Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61   Report Post  
Old 07-10-2003, 07:42 AM
Oz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #62   Report Post  
Old 07-10-2003, 10:32 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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!
  #63   Report Post  
Old 07-10-2003, 12:22 PM
Peter Ashby
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #64   Report Post  
Old 07-10-2003, 02:32 PM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science

NNTP-Posting-Host: f-airlock203.esatclear.ie
X-Trace: kermit.esat.net 1065529585 23661 194.145.135.203 (7 Oct 2003 12:26:25 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 12:26:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
Path: kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com!hub1.meganetnews.com!nntpserve r.com!news2.euro.net!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!diablo.theplanet.net! newsfeed.esat.net!news.esat.net!not-for-mail
Xref: kermit uk.environment.conservation:52329 uk.rec.gardening:169328 uk.rec.natural-history:17808 alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian:137302 alt.animals.rights.promotion:14477 uk.business.agricultu131324

"Peter Ashby" wrote in message
news
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.

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.

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 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.
...'
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/GenEng.htm




  #65   Report Post  
Old 07-10-2003, 02:42 PM
Rhiannon S
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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!


  #66   Report Post  
Old 07-10-2003, 03:43 PM
Peter Ashby
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
  #67   Report Post  
Old 07-10-2003, 10:47 PM
Robert Seago
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #68   Report Post  
Old 08-10-2003, 01:36 AM
Bob Hobden
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.







  #69   Report Post  
Old 08-10-2003, 01:39 AM
Bob Hobden
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.







  #70   Report Post  
Old 08-10-2003, 01:44 AM
Bob Hobden
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.









  #71   Report Post  
Old 08-10-2003, 01:44 AM
Michelle Fulton
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #72   Report Post  
Old 08-10-2003, 10:38 AM
Jim Webster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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




  #73   Report Post  
Old 08-10-2003, 10:39 AM
Jim Webster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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




  #74   Report Post  
Old 08-10-2003, 10:42 AM
Jim Webster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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




  #75   Report Post  
Old 08-10-2003, 12:23 PM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the EconomicInterests of the Life Science

"Peter Ashby" wrote in message
news
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.



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
International Science and Engineering Fair-Call for Judges KARL ROBERTS Plant Biology 0 13-12-2008 07:39 PM
Genetic engineering of plants Fred Plant Science 10 20-09-2003 08:02 PM
problems with genetic engineering Walter Epp sci.agriculture 19 13-08-2003 03:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:00 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017