Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[G-Flex]

I think there should be a constitutional amendment banning the copyrighting of genes, and have for a long time. Just saying.

Wait, why a constitutional amendment? That shouldn't be necessary at all, especially since copyright law itself isn't in the constitution. A law against it would be fine.

You also seem a bit confused regarding the differences between things like trademarks, copyrights, patents, and so forth.


Also, that's not as clear-cut as you might think. Why shouldn't a gene itself be protected? What about microorganisms, or DNA-based computers?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

You start copyrighting the very thing that makes up living organisims, and it's only a matter of time untill you try to claim that all instances of this gene are yours. Same reason we don't let people copyright molecules or elements.

[Virex]

Also, that's not as clear-cut as you might think. Why shouldn't a gene itself be protected? What about microorganisms, or DNA-based computers?

Official stance of the EU patent office is (if I recall correctly and they haven't changed it) that the information contained within genes is an expression of the fundamental laws of nature. you can't patent a law of nature, ergo you can't patent a gene.

[scriver]

I eye-rolled forever at 'frankenfish'.

The problem is more about people making the world their playground. Some people believe that life (and "natural" wildlife) is worth something in itself, apart from it's economical value.

Look at the poll results.
27%
Yes. The FDA has already said that genetically altered salmon is as safe to eat as the traditional kind.
50%
No. Altered fish has never been eaten before -- we don't know what it could do to us.
23%
I'll wait and see. If it hits the market and there are no problems, I may try it.

We know exactly what it can do to us. We eat chinook salmon. We eat ocean pout. The article itself brings up 'new allergies' as a concern - do you know anyone that's only allergic to ocean pout? I'll just assume you don't, msnbc, because fish allergies are caused by a specific protein, parvalbumin, present in most fish.

The environmental concern is real, and when I saw this it spooked me a little. But it's addressed adequately by their measures. They're breeding female salmon with hormone-altered female salmon, meaning they're all female. The triploid method is statistically reliable and established as producing fish that are extremely unlikely to survive - At absolute most, you'd have 5% of fish (almost certainly less) fighting against the odds that the 95% other fish are escaping instead, trying to fight their way through chlorine kill-zones, heat exchangers, nets, several hydroelectic plants down-stream, etc. etc. Then -those- have to compete against native salmon, which statistically easily outcompete triploid salmon in mating. Take a look at this, which is a lot more informative than nbc's article. The tactic for news agencies that want to boil up some fear over this is the standard 'scientists don't know what they're doing and neither do you'. Well, there you go msnbc. Get reading, poll-takers, or shut up and let the grownups put food on your plates

Regarding patents, I actually see it as somewhat beneficial (if troubling) in GM foods specifically. Simply because it makes companies less likely to slip in some "trade secret" alterations to their products, which might alter any number of factors. If they're required to publish the sequenced genome of their product as a part of their patent, it's straight-forward for a regulatory body to check it against what's on the shelf.

I.. Was that aimed at me, in any way? I'm not sure how it relates to anything I said.

[Eagleon]

I didn't say anything about the salmon escaping, so I'm unsure of what you're responding to here.

This is the only risk with this case, as far as I can tell, so that's the risk I responded to

Okay, how exactly do you know all of this stuff about the probabilities of accidentally doing something that has never been done accidentally or intentionally before?  Are you a molecular biologist or something?  I don't even see how scientists could know what you're claiming to know; we didn't even know that prions existed until recently.  You appear to me to be pulling stuff out of your ass in a desperate attempt to assert your point by any means whatsoever, truthful or not.

Because prions have very specific, complex (however simple compared to other proteins) structures that would be prohibitively difficult to create intentionally without copying existing structures, let alone accidentally by altering non-prion proteins. The very fact that prions are poorly understood is prohibitive to their accidental creation - we're at the stage where we're transplating the encoding of proteins into the genomes of other creatures, not producing new proteins reliably, and no one is doing so in commercial products yet. I know about these things by reading about them. I'm not a molecular biologist, but I do have a brain. It's just not a risk.

I.. Was that aimed at me, in any way? I'm not sure how it relates to anything I said.

Nah, sorry if it seemed that way. I was saying that people don't generally use that as reasoning for opposing GMO, as evidenced by the poll results. I mean there were probably people that voted yes for other reasons than those stated, but half?

[Phmcw]

I'm sorry, like what? What bacteria are you speaking of specifically here? Which molecule? Why would this molecule cause harm in corn, as opposed to bacteria, which are tremendously more abundant and ingested daily by billions of people simply breathing? This is the problem I have with most GMO opponents - they have a vague idea of the issues, they're terrified by the concept because they're told by others that it could cause mass disasters, and then they spread fear and ignorance without actually doing even a modicum of ground work to make sure they're not just beating sticks on the wall to make noise.

I'll be in the angry room if anyone needs me.

Corn mon 810. And I doubt that you ingest or inhale a lot of that bacillus.
You should try to inform yourself before calling anyone who disagree with you ignorant. And just so you know, that kind of ogm is forbidden in more than a few countries in Europe, and his usefulness is severely questioned.

Another great idea from Monsanto, is to make some plant immune to the roundup. Great, now the field are just sprayed with roundup, and who eat it?

Don't worry, all adequate measure are taken.

[Auto Slaughter]

Because prions have very specific, complex (however simple compared to other proteins) structures that would be prohibitively difficult to create intentionally without copying existing structures, let alone accidentally by altering non-prion proteins. The very fact that prions are poorly understood is prohibitive to their accidental creation - we're at the stage where we're transplating the encoding of proteins into the genomes of other creatures, not producing new proteins reliably, and no one is doing so in commercial products yet. I know about these things by reading about them. I'm not a molecular biologist, but I do have a brain. It's just not a risk.

So perhaps you're more familiar with prions than I am... my understanding is that a prion is basically a protein that re-folds other proteins it comes in contact with (with the re-folded proteins being specific to each prion.)  So you're saying that only complicated proteins can re-fold other proteins?

[Virex]

I thought prions normally only refolded their precursors or very similar structures, then then would go on to become new prions?

[Auto Slaughter]

Also, my impression was that a prion is chemically identical to the other protein it's re-folding, it's just folded differently.  So a prion isn't more or less complicated than the proteins it targets, it's just a variation of them.

[ChairmanPoo]

I think he is saying that there is no known link between recombinant DNA and prions, and thus throwing them into the discussion doesn't make much sense.

[Eagleon]

So perhaps you're more familiar with prions than I am... my understanding is that a prion is basically a protein that re-folds other proteins it comes in contact with (with the re-folded proteins being specific to each prion.)  So you're saying that only complicated proteins can re-fold other proteins?

Yeah, I'm saying that only prions are known to do so infectiously, and that the proteins that we're making are already found in other animals, in this case animals that are eaten by humans. As such there's no danger of creating prions.

Maïs mon 810. And I doubt that you ingest or inhale a lot of that bacillus.
You should try to inform yourself before calling anyone who disagree with you ignorant. And just so you know, that kind of ogm is forbidden in more than a few countries in Europe, and his usefulness is severely questioned.

Another great idea from Monsanto, is to make some plant immune to the roundup. Great, now the field are just sprayed with roundup, and who eat it?

Don't worry, all adequate measure are taken.

Ok, this is more of an argument But it's not against GMO, it's against pesticide-resistance induced by GMO, which I'm entirely against. It just bothers me when people don't state specific situations and problems in their claims, because people pick it up and spread it around, and it becomes the image that GM in general is environmentally/physically unsafe, where really, only certain practices within GM can be considered unsafe, because there's so much you can do with it. Like banning mining in general because of mountain-top removal.

[Phmcw]

To re clarify my position : I'm more concerned by clear, easy to spot danger overlooked for the sake of the big four, than by weird and unexpected phenomenon. I would be pro gmo if I trusted even a bit the fda and the other regulation agencies.

[Auto Slaughter]

Yeah, I'm saying that only prions are known to do so infectiously, and that the proteins that we're making are already found in other animals, in this case animals that are eaten by humans. As such there's no danger of creating prions.

So... you didn't actually answer my question there.  What makes you think that only complex proteins can re-fold other proteins?

And now you're also claiming that the alterations of the genome only reproduce with 100% accuracy proteins that are found in other animals?  Do you have a source on that one?

Now we're just peeling back layer after layer of shameless unmitigated bullshit.  This is why no one trusts the assertions that GMOs are harmless.  You are not the one who needs an angry room, dude.

[Zangi]

I'm all for genetically modified food and animals. 

At least this way, their won't be fewer secret islands and labs with people making super bears and uber cows in the year 2030.

[Nikov]

I see no problem with farm-raised fish being made far more marketable. This will make the salmon less expensive and reduce pressure on wild populations. People who otherwise wouldn't eat salmon frequently might be inticed by a low price and eat healthier. Also I don't see a need to label it as GM. I mean, pick up a can of soda. The high fructose corn syrup? Made from GM corn. Big deal.

Eagleon, you point out something interesting. Its called the precautionary principle. Its a fun little one-way arguement used by enviroloonies to insist we shouldn't touch anything with any degree of risk. Like asprin.

Asperine's side effects are actually quite severe compared to it's effects. Some have argued it would be a prescribed drug if it was discovered now. Besides, isn't the corn syrup in can's of soda labeled as made of GM corn in the ingredients normally?

1. Under the precautionary principle, wine would be banned if it were discovered now. You're arguing that, thanks to the absurdity of some people, I can't point out the absurdity of some people.

2. No.