Print

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

[ChairmanPoo]

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?

burden of proof = you.

AKA: have you got any evidence proving that insterting sequence A (which works fine in animal A) verbatim into animal B will somehow result in proteins that behave like prions?

[nenjin]

I'm mostly fine with this (want it labeled)....but I don't want them using the oceans as their spawning beds for these things. If they want to genetically modify fish, let them buy a lake and do it there. They claim to understand how everything will work should they exist in the wild, but what they can't predict is the behavior of the species and its impact on the environment over time. If the species turns out to have a voracious appetite, they will put additional stress on the carrying capacity of the environment, to the detriment of established species. It's not the same as eating the competition, but it has the same net effect.

So I favor some evaluation period where biologists and naturalists can observe how the species interacts with a closed environment, before they just dump 100,000,000 fish into the ocean. Commercial fishing has proved the demand is there for more than the environment can sustain over long periods of time (we've overfished practically every popular species in the ocean. Anyone tried to pay for Cod lately?), so owners of these GM species are going to want to kick into full production immediately, and use the oceans as an "unlimited" farm land.

And that would be hasty IMO. We've established they don't give you cancer when eaten. Now we need to evaluate whether or not they're detrimental to habitats and natural species. I hope someone requires them to at least have controlled spawning beds for a few years, so we can see what the effects are.

[Soadreqm]

You guys are using the most utterly sloppy reasoning to try to reassure yourselves that nothing can go wrong.

I don't really think that nothing will go wrong. Something has gone wrong with virtually every other technology. It's only a matter of time. As we inevitably start doing more genetic manipulation without really understanding it, the chance of something terrible happening will climb.

I do think, however, that humanity will be able to deal with whatever does happen. We've been coping with self-caused disasters for a long time now. It seems to be pretty much the only way to learn. The only other option would be to NOT dabble in genetic manipulation, which seems kind of wasteful to me. Like banning the use of radioactive substances because of Chernobyl.

I'm still not going to hold my hopes up for death proteins, though. It'd have to be something impossible to detect (or appear harmless) in the preliminary testing, while simultaneously being dangerous to humans. I just don't think there are many substances like that.

[Sensei]

From what I remember the biggest difference that occur, is the enzymes which read the DNA assigning different "priorities" to the placement of proteins. They will always read the same proteins as were between each splice point however.

Worst case scenario: Retarded/cancerous salmon- and no, they would not cause cancer in humans. Maybe taste foul, but proteins are proteins.

So, unless pout aren't safe to eat -and the most suspect protein, the antifreeze one, is used safely by a popular manufacturer of ice cream, whose brands include Dove-, we've got nothing to worry about.

All that leaves is the danger of them harming/replacing indigenous salmon populations- didn't someone mention a 98% sterility rate earlier in the thread?

ninja'd by the last two posts.

[Zangi]

Wait... when did people get the idea that they will release these genetically modified fish into the ocean?

I'm working under the assumption that these people are not dumb enough, to release them into the wild.  This proposed stunt will outright kill the modded fish traction...

Also, it just doesn't make economic sense, why make it harder to catch the fish?  Why let 'other' people catch and sell 'your' fish?

[Virex]

You don't always know what can happen. One of the theories behind the Bhopal disaster is that someone purposely dumped water into a tank with MID to sabotage the plant. Likewise, Shell seems to have some problems with rebels in Nigeria sabotaging their pipelines and stealing the oil. Deepwater Horizon wasn't supposed to happen either

All that leaves is the danger of them harming/replacing indigenous salmon populations- didn't someone mention a 98% sterility rate earlier in the thread?

98% means squat if the remaining 2% can form a viable population...

[Phmcw]

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.

That's not precautionary principle, it's just that there is too much side effect for a mere painkiller.

[nenjin]

I'm working under the assumption that these people are not dumb enough, to release them into the wild.  This proposed stunt will outright kill the modded fish traction...

Sorry, I but I have to L O L at that one. Being super scientists doesn't mean they don't make foolish assumptions or face palming mistakes.

Also, it just doesn't make economic sense, why make it harder to catch the fish?  Why let 'other' people catch and sell 'your' fish?

For one, almost every non-native species that gets brought to a country ends up in their ecosystem whether they like it or not. Snake Fish, a whole bunch of others here in America. THC has been doing tons of specials about these monster fish and their impact on the environment when they're introduced without controls.

And for two, you can only sell as much fish as you can breed. You can only breed as much as you can feed. You can only feed as much as you can afford.

So from their perspective, why NOT dump them in the ocean and let them eat off natural resources? It'd be cheaper for them than creating large spawning beds, seeding it with plants and other edibles and maintaining all that. They could even claim they're being philanthropic by refilling the ocean with fish. The issue isn't they want a super magical, never before tasted fish that they want to own the patent on. They want a fish, period, that can sustain the fishing industry.

If commercial fisherman start pulling up their fish, all it takes is one DNA typing test and they have as much negotiating power as they need to arrange whatever deals they want. There really is no economic downside for them if they own the patent. If the only fish commercial fishers can catch are fish YOU made, then they'll all owe you some form of royalties whether they like it or not. Large commercial fishers may not even know or care, since they just turn in their quota to the docks and get paid by weight. The owners of the patent would be making their agreements with harbors and shippers who buy the fisherman's catches.

[Eagleon]

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

I don't. The issue with prions is that they re-fold other proteins into themselves. Hence the source of their name - proteinaceous infectious particle.

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?

Do you have a source saying that it doesn't? Anyway, no, I never claimed that. It's not 100% accurate yet. Discounting the unlikelihood that a mistake in sequence insertion might possibly create a protein harmful to humans, prion or not, there are means to determine if the modification has occurred in an undesirable place. Essentially, they've inserted the modifications into a very specific place, and the sequence they've used is straight-forward to identify.
From http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/UCM224760.pdf

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Environmental Assessment for AquAdvantage Salmon
Page 20 of 84  August 25, 2010 
In evaluating potential environmental risk associated with  the integrated form of the construct as a transgene in the AquAdvantage line, four specific elements of the structure  and means of integration of this rDNA should be taken into consideration:  foreign DNA  could interrupt endogenous (i.e., host) genes and cause alteration or loss of function; foreign DNA could affect adjacent host genes and either decrease or increase their  expression; the transgene could be expressed in an unexpected manner under promoters of  adjacent host genes, or conversely, host genes could be expressed unexpectedly by the  transgene promoter; and, transgene rearrangements during integration could create spurious  open reading frames, which could result in the expression of de novo protein sequences.
 
These concerns have been evaluated through the functional and molecular-genetic  characterization of the EO-1α locus with respect  to its multi-generational heritability and stability, and detailed nucleotide sequence in F2- and F4-generation AquAdvantage Salmon.

No evidence of interruption of endogenous genes has been identified, lowering the risk of  unanticipated phenotypic effects in the GE fish.  No such effects have been observed in  seven generations cultured over the last 15 years, as discussed in §2.4.
 
The results of these evaluations indicate that the structure of the transgene locus poses no risks to the environment.

If you're saying that after 15 years of evaluation, there's still a significant chance that a harmful protein could have developed spontaneously somewhere in the fish's genome and is waiting to give you cancer or something 20 years down the line, I really don't know what to tell you. Good luck with the lottery.

[Zangi]

Damn, must you poke holes at my assumption?

And if only worldwide enforcement of royalties were that easy...

[Virex]

If commercial fisherman start pulling up their fish, all it takes is one DNA typing test and they have as much negotiating power as they need to arrange whatever deals they want. There really is no economic downside for them if they own the patent. If the only fish commercial fishers can catch are fish YOU made, then they'll all owe you some form of royalties whether they like it or not. Large commercial fishers may not even know or care, since they just turn in their quota to the docks and get paid by weight. The owners of the patent would be making their agreements with harbors and shippers who buy the fisherman's catches.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Technically, catching these fish would fall under involuntary infringement since there really isn't much one can do to avoid this specific fish. Besides that, I think there's not much jurisprudence about catching patented organisms. Of course it's to be expected that the US court rules that you can't sell any fish containing patented genes if you have no rights over those genes, but I expect other offices to be more reluctant. We might however start seeing neon-blue salmon that are clearly identifiable as stuff you shouldn't carry to a port

[Zangi]

@nenjin, you know, I thought you were some other B12er with that avatar.  I'm sure someone else was/is wearing that.

And yea, Virex elaborated on the global enforcement thing pretty well.

[nenjin]

More likely you'd not be allowed to sell the fish to people that don't hold agreements with the owner of the species. So while it would create a black market (or an ignorant market) for these fish, I think they would make more than they would lose. Fishing is a pretty rough business, so if there was someone willing to buy a specific species of fish, I'm sure fishers would be more than happy to sell to them. Basically, I don't see much difference between fishers who work within the system already and those who just try to fish purely on their own. Small time independent fishing operations, that catch, process, distribute and sell their own catch are pretty much non-existent these days, on the coasts at least.

Anyways, yes, there's going to be some fun court battles and some brand new precedents set by this. I pretty much expect the SC to fall in line with large business interests on this one.

[Sensei]

I don't think they can patent the DNA, and even then, it sucks to be them if it gets out in the wild. You cannot DNA type dish conveniently enough to take any sort of realistic measures against people catching/eating the fish. The best they could do would be to prevent other companies from breeding them in fisheries (which they still might not succeed in and I don't care if they do succeed).

[Soadreqm]

Okay, now I can't stop thinking about fish pirates who sail the high seas catching patented animals and selling them at the black market.