Frankenrice!

[ZIM]

Well, its sorta on topic...


In the first modification of its kind, Japanese researchers have inserted a gene from the human liver into rice to enable it to digest pesticides and industrial chemicals. The gene makes an enzyme, code-named CPY2B6, which is particularly good at breaking down harmful chemicals in the body.

Present GM crops are modified with genes from bacteria to make them tolerate herbicides, so that they are not harmed when fields are sprayed to kill weeds. But most of them are only able to deal with a single herbicide, which means that it has to be used over and over again, allowing weeds to build up resistance to it.

But the researchers at the National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences in Tsukuba, north of Tokyo, have found that adding the human touch gave the rice immunity to 13 different herbicides. This would mean that weeds could be kept down by constantly changing the chemicals used.

Supporting scientists say that the gene could also help to beat pollution. Linka dinka doo (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=632444)

Here's my questions: Is this Good or Bad?
I mean, there might actually be an argument for it being Good from a TCM point of view [good for the Liver? Who knows?] and if its good for pollution, maybe they can do the same with grass and shrubbery...

[YuanZhideDiZhen]

my major concern with adding human genes to plants is that the plants might become succeptible to human illnesses and become communicators for them. such as HIV from reclaimed water; malaria; yellow fever; denge fever; west nile virus and Hunta to name a few.

[joedoe]

Or that the plants may decide to take revenge for millions of years of being eaten by all sorts of animals and turn around and start eating the animals - or even us!!!!

[cam]

Adapting Life so it can live in a toxic cesspool. What a future :rolleyes:

[YuanZhideDiZhen]

hey, there's hope for some of you! :rolleyes:

[gfx]

it's from human, is it human?

oh no! we're all gonna be cannibals!

[ZIM]

Oh, I don't know about any of that. I don't have any fears of eating the stuff, and I wouldn't doubt that we share ~50% of DNA with plants, anyway, so subbing in a single gene doesn't really bother me.

As for the disease angle: We don't know. We know enough to screw up badly, at least for limited regions, but we also know enough to make great strides and that potential shouldn't be ignored. Having a single crop- on an island- altered to test against is probably wise.

What does bother me is the movement to copyright the result and not have them produce any seeds so as to control that copyright. Monsanto in particular seems bent on monopoly of food production through genetics.

[red5angel]

way more then 50%.


fukk, and here I thought cam had crashed in an airplane or lit himself on fire. Ah well.

[Fu-Pow]

my major concern with adding human genes to plants is that the plants might become succeptible to human illnesses and become communicators for them. such as HIV from reclaimed water; malaria; yellow fever; denge fever; west nile virus and Hunta to name a few.

I'd say that is very very IMPOSSIBLE....maybe you saw it at a star wars convention or something.

[ZIM]

Actually, I gave a moment's reflection to cam's response:
Adapting Life so it can live in a toxic cesspool. What a future and its pretty funny, really.

If you go back to basic evolutionary theory, that's exactly how life adapts. :D

Who thrives in the waste products of plant life? Mammals. What thrives in the waste products of mammals? Bugs and bacteria. Heck, I think the theory was that plants evolved from the slime left over from mass-deaths of microscopic organisms before they even came about...

[cam]

Red, such empathy..... I'm touched!
Zim, you are correct to a degree.While many species of plant have developed a natural form of pesticide and the rotting of all plant and animal life could be described as toxic or at least laced with bacteria. No and I mean no species has developed anything as toxic or indestructable as some of our modern pesticides.
Another victory for petro-chemicals!

[Christopher M]

Here's my questions: Is this Good or Bad?

I think this has to be asked in context: is this better or worse than the alternatives?

Personally, I think that the benefits of eliminating pesticides far outweigh the costs of such genetic manipulations -- on all fronts: economic, environmental, and medical.

[FuXnDajenariht]

what exactly is the complaint against franken-food? i forgot by now. half of the stuff i eat is probably genetically engineered. not to mention the over processed crapola they call food nowadays.

[red5angel]

I think this has to be asked in context: is this better or worse than the alternatives?

Personally, I think that the benefits of eliminating pesticides far outweigh the costs of such genetic manipulations -- on all fronts: economic, environmental, and medical.


are you talking about going "organic"?

[ZIM]

what exactly is the complaint against franken-food? i forgot by now. half of the stuff i eat is probably genetically engineered. not to mention the over processed crapola they call food nowadays.Some people think it will adversely affect the food supply, resulting in famine.

Others take the economic argument that monopolies can be formed.

Others think its just icky.

[red5angel]

Some people think it will adversely affect the food supply, resulting in famine.

Others take the economic argument that monopolies can be formed.

Others think its just icky.


another more science fiction based fear is that the food will turn out to be more dangerous then beneficial if genetically altered.
Often it's the hippies who don't really understand the science who claim that tampering with mother nature is bad. Some people reject and fear the idea of anything that is not done through more natural means, like cloning and genetic manipulation. Frankly, if I could get 4 arms, 2 heads and 6 pen!ses I'd be the first in line. Either that or transplant my brain into a robot body so I can really kick some ass.

[ZIM]

Frankly, if I could get 4 arms, 2 heads and 6 pen!ses I'd be the first in line. Either that or transplant my brain into a robot body so I can really kick some ass.
Heck, the Hindus would probably worship you. :D

[TonyM.]

Toxic cesspool? Surely we have some board members from north jersey or western delaware that can report what that's like.

[YuanZhideDiZhen]

the Indians, the Thai, The Burmese... porn :) queens... the city of san francisco...

[Christopher M]

are you talking about going "organic"?

Aren't the "organic" foods all supposed to be GE-free?

[red5angel]

Aren't the "organic" foods all supposed to be GE-free?


I'm for a reduction in pesticides or the creation of better pesticides, but not getting rid of them.

[FuXnDajenariht]

i think organic means no pesticide and not genetically altered. but there so ****ed expensive its not worth it usually, i dont know how they make money in most markets, competing with GE foods. farmers try to grow as naturally as possible so naturally they lose half there crops to pests and disease.

[Christopher M]

Alot of the GE research concerns replacing the function of various sprayed chemicals, so that we can have our cake and eat it too -- that is, have the benefit of the chemicals (eg. reduction in insect consumption of crop) without having the cost of them.

It's a win-win situation unless you have a problem with GE itself.

[red5angel]

I'm all for GE foods. Pesticides and organic crops are both bad for the environment, no matter what the hippies want you to believe. Genetically desiging crops to be hardier, to return something to the soil, and to be resistant to most diseases and infestations is a good plan.

[PangQuan]

it is a good plan. We are learning to use our new sciences in good ways.

"oh please dont change the original nature" screams the stupid hippy.

its too late.