyphosphate (produced by a lot of firms, often smaller and based in countries like India) taking more of the market. It has to be expected that these companies will take steps to ensure that this process is retarded and are probably throwing money about to do this Jim Webster M |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"Peter Ashby" wrote in message
... In article , "pearl" wrote: snip list of misrepresented results. Ipse dixit evasion isn't going to erase serious concerns, Peter. -unsnip- THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL Editorial November 9, 2000 (Don Lovejoy, who has a doctorate in health and human services, is an educator based in Cranston.) '.. From soil to superviruses: In 1994, a genetically engineered bacterium developed to aid in the production of ethanol produced residues that rendered the land infertile. New crops planted on this soil grew three inches tall and fell over dead. The food chain: In 1996, scientists discovered that ladybugs that had eaten the aphids that had eaten genetically engineered potatoes died. The immune system: In 1998, research by Dr. Arpad Pusztai uncovered the potential for genetically altered DNA to weaken the immune system and stunt the growth of baby rats. Monarch butterflies: In May 1999, researchers at Cornell University discovered that monarch butterflies died unexpectedly from eating milkweed plants that had been dusted with the pollen of genetically engineered Bt corn. Pregnant mice: A 1998 study showed that DNA from the food fed to pregnant mice ended up in their intestinal lining, white blood cells, brain cells, and their fetuses. This suggests that the genetically engineered DNA in the food we eat can end up in our own cells. Honeybees: Last May, a leading European zoologist found the genes from genetically engineered canola jumped the species barrier and were picked up by the bacteria in the digestive tracts of bees. This indicates that antibiotic-resistant genes in genetically engineered foods can cause the bacteria in our own intestines to mutate into superbugs that cannot be killed by antibiotics. -end unsnip- Superviruses: Viral promoters are invasive agents used by genetic engineers to trick a cell into accepting and integrating an alien gene into the cell's own DNA. Some scientists predict that releasing viral promoters into the gene pool could lead to the creation of superviruses and novel infectious diseases for organisms at every level of life -- from bacteria to humans. These people are very good are doing Cassandra impressions but are less able to point to mechanisms by which this might come about. A promoter is not magical, there is nothing about it that makes it more likely than any random piece of dna to be incorporated into anything. There is nothing in them that makes it likely they will be incorporated intact. The genomes of 'higher' plants and animals are riddled with endogenous retroviruses in various states of decay. If the doommongers are correct in their guesses of probability the boundaries between different species would be so porous all life would have collapsed into an amorphous blob as soon as it started to differentiate. If you have a mechanism by which this can happen many people would be glad to hear from you. Apart from anything else it could have major technology uses. 'The release of transgenic crops into the environment has raised concerns over the spread of transgenic DNA, not only by cross- pollination to related species, but especially by horizontal gene transfer to unrelated species (reviewed by Ho et al (1) and Traavik (2)). On account of the _persistence_ of DNA in all environments, and the ability of practically all cells to take up 'naked' or free DNA, the success of horizontal gene transfer may depend largely on the nature of the DNA itself. New revelations concerning the CaMV recombination hotspot (3) have prompted us to consider the safety implications of the CaMV promoter. That is all the more urgent as CaMV promoter is in practically all transgenic crops already released commercially or undergoing field trials. Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) is a pararetrovirus of crucifer plants. [....................] It is clear that the CaMV 35S promoter is well-endowed with motifs involved in recombination. An additional factor which may increase the instability of the plasmid is the junction between CaMV 35S promoter and foreign DNA. All these considerations make it highly likely that the CaMV 35S promoter will take part in horizontal gene transfer and recombination, and also cause largescale genomic rearrangements in the process. Horizontal transfer of the CaMV promoter not only contributes to the known instability of transgenic lines (30), but has the potential to reactivate dormant viruses or creating new viruses in all species to which it is transferred, particularly in view of the modularity and interchangeability of promoter elements (8). In this regard, the close relationship of CaMV to hepadnaviruses such as the human hepatitis B is especially relevant. In addition, because the CaMV promoter is promiscuous in function (see above), it has the possibility of promoting inappropriate over- expression of genes in all species to which it happens to be transferred. One consequence of such inappropriate over- expression of genes may be cancer. ....' http://www.i-sis.org.uk/camvrecdis.php These are just some of the dangers that are discernible in the premature marketing of genetically engineered products. The biotech industry is eager to point to their so-called successes while keeping their failures under raps. No, they are a jaundiced and biased spin on some aspects of a technology No, your comments are. that has and does provide us with many very useful products. From the enzymes in your washing powder to the latest pharmaceuticals. All 'the best thing since sliced bread' ... until the mold sets in. You also write as though the discovery of some of these is a tragedy. they are examples of checks and balances working. If noone was looking we wouldn't even know about these things. Again this is an argument for proper, informed rules and regulations, not wholesale banning. Because the govt. drove the farm scale trials through they now have a sound basis in international law to limit GM crops in this country. The anti brigade would have denied them this by ripping it all up, denied us the science we need to make an informed choice. Why? because they didn't want us to make an informed choice. They wanted us to make the choice based on fear and superstition. You may want to live your life this way, I don't. We want to make informed choices. My choice is- !NO! GM crops!!! http://www.iol.ie/~creature/GenEng.htm peter -- Peter Ashby School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded. Reverse the Spam and remove to email me. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"pearl" wrote in message ... [snip] The immune system: In 1998, research by Dr. Arpad Pusztai uncovered the potential for genetically altered DNA to weaken the immune system and stunt the growth of baby rats. I snipped the rest of your contribution until you have proven that it is not as much nonsense as this example which I left in. My understanding is that the consensus has it that that work was poorly done and nobody has been able to provide confirmatory evidence. Franz |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
In article ,
"pearl" wrote: 'The release of transgenic crops into the environment has raised concerns over the spread of transgenic DNA, not only by cross- pollination to related species, but especially by horizontal gene transfer to unrelated species (reviewed by Ho et al (1) and Traavik (2)). On account of the _persistence_ of DNA in all environments, and the ability of practically all cells to take up 'naked' or free DNA, the success of horizontal gene transfer may depend largely on the nature of the DNA itself. New revelations concerning the CaMV recombination hotspot (3) have prompted us to consider the safety implications of the CaMV promoter. That is all the more urgent as CaMV promoter is in practically all transgenic crops already released commercially or undergoing field trials. It is clear that the CaMV 35S promoter is well-endowed with motifs involved in recombination. An additional factor which may increase the instability of the plasmid is the junction between CaMV 35S promoter and foreign DNA. All these considerations make it highly likely that the CaMV 35S promoter will take part in horizontal gene transfer and recombination, and also cause largescale genomic rearrangements in the process. Horizontal transfer of the CaMV promoter not only contributes to the known instability of transgenic lines (30), but has the potential to reactivate dormant viruses or creating new viruses in all species to which it is transferred, particularly in view of the modularity and interchangeability of promoter elements (8). In this regard, the close relationship of CaMV to hepadnaviruses such as the human hepatitis B is especially relevant. In addition, because the CaMV promoter is promiscuous in function (see above), it has the possibility of promoting inappropriate over- expression of genes in all species to which it happens to be transferred. One consequence of such inappropriate over- expression of genes may be cancer. ....' http://www.i-sis.org.uk/camvrecdis.php Good grief have these people no basic biology? Firstly they seem to confer magical malicious properties on a promoter sequence. So it might recombine? so might many thousands of other sites all over the integrated genome, including endogenous retroviruses. There is nothing there to suggest A) that this promoter would recombine preferentially compared with endogenous viral promoters in the plant genome. or B) that this magically malicious promoter would be able to do anything once recombined. As an analogy, is an isolated light switch lying on a bench, not connected to anything dangerous? No, so why should a promoter sequence be? Both are switches, not effectors. And finally, if lateral gene transfer was as likely as this piece of ill thought out polemic hints then differential forms of life would never hav evolved. As soon as one population evolved away from another lateral transfer would drag them back to the median again. This is scaremongering masquerading as science, pure and simple. You may want to look further at the source to find why too. Not exactly unbiased. Peter -- Peter Ashby School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded. Reverse the Spam and remove to email me. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science
"pearl" wrote in message ... "Peter Ashby" wrote in message ... In article , "pearl" wrote: snip list of misrepresented results. Ipse dixit evasion isn't going to erase serious concerns, Peter. -unsnip- [snip] Peter gave cogent arguments against your little quotes to which you appear to have no counter argument What made you think anybody was going to read your cribbings twice? And don't spew your spam all over usenet. If you had told us the title of the ng from which you were posting, I would have directed this reply at that one only. Franz |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the Economic Interests of the Life Science
"Peter Ashby" wrote in message ... In article , "pearl" wrote: 'The release of transgenic crops into the environment has raised concerns over the spread of transgenic DNA, not only by cross- pollination to related species, but especially by horizontal gene transfer to unrelated species (reviewed by Ho et al (1) and Traavik (2)). On account of the _persistence_ of DNA in all environments, and the ability of practically all cells to take up 'naked' or free DNA, the success of horizontal gene transfer may depend largely on the nature of the DNA itself. New revelations concerning the CaMV recombination hotspot (3) have prompted us to consider the safety implications of the CaMV promoter. That is all the more urgent as CaMV promoter is in practically all transgenic crops already released commercially or undergoing field trials. It is clear that the CaMV 35S promoter is well-endowed with motifs involved in recombination. An additional factor which may increase the instability of the plasmid is the junction between CaMV 35S promoter and foreign DNA. All these considerations make it highly likely that the CaMV 35S promoter will take part in horizontal gene transfer and recombination, and also cause largescale genomic rearrangements in the process. Horizontal transfer of the CaMV promoter not only contributes to the known instability of transgenic lines (30), but has the potential to reactivate dormant viruses or creating new viruses in all species to which it is transferred, particularly in view of the modularity and interchangeability of promoter elements (8). In this regard, the close relationship of CaMV to hepadnaviruses such as the human hepatitis B is especially relevant. In addition, because the CaMV promoter is promiscuous in function (see above), it has the possibility of promoting inappropriate over- expression of genes in all species to which it happens to be transferred. One consequence of such inappropriate over- expression of genes may be cancer. ....' http://www.i-sis.org.uk/camvrecdis.php Good grief have these people no basic biology? Mae-Wan Ho, and Angela Ryan, of the Biology Department, Open University, Walton Hall Milton Keynes, UK, and Joe Cummins Dept. of Plant Sciences, University of Western Ontario, Ontario, Canada? Of course they know biology. Firstly they seem to confer magical malicious properties on a promoter sequence. So it might recombine? so might many thousands of other sites all over the integrated genome, including endogenous retroviruses. There is nothing there to suggest A) that this promoter would recombine preferentially compared with endogenous viral promoters in the plant genome. or B) that this magically malicious promoter would be able to do anything once recombined. As an analogy, is an isolated light switch lying on a bench, not connected to anything dangerous? No, so why should a promoter sequence be? Both are switches, not effectors. 'Double-stranded DNA break repair (DSBR) is recognized to be involved in the illegitimate recombination which enables plasmid DNA to integrate into plant genomes following plant transformation (22-23); and transgene rearrangements have been identified in both Agrobacterium-mediated transformation (24) and particle bombardment (25). Illegitimate recombination was also observed between a resident transgene in a transgenic tobacco plant and a newly delivered transgene (26). Illegitimate recombination involves sequences with either microhomology or no homology between the junctions, often resulting in filler DNA and deletions of nucleotides from one or both of the recombining ends (27). Kohli et al (3) analysed 12 multicopy transgenic rice lines transformed with a co-integrate plasmid by means of particle bombardment in order to investigate the fate of exogenous transforming DNA. They not only discovered the same kind of illegitimate recombination between plasmids, but also that many of the illegitimate recombinations were located to the CaMV 35S promoter hotspot previously identified (19, 20). Furthermore, recombination occurred at high frequency without the virally encoded reverse transcriptase or other enzymes, suggesting that plant factors can direct recombination events by recognising and using these highly recombinogenic viral sequences. ..........' http://www.i-sis.org.uk/camvrecdis.php This is scaremongering masquerading as science, pure and simple. References (to excerpts in this post); 1. Ho, M.W., Traavik, T., Olsvik, R., Tappeser, B., Howard, V., von Weizsacker, C. and McGavin, G. (1998). Gene Technology and Gene Ecology of Infectious Diseases. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 10, 33-59. 2. Traavik, T. (1999). Too Early May Be Too Late. Ecological Risks Associated with the Use of Naked DNA as a Biological Tool for Research, Production and Therapy (Norwegian), Report for the Directorate for Nature Research Tungasletta 2, 7005 Trondheim. 3. Kohli, A., Griffiths, S., Palacios, N., Twyman, R.M., Vain, P., Laurie, D.A. and Christou, P. (1999). Molecular characterization of transforming plasmid rearrangements in transgenic rice reveals a recombination hotspot in the CaMV 35S promoter and confirms the predominance of microhomology mediated recombination. The Plant Journal 17, 591-601. 30. Ho, M.W. and Steinbrecher, R. (1998). Fatal flaws in food safety assessment. Environmental and Nutritional Interactions 2, 51-84. 8. Hohn, T. and Fütterer, J. (1992). Transcriptional and translational control of gene expression in cauliflower mosaic virus. Curr. Op. Genet. Develop. 2, 90-96. 24. Deroles, S.C. and Gardner, R.C. (1988). Analysis of the T-DNA structure in a large number of transgenic petunias generated by Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. Plant Mol. Biol. 11, 365-377. 25. Register, J.C., Peterson, D.J., Bell, P.J., et al (1994). Structure and function of selectable and non-selectable transgenes in maize after introduction by particle bombardment. Plant Mol. Biol. 25, 951-961. 26. De Groot, M.J., Offringa, R., Groet,J., Does, M.J., Van Hooykaas, P.J. and Danelzen, P.J. (1994). Non-recombinant background in gene targetting. Illegitimate recombination between htp gene and defective 5’-deleted nptII gene can restore a Kmr phenotype in tobacco. Plant Mol. Biol. 25, 721-733. 27. Gorbunov, V. and Levy, A.A. (1997). Non-homologous DNA and joining in plants cells is associated with deletions and filler DNA insertions. Nucl. Acid Res. 25, 4650-4657. 3. Kohli, A., Griffiths, S., Palacios, N., Twyman, R.M., Vain, P., Laurie, D.A. and Christou, P. (1999). Molecular characterization of transforming plasmid rearrangements in transgenic rice reveals a recombination hotspot in the CaMV 35S promoter and confirms the predominance of microhomology mediated recombination. The Plant Journal 17, 591-601. 19. Vaden, V.R. and Melcher, U. (1990). Recombination sites in cauliflower mosaic virus DNAs: implications for mechanisms of recombination. Virology 177, 717-726. 20. Gal, S., Pisan, B., Hohn, T., Grimsley, N. and Hohn, B. (1991). Genomic homologous recombination in planta. EMBO J. 10, 1571-1578. The article is based on research. Why are you lying, Peter? You may want to look further at the source to find why too. Not exactly unbiased. Ok.. 'The School of Life Sciences at the University of Dundee was formed in October 2000 from the Departments of Anatomy and Physiology, Biochemistry, Biological Sciences and Chemistry. These Departments were dissolved and replaced by eight Research Divisions and a Teaching Unit. The School is housed in five buildings on the University Campus, namely the Wellcome Trust Biocentre (WTB), the Medical Sciences Institute (MSI), the Biological Sciences Institute (BSI), the Old Medical School (OMS) and the Carnelley Building. Completed in 1997, the WTB is the most recent addition, being built and equipped with donations totalling nearly £14 million. This includes £10 million from The Wellcome Trust (thought to be the largest single charitable donation ever given to Scotland). Current research grants awarded from non-University sources are £23 million per annum mainly from the Wellcome Trust, the UK Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the National Environmental Research Council, The Royal Society of London and a number of Pharmaceutical companies. ' http://www.dundee.ac.uk/biocentre/SLSBOverview.htm. ('The merger of Wellcome plc with Glaxo plc in 1995 left The Trust with a 4.7% stake in the new company, Glaxo-Wellcome plc. ' http://medweb5.bham.ac.uk/histmed/wellcomefunding ) Masters of the universities Monday September 11, 2000 The Guardian For most of the 20th century, scientists in British universities were discouraged from engaging with industry, for fear that such contact would persuade them to concentrate on immediate technological needs rather than on the more profound scientific questions. Today, by contrast, contact between government- funded researchers and industry is, in effect, compulsory in many departments. The result is that there is scarcely a university in the UK whose academic freedom has not been compromised by its funding arrangements. ..... The main source of funds for biologists working in Britain's universities is the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), a government body with an annual budget of £190m. Its chairman is Peter Doyle, formerly an executive director of the biotechnology company Zeneca. Among the members of its council are the chief executive of the pharmaceutical firm Chiroscience; the former director of research and development at the controversial food company Nestlé; the president of the Food and Drink Federation; a consultant to the biochemical industry; and the general manager of Britain's biggest farming business. The BBSRC's strategy board contains executives from SmithKline Beecham, Merck Sharpe & Dohme and AgrEvo UK. The research council has seven specialist committees, each overseeing the dispersal of money to different branches of biology. Employees of Zeneca, according to the council's website, sit on all of them. When the BBSRC was established in 1994, it took over the biological funding programme previously run by the Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC). SERC's purpose was to advance knowledge of all kinds, whether or not it had an immediate commercial application. The BBSRC's purpose, it maintains, "is to sustain a broad base of interdisciplinary research and training to help industry, commerce and government create wealth and improve the quality of life". As well as diverting large sums of public money which would once have been spent on blue-sky biological research into genetic engineering, the BBSRC also funds the secondment of academics into corporations. Such schemes, the council enthuses, help "companies establish long- lasting personal and corporate linkages with academics/higher education institutions" and to "influence basic research relevant to company objectives". The council has launched a Biotechnology Young Entrepreneurs Scheme, "aimed at encouraging a more entrepreneurial attitude in bioscientists". It has paid for researchers to work for Nestlé, Unilever, Glaxo Wellcome, SmithKline Beecham, AgrEvo, DuPont, Rhone-Poulenc and, of course, Zeneca. ' http://www.guardian.co.uk/imf/story/...370384,00.html . But you wouldn't put humans, animals and the ecosystem at risk just for funding, and your career, would you. ? Peter -- Peter Ashby School of Life Sciences, University of Dundee, Scotland To assume that I speak for the University of Dundee is to be deluded. Reverse the Spam and remove to email me. |
A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the Economic Interests of the Life Science
GE 101-35S (PA)
============================================ The CaMV Promoter Story The Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter - A Recipe for Disaster? by Dr. Mae-Won Ho, author of the book Biotechnology: Dream or Nightmare? The story of CaMV promoter encapsulates and draws attention to the hazardous nature of the genetic engineering process itself as well as the foreign gene constructs created and released into the environment. ... Prof. Joe Cummins of the University of Western Ontario was the first scientist to question the safety of the cauliflower mosaic viral (CaMV) promoter, which is in practically all GM crops currently grown commercially or undergoing field trials. His initial concern was that the promoter could recombine with other viruses to generate new disease-causing viruses. In our paper, we review some recent findings which give further grounds for concern, and have recommended the immediate withdrawal of all crops and products containing the CaMV promoter. Ref.: Ho, M.W., Ryan, A. and Cummins, J. (1999). The cauliflower mosaic viral promoter - a recipe for disaster? Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease (in press). To begin with, a 'promoter' is a stretch of genetic material that acts as a switch for turning genes on. Every gene needs a promoter in order to work, or to become expressed. But the promoter is not a simple switch like that for an electric light, for example, which has only two positions, either fully on or fully off. Instead, the promoter has many different modules that act as sensors and to enable it to respond, in ways we do not yet fully understand, to different signals from other genes and from the environment, which tell it when and where to switch on, by how much and for how long. And under certain circumstances, the promoter may be silenced, so that it is off all the time. All in all, the role of the promoter of a normal gene in an organism is to enable the gene to work appropriately in the extremely complex regulatory circuits of the organism as a whole. The promoter associated with each of the organism's own genes is adapted to its gene while the totality of all the genes of the organism have been adapted to stay and work together for millions, if not hundreds of millions of years. The genome of each organism is organised in a certain way which is more or less constant across the species so individuals within a species can freely interbreed. Each species protects its integrity and remains genetically stable because there are biological barriers that prevent distant species from interbreeding or otherwise exchanging genetic material. Foreign DNA are generally broken down or inactivated. Genetic engineering attempts to break down these biological barriers so genes can be arbitrarily transferred between species that would never interbreed in nature. In order to do so, special tricks are needed. When genetic engineers transfer foreign genes into an organism to make a GMO, they also have to put a promoter in front of each of the genes transferred, otherwise it would not work. The promoter plus the gene it switches on constitutes a 'gene-expression cassette'. Many of the genes are from bacteria and viruses, and the most commonly used promoter is from the caulifower mosaic virus. Several gene-expression cassettes are usually stacked, or linked in series, one or more of them will be genes that code for antibiotic resistance, which will enable those cells that have taken up the foreign genes to be selected with antibiotics. The stacked cassettes are then spliced in turn into an artificial gene carrier or 'vector'. The vector is generally made by joining together parts of viruses and other infectious genetic parasites (plasmids and transposons) that cause diseases or spread antibiotic and drug resistance genes. In the case of plants, the most widely used vector is the 'T-DNA' which is part of the tumour-inducing plasmid ('Ti plasmid') of Agrobacterium, a soil bacterium that infects plants and give rise to plant tumours or galls. The role of the vector is to smuggle genes into cells that would otherwise exclude them. And more importantly, the vector can jump into the cell's genome and so enable the gene-expression cassettes it carries to become incorporated into the genetic material of the cell. The genetic engineer cannot control where and in what form the vector jumps into the genetic material of the cell, however. And this is where the first unpredictable effects can arise. Each transgenic line is unique, and gives rise to different unintended effects, and in the case of food, can include unexpected toxins and allergens. The foreign genetic material transferred to make a transgenic organism - referred to as the 'transgenic DNA' or the 'construct' - is quite complicated. It consists of new genes and new combinations of genes - from diverse species and their genetic parasites - which have never existed in nature. Such chimaeric constructs are already known to be structurally unstable, that is, they are prone to make and break and rearrange. It is to be expected that such structural instability can only increase when the construct is introduced, by a totally hit or miss process, into a new genome. Transgenic instability is a well-known problem for the industry. Transgenic lines often do not breed true (see Srivastava et al, 1999, in item #3 below). Why use a promoter from a virus such as the CaMV? A virus is a genetic parasite that has the capability to infect the cell and hi-jack the cell to make many copies of itself in a short period of time. Its promoter is therefore very aggressive and hence popular with genetic engineers, as it effectively makes the gene placed next to it turn on full blast, at perhaps a thousand times the volume of any of the organism's own gene. Having it in the genome is rather like having the loudest phrase of a heavy-metal piece played with the most powerful amplifier simultaneously over and over again throughout a live performance of a Mozart concerto. What the CaMV promoter actually does is to place the foreign gene outside the normal regulatory circuits of the host organism, subjecting the host organism effectively to a permanent metabolic stress. This will multiply the unintended, unpredictable effects, which are legion in transgenic organisms. It may also be another reason why transgenic lines are notoriously unstable (Finnegan, J. & McElroy, D. 1994, Bio/Technology 12, 883). The organism generally reacts to the presence of foreign genetic material by breaking it down or inactivating it. Even after the genetic material is incorporated into the genome, it can silence the foreign genes so that they are no longer expressed (see Item #3 below). The key recent finding, which provoked our review, was the report (Kohli et al, (1999) The Plant Journal 17, 591) that the CaMV promoter contains a 'recombination hotspot' - a site where the DNA tends to break and join up with other DNA, thus changing the combination and arrangement of genes. Around the hotspot are several short stretches or modules for binding various enzymes, all of which are also involved in recombination , ie, breaking and joining DNA. Furthermore, the CaMV promoter recombination hotspot bears a strong resemblance to the borders of the T-DNA vector carrying the transgenes, which are also known to be prone to recombination. It is that which enables the vector to invade the cell's genome in the first place. The aim of our original paper, restated explicitly in our official rebuttal, was to review the relevant findings and, in particular, to point out the implications, which the researchers themselves are unwilling or unable to draw. The findings that transgenic DNA has the tendency to break and join in several places imply that parts or all of it may be more likely than the plant's own DNA to jump out of the genome and successfully transfer horizontally to unrelated species. Horizontal gene transfer, in this context, means the transfer of the genetic material directly by infection to the genetic material of unrelated species, in principle to all species interacting with the GMO: bacteria, fungi, earthworms, nematodes, protozoa, insects, small mammals and human beings. This process is uncontrollable and cannot be recalled. The damages done are hence irreversible. Transgenic DNA has been designed to be invasive and to overcome species barriers; once released, it will invade different organisms, especially bacteria which are in all environments, where it will multiply, mutate and recombine. There are additional findings which suggest an increased potential for the horizontal spread of transgenic DNA. For example, enzymes that insert the transgenic DNA into the genome can also help them to jump out again; DNA released from both dead or live cells can survive without being degraded in all environments, including the mouth and gut of mammals; DNA can be readily taken up into cells; and all cells can take up naked or free DNA. The instability of transgenic DNA may also be enhanced as the result of the metabolic stress inflicted on the organism by the CaMVpromoter that gives continuous over-expression of transgenes. The major consequences of the horizontal transfer of transgenic DNA are the spread of antibiotic resistance marker genes among bacteria and the generation of new bacteria and new viruses that cause diseases from the many bacterial and viral genes used. The generation of new viruses could occur by recombination with live or dormant viruses that we now know to be present in all genomes, plants and animals included. Recombination with defective, dormant animal viral promoters may also occur, as we know that there are modules within the promoter that are interchangeable between plant and animal promoters. Recombination of CaMV promoter modules with defective promoters of animal viruses may result in recombinant promoters that are active in animal cells, causing over- expression of one or the other of dozens of cellular genes which are now believed to be associated with cancer. There is sufficient scientific evidence to support well-founded suspicion of serious, irreversible harm to justify the immediate withdrawal of all GM crops and products containing the CaMV promoter from environmental release. (M.W.H.) http://www.organicconsumers.org/ge/mwhoviral.cfm |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter