Well...I am not so sure that it is such a bad idea to meddle with things a bit. We have been doing it for centuries anyway with making hybrids and selecting for the strongest plants. Crop plants are probably those which have been most altered. Do you know what corn was like until it was "messed with" by humans? Practically inedible. While I agree with you that it is best to not mess with nature because I think she can have a "bad temper", I see genetic engineering with crop plants as the best way to overcome a lot of problems with food distribution/shortages given the current world circumstances, but does that mean that it's a good idea to follow this path? This is an extremely difficult situation...I think that it is wrong to just basically "create" new organisms. On the other hand, I think it is also wrong for people to starve to death when something can be done about it. Can global supply of food meet demand? Yes. Is that food distributed properly? No. Would genetically engineered plants solve this problem? Maybe, maybe not (and in the case of "maybe" it would possibly create as many new problems as it would solve). I see so, so, so, so many problems with the entire situation. The biggest problem is that, in theory, all of the food produced this way should be safe for human consumption. This is not good enough. It needs to be proved. The other side of that problem, is will these will the non-genetically modified crops disrupt the "natural order of things"? The answer, for me anyway, is undoubtedly "yes". Any action, that we, as humans, take as a group will most definitely have some effect on the natural balance of things (the current situation is more of an imbalance, once again, this is obviously my opinion). In any case, even though I am probably supposed to agree with genetically modified crops, I really do not, at least for the moment, until it has been proven completely safe. And it is quite possible that it will never be proven safe. As for glow in the dark fish...this was probably a way for researchers to look at expression of a certain gene within the fish. GFP (green fluorescent protein) and other genes that have protein products that "light up" are commonly used as a reporter genes that "report" whether or not a particular gene of interest is present. This is used with many organisms, and use of reporter genes is a very important tool in genetics. I cannot really say anything about the animal side of genetic engineering since it is something that I have not studied, and it is certainly not anything that I want to get involved with. Let's just hope that fish like this don't end up on the dinner table.

Alex

ok here is my take on GE food.

if the universe if limitless,
if plants are around for a long enough,
if evolution (im not arguing that i came from a monkey but that plant dna mutates thru time) happens,

then eventually the sequence that is inserted into the plant has a decent chance of happening in nature anyhow, eventually.

so, if all of that is given above, we are just speeding up plant evolution. as Mendel's pea experiments did also.

imo, as long as its delicious, ecologically benign and it doesnt make me glow green, i have no problem with GE.

i do have a problem with the 'terminator gene' tho. that sounds like a ecological disaster.

froggy

I think GE is the hope for the future. Keep the research coming.

I am by no stretch of the imagination a botanist, merely a gardening enthusiast, but thought I would throw my two cents in anyway. It seems to me we have been "meddling with things a bit" for a lot longer than centuries. The evolution of agriculture alone was a big meddle. Bringing foreign seeds to new lands was (and remains) meddling; humans are really no different than birds when it comes to plopping seeds down in unexpected places. Gregor Mendel meddled. The book, "Botany of Desire" by Michael Pollan offers the wonderful theory that, contrary to what we believe, plants have domesticated US, not the other way around. The ones that developed sweetness, beauty, the ability to intoxicate and all the other uses we find for plants are the ones that we till the ground for, fertilize, water, and (if I'm your typical gardener) provide with affection, praise, and encouragement Where do we draw the line and say, "this is natural" and "that is not?"

>hormone induced plant defenses .. plants that
> make their own pesticides ... glow in the dark fish ...
>What lies ahead ??

There is a lot of "it depends" out there. It depends on who is doing it, what their motives are, what pressures they are under. It depends on how much we know, how much we don't know, how well we understand what we know.

Gone at cautiously, with time for thorough thought and testing, I think there could be very fine results. If academia was in charge we would probably procede this way. We'd get our blue roses, they'd work out the full consequences of golden rice and jigger it around until it was worth eating, maybe they would come out with cattle that their heads would glow green if they came down with Mad Cow Disease, who knows?

But I don't think it's going to be like that. There is money out there, big money. It has a very strong appeal. If you want to know how people will behave as gene splicing becomes more doable, just read up on any gold rush. Wild times. Variable laws. Fly-by-nights. Scams. Booms. Busts. And this is just for the small stuff, the plants, the invertebrates. When the human mods come out it's going to be cold war all over again.

I think the real question is how long do we have before the biological Cherynobyl? Can we control ourselves without one? Probably not. We are actually quite fortunate that Al Qaeda is so focused on theater & violence. Losing two buildings, four airplanes, a few thousand people, we didn't like it, but that was really just a baby tap.

All new technologies get pulled into weapons production. Gengeneering will be no different. The national guard is busy watching bridges, parks, tunnels and what have you. People forget that the US is a massive agricultural power. Who's watching the wheat fields? If Al Qaeda or whoever we're fighting this week was smart they'd study up on the history of imported blights in north america, breed up a few dozen improved ones, and take down the entire US economy rather than putting a minor crimp in one cities finances.

I would probably trust something that was gene spliced in scandinavia, by scandanavians. Those people have the sense, the intelligence, the sheer self restraint to keep pet projects in their secure bio-hazard-level-four labs until they've really worked out the full consequences of release.

Americans have the tecnology, the beginnings of the technology, but we don't have the restraint. BT cotton is out in the fields of the south and we expect it will alter the gene pool of a variety of pests, but we're doing it anyhow. The modified pests will be someone elses problem. Patented StarLink corn genes have scattered widely out into Mexico. The mexicans hate it but can do nothing. Monsanto's Roundup Ready Canola appears to have gone feral in Saskatchewan. None of these have really bothered me personally, they don't make the front pages. Of course these are just the first little ripples in the gene pool. I think we'd all better watch out when the real waves come...

"Michael Pollan offers the wonderful theory that, contrary to what we believe, plants have domesticated US, not the other way around."

I tend to find this idea rather interesting myself ...

Good Day ...

Very well put Ken.

lol, plants domesticated us, that is definitely one interesting way of looking at it...and probably pretty true. i think domestication has gone both ways.

Alex

Genetic modification of plants means using bacteria genes to put the gene of choice in the plant.

Hybridization is incredibly common in the plant world, but occurs between species of plants.

Not between plants and bacteria.

For 1000 of years we have been controlling plant genetics through horticulture. But we have not been hybridizing plants and animals into chlorophyll-laden sheep.

We are not talking about simply evolution, that is the change of a species over time.

We are talking about combining the genes of organism in one kingdom to the genes of organisms in another kingdom.

The last time this or something similar is believed to happen, our cells acquired mitochondria. The evolutionary process that led to the successful aquisition of mitochondria happened over eons. Not in 10 years.

I personally suscribe to the theory that enough food only leads to greater populations. This cycle is an endless struggle. I believe we likely produce enough food right now from industrialized agriculture practices to feed the entire world.

Unfortunately, we fail at effective and fair distribution.

So while America struggles with an obesity epidemic, other nations starve.

Finally, genetic engineering might be done correctly. But right now, it is simply increasing pesticides and being done too quickly to fully understand impact.

I don't do "designer drugs" like X because there is no long term, widespread study of the effects. Similarily, I skip out on the GE food.

"I believe we likely produce enough food right now from industrialized agriculture practices to feed the entire world."

Bradley, if a man named Norman Borlaug felt the same as you, how many more people of the world do you think would be hungry now?

Hi
I find this an interesting discussion on many levels.
First that it's being discussed at all.lol Before mass communication advancements in science were in very select groups of people. I doubt the average person ever heard of
most of the great thinkers within their own time.Let alone gave any thought to what could be done with it.
Personally I'm still struggling with the old question.
"What makes the world go round ?" lol Newton gave us very exact laws and a complete system of how to figure it.But no matter how many decimal places you carry this thinking it doesn't seem to matter much on a human level.
"What makes the world go round " on this level is either money or sociology. These are the only two things that people everywhere since the beginning of time have found essential.
Right now I'm leaning toward money.lol. If there is money to be made it will come to pass. I find it interesting that most History is based on sociology rather than economics.How can you separate them??
It appears to me that there is TONS of money to be made in gene splicing.Probably the biggest economic breakthrough of all times!!??
I think the new facet to the question "What is yet to be?? will for the first time in history be decided by what the average person thinks. My great grandchildren will decide if that was good or bad??
Gary

From what I can tell from the working Norman Borlaug links is that he does feel the same as me - that current industrialized farming practices are sufficient to feed the world.

From the April 2000 Richard Bailey's article in Reason on Borlaug:
Despite occasional local famines caused by armed conflicts or political mischief, food is more abundant and cheaper today than ever before in history, due in Large [sic] part to the work of Borlaug and his colleagues.

I did enjoy the Norman Borlaug rap though (also on the AgBioWorld site). Good stuff. Because there are blacks in Africa we should write a rap. Than we'll get an 11 years old kid (who is clearly educated on the topic) from Alabama to rap it. Unfortunately, (based on a google search) it does seem to be the only piece by the great MC Tractor.

It's great that Borlaug helped to feed India. But India had to work on their own population control issues through social change and education.

Right now if Borlaug helps feed Africa it's still unlikely Africa will undergo a population explosion. They have lost a whole generation in many areas. There are simply not enough healthy people to support a population explosion.

It was interesting to see (in the same article) that Borlaug supports "biotechnology". Is that a wish-washy term for genetic engineering of food crops? Call a spade a spade folks.

I'm more interested by Gary's view that because of the internet and the "information" revolution, we will have more control and input on future revolutions.

I'm not sure we'll have more control. There seems to be a great disconnect between knowledge and action. There is another disconnect between actions that are called for and actual changes. I'm not sure what the causes are. But it makes for interesting reflection.

First- We are on a small planet but over population at this time seems to be a myth. Infact the industrilized nations are LOSING population. We simply no longer need to have 8 -12 kids to help on the farm. And more children survive to adulthood so the pressure to have many babies is lessened.

Second - The main problem with the GM food is once you release the new gene combinations into the envirnoment thats it ... its out. Using corn for instance I have read of a study of modified corn grown in Mexico for the pharmy folks. Well the local corn (corn that had been grown as a highly adapted variety for that location for who knows how long ... less chance of crop faliure due to this corn being adapted to that particular envirnoment) in the surrounding fields all contained the newly spliced in gene as part of their gene code. So the bio diversity of that area was lessened. When you decrease the bio diversity you increase the chances of massive crop failure. Poor Mexican farmers.

Third - The comsumpution of GM food is not though to be dangerous due to the fact that we do not absorb genes whole (those modified genes will NOT suddenly appear as part of our gene code) but rather are broken them down during digestion into its component parts.

Mike

"It was interesting to see (in the same article) that Borlaug supports "biotechnology". Is that a wish-washy term for genetic engineering of food crops? Call a spade a spade folks. "

The two terms are really NOT the same ... I do not know how the term was used in your referenced article but biotechnology existed long before our current definition of "genetic engineering" ... example : making wine and beer is a perfect example of biotechnology ... modifying brewers yeast via gentic engineering is bio technology with the application of gentic engineering as a new technological tool available to the brewmaster .... the two terms are not the same.

There is much reference to the evils of money ... my own view ... it is always cheaper to do it right the first time and any sane person that deals with money and technology would want to avoid any costly pitfalls ... I don't think anyone in the nuclear industry wanted "Three mile Island " to happen ... money is not the root of all evil here it is the tool that will drive new technology and make it work ...

Also there is talk of farming technology being as advanced or at a level it needs to be to feed the world ect ... a very risky idea ... although I agree with many of the posters that politics / wars ect. play a significant role in hampering distribution ... keep in mind there are only a half dozen to a dozen or so plants that feed much of the world ... and the world is in constant change ... deserts getting larger ... economics changing ... new diseases ect.. by know means is this the time in man's history to sit idle in any industry including farming ...

Good Day ...

"Genetic modification of plants means using bacteria genes to put the gene of choice in the plant. Hybridization is incredibly common in the plant world, but occurs between species of plants. Not between plants and bacteria."

Well, not quite. The reason that Agrobacterium tumefaciens can be used in the first place for transferring "genes of interest" into plants is that it does this in the wild. They can infect plants, and this results in the creation of a tumor that feeds the bacteria population. And in the process there is gene transfer from the bacteria to the infected plant cells. It's not really hybridization that's taking place. It's gene transfer, and it does happen in nature. The difference is what genes are being transferred, and that's the bigger issue. (Note: Agrobacterium can be used for many dicots, but it cannot be used for monocots like rice, wheat, and maize, this is where the "gene gun" comes in handy).

Alex

Hi
I once read a book that cataloged personal reflections
of the great thinkers on their work and critisms of contemporaries.He noted that most of these people had little or no impact on society until the mid 13th century.
He attributed this change in attitude to plagues and the spread of the concept of "personal wealth" There was also a long part on why Christianity spread to Europe rather than the Orient. I'm hoping someone will be able to tell me the name and author of this book??
I wish i could remember direct quotes but will paraphrase
some of them. Hopefully I'm crediting the correct person.
Eli Whitnet " The cotton gin will completely eliminate slavery because it does the work of a 100"
Fleming "The discovery of penecillin will complete eliminate invectios disease within 20 years."
McCormaick "The widespread use of my reaper will end world starvation"
Mao Tse Tung "There is no alternative for the peoples of
China except for the grace of international communism"
Einstein There is probably no practicle use for "realtivity" except for the creation of an explosion.Of course it would be so large as to be useless"
National Geographic thinkers.There is absolutely no way to escape the gravity of the earth"
"The marriage of the atomic bomb to the guided missile
will make attack impossible" Can't remember the person.
"By the 1970 there will be no wars,no famine and no disease"
" DDT will save more lives than all medicines combined"
There is no way for the telephone to become wide spread or useful because ther is no way to make connections.
"The universe is approximately 3 billion light years,randomly spaced with no more than 1 million galaxies"
I could go on and on but this topic has made me think about this book.Anybody recognise it?? Would love to read it again. Sorry this is soooo long
Gary

If you do find out what book that was, let us know, Gary =) It is interesting to find things like that, how when new inovations are made, they are heralded as 'the greatest thing to ever happen to man' and can 'save the world' from this, that, or the other thing.
Alex, what is the 'gene gun?' Sounds interesting and scary at the same time =)

Bradley, I didn't come across the rap before, interesting. I hope you don't think I was stepping on your toes in particular, sorry =) I just think that GE in crop production gets a bad rap, and was trying to point out a brite side. Yes, politics, civil unrest, war, etc. can put a (heck of a) damper on food distribution and local agriculture. But there are areas of the world where (A) we have large populations of starving people and (B) poor conditions for agriculture. GE can create food crops that will grow in these poor conditions and feed the people. This avoids shipping in food, which is not a help to these people in the long run. If you give a man a bowl of food, you feed him today. Give him a bag of seed (even if it is GE), and you feed him for a lifetime.

Garden witch
I'm sure hoping someone can identify it.It's not "The Naked Ape""Technophobia.the 21st century virus.""Why are we so bad at predicting the future??"
I read the book many years ago so it would have to be old.
Certainly published before 1960.
Gary

Bradley--Have you read Ishmael?

I don't have any problem with GE foods on a health level. There is absolutely no reason for them to be dangerous and any evidence for their danger just underscores that the technology must be in the hands of those who know what they're doing. However all they do is prolong theuse of horrendous agricultural practices as well as keep the power of food in the hands of few, to lord over many. A huge part of the reasons for the environmental position we're in is that our agricultural systems are so artificial that they cannot be maintained. Instead of a system that is robust and strong and healthy, we are now producing even more monocultures of crop plants. That is not a safe food supply and it will never be a safe food supply, and there are very few who would argue with that.

Is it not imperative to ensure that our food supply is safe and long-lasting? To me, GM foods are absolutely no different than "traditional" crops and will be used with "traditional" (ie in the 70-odd years) farming methods.

Generally I believe that the fear of GM foods themselves lies in lack of knowledge, no insult, intended to anyone who might be offended, but there are many more issues to consider than the health of the foodstuff. The impact on our food system is at least as important, if not far more.