Genetically Modified Organisms

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:20 pm

The biotech industry has come up with numerous examples of how GMOs might offer the opportunity for better lives. Rice that contains beta-carotene, potatoes and corn that repel insect pests, tomatoes that have longer shelf lives, among others. These are plant examples, but it is certainly possible to alter animals in similar ways, such as beef with less fat, chicken with more protein, or fish that can eliminate mercury from their systems.

There are scientific as well as ethical objections to these practices, and many are uncomfortable with "accelerating the evolution" of different species. But some see a food supply in the world in danger. Pollution, deforestation, the rise of food-borne diseases, and corrupt food donation programs all contribute to human malnutrition and famine. GMOs offer a scientific solution to these problems, but at what cost?

Should GMOs be allowed or banned, and why or why not? Should we allow only plants to be modified? Or maybe limit the modified animals to seafood?

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Thu Aug 05, 2004 8:57 pm

Should GMOs be allowed or banned, and why or why not? Should we allow only plants to be modified? Or maybe limit the modified animals to seafood?

I am completely comfortable with GMOs, provided it is done right, and don't believe that God has patented his creations. Most of the results, as I understand it, have already been achieved for thousands of years through selective breeding. The variety of our canine friends is a good indication of just how varied the results of this method can be. So genetic modification is a little push for nature to go in the proper direction - geared towards our satisfaction.

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Tue Nov 16, 2004 8:21 pm

We have begun to enter into a period of using crop plants or animals to produce pharmaceuticals. While this might be advantageous in some ways, there remains the possibility of inadvertant genetic transfer (by cross-pollination, for example). I believe the rules are that the "nutriceuticals" are to be separate from the food crops, but we learned from the Starlink episode that such separation is hard to assure. My thinking at this point, is that these types of GMOs need more consideration.

On the other hand, the threat of Superweeds has led to an interesting thing. People were so concerned that GMOs would "escape" and become invasive species that the basic rules were re-examined. The result is that new crops must be evaluated for "superweed capacity" (as I'll call it) regardless of whether they were produced by genetic engineering, or by conventional breeding. What matters is the characteristics of the plant, not how it was produced.

I like to put it this way, when I raise this subject with my students: Suppose you engineer white daisies to produce the purple pigment that is in blackberries, thus producing purple daisies. Why would these purple daisies be dangerous?

tcay584 · Post by **tcay584** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:31 pm

You guys are going to blast me as a religious nut, but I do work in this industry and believe there is incredible untapped potential, good and bad. There have been many instances where humans have tried to bring in new species to control other species which were considered pests, only to have the new species eradicate the pests....and lots of others!
Jose, you make the daisy argument and I do see your point, but you must also see the other side of the coin. Many people these days say "save the ______", realizing that a species has an intrinsic value that we may not always see off the bat. How many of us scientists would ever have thaought about polar icecap melting 100 years ago? Perhaps there's something in the white daisy's pigment that may cure cancer? Get rid of the white daisy...get rid of the cure for cancer. This is highly unlikely, but what if? We eradicate the rainforests at alarming rates, not even knowing if the species we are destroying may offer beneficial therapeutic agents to humans! I truly don't believe that we humans see the perfection that God has created for us...so we seek to tweak it...sometimes with hideous consequences.

Nyril · Post by **Nyril** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 11:59 pm

This is highly unlikely, but what if? We eradicate the rainforests at alarming rates, not even knowing if the species we are destroying may offer beneficial therapeutic agents to humans!

The "What if" argument fails to move me. By that theory, any particular thing I've managed to leave in the toilet -could- cure cancer. Sure it's highly unlikely, but what if? Does that mean I shouldn't flush? I mean, I could be destroying something that could potentially benefit humans.

I know that's a bit of an extreme example, but the likelihood of some creature or plant growing up for the express purpose of curing a disease of ours is so rare, that I fail to see a reason to bother with it. Randomly generating chemicals on the odd chance you make one that cure's cancer would be about as productive.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 1:53 am

tcay584 wrote:You guys are going to blast me as a religious nut, but I do work in this industry and believe there is incredible untapped potential, good and bad. There have been many instances where humans have tried to bring in new species to control other species which were considered pests, only to have the new species eradicate the pests....and lots of others!
Jose, you make the daisy argument and I do see your point, but you must also see the other side of the coin. Many people these days say "save the ______", realizing that a species has an intrinsic value that we may not always see off the bat. How many of us scientists would ever have thaought about polar icecap melting 100 years ago? Perhaps there's something in the white daisy's pigment that may cure cancer? Get rid of the white daisy...get rid of the cure for cancer. This is highly unlikely, but what if? We eradicate the rainforests at alarming rates, not even knowing if the species we are destroying may offer beneficial therapeutic agents to humans! I truly don't believe that we humans see the perfection that God has created for us...so we seek to tweak it...sometimes with hideous consequences.

Couldn't this argument work both ways? What if changing the pigment of the daisy inadvertently leads to a cure for cancer? I really don't see it. I tend to think of genetic modification as not too different from selective breeding, which results in such varied stocks as the many different kinds of canine.

Edited to add: I hadn't realised how similar this post is to my first one. Sorry.

tcay584 · Post by **tcay584** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:21 am

I know that's a bit of an extreme example, but the likelihood of some creature or plant growing up for the express purpose of curing a disease of ours is so rare, that I fail to see a reason to bother with it. Randomly generating chemicals on the odd chance you make one that cure's cancer would be about as productive.[/quote]

I never said it grew up with the express purpose of curing a disease. However, GMOs are deliberately grown up with the express purpose of producing some benefit to us humans. I do a lot of work with therapeutic agents isolated from corals and sponges - do I think they sit at the bottom of the seafloor and cry "One day I'll grow up and be a cure for cancer" - No. However, there sure are a lot of promising lead drugs from these lowly critters.
Your last statement is a blow to all the combinatorial chemists out there, by the way.

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 2:12 pm

tcay584 wrote:Perhaps there's something in the white daisy's pigment that may cure cancer? Get rid of the white daisy...get rid of the cure for cancer. This is highly unlikely, but what if?

There are three points worth mentioning here. One is that the purple pigment is the one that is in blackberries, indian corn (blue corn chips), eggplant skins, etc. It's just a matter of moving the genes into daisies (or, since they are probably already there, activating them in petals). Second, producing a new variety of daisies doesn't cause all other daisies to disappear. Horticulturists are always inventing new varieties, and the old ones hang around pretty well, subject only to the whims of personal preference among consumers. Third, this has already been done.

tcay584 wrote:I do a lot of work with therapeutic agents isolated from corals and sponges - do I think they sit at the bottom of the seafloor and cry "One day I'll grow up and be a cure for cancer" - No. However, there sure are a lot of promising lead drugs from these lowly critters.

Indeed, there are lots of promising drugs out there, or leads to compounds that can be modified to be more potent at blocking specific targets. This is a good argument for the Biodiversity project, and for protecting the remaining ecosystems that we don't know much about. I don't think it speaks directly to the GMO issue, however, except obliquely. The two ways GMOs might affect biodiversity, it seems to me, are (1) by producing crops that can grow in habitats that are currently occupied, leading to destruction of native ecosystems to make room for farming, and (2) by creating weedy, invasive species that can out-compete local flora. Neither of these is a problem that is unique to GMOs. As you say, we are already destroying rainforests at a prodigous rate, just as we have destroyed many of our US forests. The trick is to figure out how to protect the forests, regardless of what people want to plant there instead (whether traditional crops, GM crops, or WalMarts). Invasive species, of course, abound--all we have to do is bring in horticulturally-interesting plants, and let them take off. We've done this a lot.

Just because we can produce a GM plant doesn't automatically mean that it is dangerous. The important question is what its characteristics are--which will be unique for each specific variety.

It might be most useful if we consider specific types of modifications, and specific issues. There are a great many, so a general discussion is pretty complicated. Perhaps those who are concerned about GMOs could express specific concerns, so we could focus our discussion.

Gangstawombatninja · Post by **Gangstawombatninja** » Tue Dec 21, 2004 7:32 pm

How can tinkering with genetics goign against God' Divine Plan? God knew before He created the world exactly what was going to happen (heres a contradiction: I think it's Genesis 6 or a nearby chapter: and it repented the Lord that He had made mankind--repented? prayed to a higher power for doing something wrong? God made a mistake?)

Everything that happens is supposed to happen because everything is in God's Divine Plan--that's what fate, or, rather, provedence, is. (I think prov. is right word--think fate, technically pagan, not sure tho). So everything that happens is meant to happen according to fate and God's Divine Plan. Not that you don't have a choice, just that God already new what choice you were going to make. (Hmm... God knew what choice Adam and Eve would make... Hmm... God programmed every aspect of their DNA and their psychology and how they would respond to certain situation and imbued them w/ strong curiosity... Hmm... God must have wanted Eve to eat of the fruit because He could have just rearranged a few nucleatide--atanine, guanine, thynine and cytosine, I think).

Well, if we could genetically engineer a gland that would release massive spikes of chemical euphoria whenever a person does a kind act (just like serotonin supposedly does) then, well, that would make it so that everyone finds their bliss and happiness by make others happy. So that if everyone is catering to your happiness and everyone else is catering to your welfare, well, there's isn't anything to worry about because everyone is happy: utopia.

Why the heck would God be against ending suffering and making everyone happy?

Johnin Spain · Post by **Johnin Spain** » Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:50 pm

Why the heck would God be against ending suffering and making everyone happy?

He's not, it's people who are against this and those people are the ones who stand against God, reject Christ, and make the world what it is.

God does have His Divine Plan, GMO's are not part of it. God is THE Creator and reserves that right for Himself. When mankind start tinkering with that right they run foul of God. He will allow that abuse, but He will also allow mankind to ultimately suffer for their insolence.