Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #76   Report Post  
Old 08-10-2003, 03:12 PM
Franz Heymann
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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




  #77   Report Post  
Old 08-10-2003, 03:22 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 ,
"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.
  #78   Report Post  
Old 08-10-2003, 04:12 PM
Franz Heymann
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
news
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




  #79   Report Post  
Old 09-10-2003, 03:22 PM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the Economic Interests of the Life Science


"Peter Ashby" wrote in message
news
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.



  #80   Report Post  
Old 09-10-2003, 09:22 PM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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









  #81   Report Post  
Old 09-10-2003, 09:32 PM
Tumbleweed
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the Economic Interests of the Life Science

"pearl" wrote in message
...
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?

snip

Better stop eating Cauliflower then?

--
Tumbleweed

Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)




  #82   Report Post  
Old 09-10-2003, 11:02 PM
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the Economic Interests of the Life Science

"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
. ..
"pearl" wrote in message
...
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?

snip

Better stop eating Cauliflower then?


Not unless it's GM. :-/ Read the article?


  #83   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2003, 05:02 PM
Peter Ashby
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the Economic Interests of the Life Science

In article ,
"pearl" wrote:

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).


yawn, this is just an attempt to fool the gullible. If you don't know
why the above is not relevant to the risk from integrated transgenes
then you are in well over your head. Hint: there are no plasmids
involved.

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 we do no work on transgenic plants. For that you need to travel down
the road to Invergowrie and the Scottish Crop Research Institute. There
are informal links with the university but they are entirely separate
institutions with different aims, objectives and funding sources. As for
my funding, to be brutally honest I don't know which pot of money I am
currrently funded by. I have been funded by the BBSRC, the MRC and the
Human Frontier Science Program. I have never worked on transgenic plants
and think it unlikely I will ever do so. I have never worked in industry
nor knowingly recieved industry backing for my research. I am not
currently seeking industry funding.

Here endeth my statement of interests.

Next attempted smear please.

--
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.
  #84   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2003, 05:02 PM
Oz
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the Economic Interests of the Life Science

Peter Ashby writes
In article ,
"Tumbleweed" wrote:

"pearl" wrote in message
...
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?

snip

Better stop eating Cauliflower then?


Especially since it is mutant cabbage and we have no idea what caused
the mutation. It might, gasp, have been a virus (cue gameshow style,
tension drums).


It's clearly a hideously deformed mutant cabbage.

God only knows what mutated product it produces that we have no idea
about. I very much doubt it has ever been tested for safety although at
least we know it contains carcinogenic and mutagenic mustard oils.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.
  #85   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2003, 05:43 PM
Peter Ashby
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the Economic Interests of the Life Science

In article ,
Oz wrote:

Peter Ashby writes
In article ,
"Tumbleweed" wrote:

Better stop eating Cauliflower then?


Especially since it is mutant cabbage and we have no idea what caused
the mutation. It might, gasp, have been a virus (cue gameshow style,
tension drums).


It's clearly a hideously deformed mutant cabbage.

God only knows what mutated product it produces that we have no idea
about. I very much doubt it has ever been tested for safety although at
least we know it contains carcinogenic and mutagenic mustard oils.


It's really no wonder many people don't like Sprouts, even at solstice
celebrations. This is almost certainly a visceral anti GM instinct.

Peter
Who quite likes sprouts, especially at solstice celebrations when his
wife pan fries them with chestnuts. But then all extant life is simply
the mutants that won the lottery.

--
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.


  #86   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2003, 06:42 PM
Tumbleweed
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the Economic Interests of the Life Science


"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Tumbleweed" wrote in message
. ..
"pearl" wrote in message
...
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?

snip

Better stop eating Cauliflower then?


Not unless it's GM. :-/ Read the article?


The article was about bits of CaMV which is used to xfer genes. I presume
that CaMV is therefore full of these bits (promoters) and thus would be even
worse. hence, if you are worried about GM done via CaMV, why arent you
worried about CaMV itself?

--
Tumbleweed

Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)



  #87   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2003, 08:02 PM
Oz
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the Economic Interests of the Life Science

Peter Ashby writes

It's really no wonder many people don't like Sprouts, even at solstice
celebrations. This is almost certainly a visceral anti GM instinct.


Well, for some people it's certainly a visceral instinct of some form.
Sometimes a retr0gastral instinct.

Who quite likes sprouts, especially at solstice celebrations when his
wife pan fries them with chestnuts.


Love sprouts, but not the insipid new low eructic acid cultivars.
I note the sophistiocation of your bubble & squeak,

But then all extant life is simply
the mutants that won the lottery.


Absolutely, a most accurate observation.

There are mutants all around us. Unfortunately the natural selection
process is somewhat inhibited in humans. So clearly failed mutants
without a lifeforce like lotus are allowed to survive instead of a rapid
culling, as should happen in the wild.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
DEMON address no longer in use.
  #88   Report Post  
Old 10-10-2003, 08:42 PM
Franz Heymann
 
Posts: n/a
Default A Danger to the World's Food: Genetic Engineering and the Economic Interests of the Life Science


"pearl" wrote in message
...


[snip]

For most of the 20th century, scientists in British universities
were discouraged from engaging with industry,


Having spent more than half of the twentieth century in the University
world, I know that that statement is pure boloney as far as any University
of which I have knowledge is concerned.

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.


Please list those University Departments in which academic freedom has been
compromised by its funding arrangements, and illustrate how and why the
academic freedom of which members of staff was compromised.

You are making it quite plain that you are trying to grind an axe from a
position in which you possess neither axe nor grindstone.

Franz




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 06:39 PM
Genetic engineering of plants Fred Plant Science 10 20-09-2003 07:02 PM
problems with genetic engineering Walter Epp sci.agriculture 19 13-08-2003 02:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2020 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017