Print

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

[Eagleon]

The salmon are farmed, in Panama, where they're not likely to survive in the regular waters much less make their way to breeding populations in the north atlantic. Then they have to run the gauntlet in fresh-water rivers to spawning areas, competing with other salmon. Before all that they have to escape the containment pools, including a dip in chlorine. The stream they're using also drains into the pacific. Every fish, sterile or not, is without a doubt female, due to the reproduction strategy they've used - no Y chromosome even in the 'males' - so if they could survive the pacific, there would be no way for them to establish their own breeding population as there aren't any male salmon in the pacific.

It just really isn't too likely that they'd establish a breeding population even if they were all fertile, even if they dropped the containment measures. It's like some crazy fish-smelling Legends of the Hidden Temple for them. Trannie fish, man.

[nenjin]

[Insert relevant Jurassic Park quotes here]

Tranny velociraptor fish, man.

[Nikov]

Hey look, research.

http://www.ehow.com/about_5449212_salmon-fish-farming.html

Seems fish farms have been the primary source of salmon for a decade and a half. Now, suppose this company is allowed to patent this particular genetic combination much as DuPont can patent a molecular combination or Ford can patent a mechanical combination. What incentive do they have to release them into the wild? None. If they release their fish into the wild they can't exactly sue fishermen for catching them. Think of the old West and wild herds of cattle. If they found one branded cow when you were slaughtering the herd, did you get sued? No. Its abandoned property. The company has no incentive to abandon its property. They'll keep their fish in fish farms or sell minnows* to fish farms, because that's where the money is.

I mean, why do you think they made or neglected to correct the fishes' sterility? They don't want to sell one batch of minnows to a fish farm. They want to sell thousands of batches. They do not want the fish farmers to be able to breed their own stock. They want them dependant on a supplier; them. That's business. It works well for both.

Ten seconds until a 'but that's evil' argument regarding sterile fish and minnow sales. Nine...

*smolt is the actual term, but I don't want to confuse anyone.

[Sensei]

Seedless plants seem more ridiculous than sterile salmon, and those are everywhere.

[nenjin]

Hey, if it stays out of the ecosystem and gets labeled, they can do and charge what they want, as long as people have a commercial alternative. Although it would be a scientific first if this plays out exactly as they envisioned.

[Eugenitor]

Screw the salmon, engineer the humans... but I said that in the other thread.

Two things to remember. First is that the fish farms wouldn't "upgrade" if they didn't think they could make money. If they thought they were getting totally screwed over by fish that didn't reproduce, they'd tell the manufacturer to go fuck itself and stick with what they have.

Second is that they're not likely to be toxic of themselves; if the new genes caused expression of malformed proteins the fish would almost certainly be non-viable. I'd be more worried about concentrations of toxins that already accumulate in fish, like methylmercury.

I won't comment on the whole patent mess. It's the only way they have to make money. Biotech development is fucking expensive; if it wasn't, everyone would be doing it... and I'll love it when they do. A gene sequencer in every home. (Impossible? That's what they said about computers...)

[nenjin]

A gene sequencer in every home. (Impossible? That's what they said about computers...)

And a splicer in every pot.

[Auto Slaughter]

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?

I haven't said that it will definitely produce prions, but Eagleton is asserting that there is "no danger of creating prions" without anything at all to back that up.  This seems like no more than blind faith to me.

If the only difference between a prion and the protein it affects is the way the prion is folded then you might not even need to have a transcription error, I would think that a difference in the machinery that assembles proteins might result in a different folding.  And the machinery that assembles the proteins is different between animal A and animal B, I think.

In any case prions are just an example I'm giving for something that could go wrong with this.  There simply isn't any basis for portraying the possible consequences of this form of genetic engineering as insignificant.

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.

That's an attitude I can agree with a bit more, though I think your confidence in humanity's ability to fix the problems it creates is unreasonable.  Many human civilizations have destroyed themselves by their own hand in history with things as simple as deforestation - take the Easter Islanders or the post-Thera Minoans.

It's irresponsible to try to dismiss legitimate concerns on these issues with sophistry like "it's too complex for anything to go wrong" or "I have a brain so I know that there isn't any risk."

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.

So you're recanting your claim that prions are so complex that they can't accidentally be created, right?

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.

Then you're also recanting your claim that there can't be any problems because we could only be making proteins found in other animals consumed by humans.

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.

That approach would only detect a mistake in the insertion of the sequences, not a problem occurring during gene expression as I mentioned above.

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.

So even the people doing the genetic engineering say that unexpected protein sequences could be created by this process.
 
You act as though all possible problems can be evaluated and accurately assessed for risk by someone casually reading about this stuff and that simply isn't true.  These genome alterations and the ways in which they interact with other biological systems are not something to be taken lightly.

None of your proofs that there's nothing to be worried about hold up to even the mildest scrutiny.  As I said in my first comment it would be unwise to be blasé about the possible consequences of this research and experimentation.

[ChairmanPoo]

I haven't said that it will definitely produce prions, but Eagleton is asserting that there is "no danger of creating prions" without anything at all to back that up.  This seems like no more than blind faith to me.

No. It's simply that, based on current evidence, there's no reason whatsoever to assume that prions are related to transgenes.

[Eugenitor]

Okay, so the gene would have to break the sequence, create its own expression, cause a malformed protein to be expressed, have the protein in question *not* visibly harm the fish, have the protein in question be harmful to humans, and not have the protein immediately show up in R&D as "Holy crap what the fuck is wrong with this fish". (You don't think they've eaten any of their own salmon?)

It's like rolling a Zocchihedron six times and getting a 100 each time, only more unlikely.

[ChairmanPoo]

The main concern with GM foods has always been allergies (which is a far more likely result from abnormal proteins than the scenario outlined above), I guess that mostly in the context of people-allergic-to-A-might-also-be-allergic-to-B-with-A-genes. So far there has not been trouble, afaik, though

[Auto Slaughter]

The fact that the researchers were testing for this outcome themselves would seem to indicate that there's at least some possibility it could happen, a possibility that they weren't willing to ignore.

I don't think that mad cow disease showed up as a "Holy crap what the fuck is wrong with this" flavor in the meat so I don't know that we'd get a warning like that with the fish.

Like I said, I'd probably buy the salmon myself; it's just that it isn't okay to dismiss legitimate concerns other people have with a string of made-up reasons why nothing can go wrong.

[Eagleon]

I give up. You're tossing up straw men everywhere. I'll only comment on what you've said so far and then go my own way.

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?

I haven't said that it will definitely produce prions, but Eagleton is asserting that there is "no danger of creating prions" without anything at all to back that up.  This seems like no more than blind faith to me.

If the only difference between a prion and the protein it affects is the way the prion is folded then you might not even need to have a transcription error, I would think that a difference in the machinery that assembles proteins might result in a different folding.  And the machinery that assembles the proteins is different between animal A and animal B, I think.

Wrong. Here is an overview of the process, in video form, from BBC. Every living creature that uses DNA uses this machinery to create proteins, from bacteria to plants to human beings. Eukaryotes have different ribosomes from bacteria, etc, but they do not differ within the domains as far as I'm aware. It's methodical, predictable, and only fails in extreme circumstances, usually with catastrophic results to the host organism.

In any case prions are just an example I'm giving for something that could go wrong with this.  There simply isn't any basis for portraying the possible consequences of this form of genetic engineering as insignificant.

So give more examples? What basis do you have that the possible consequences of this form of genetic engineering are significant? If this isn't an area you're comfortable with delving into with any certainty, why are you arguing against it? I can assure you there have been plenty of people with a stronger handle on it than me that have examined the issues as well. Yet scientific consensus is that the risks are confined to some well established issues, and peer-review makes sure they're taken into consideration. Otherwise there would have been no FDA investigation. Believe it or not, food companies don't want their customers dying horrible deaths from their products. That's bad business.

So you're recanting your claim that prions are so complex that they can't accidentally be created, right?

No, I maintain it. Prions are simple compared to many other proteins, but still very complex. One example contains 209 amino acids, from 21 possible selections. Are you claiming that there's a reasonably large chance that we could come up with a combination like that on our own? It's just ridiculous to worry about when there's so much else going on around you that could kill you.

Then you're also recanting your claim that there can't be any problems because we could only be making proteins found in other animals consumed by humans.

That approach would only detect a mistake in the insertion of the sequences, not a problem occurring during gene expression as I mentioned above.

So even the people doing the genetic engineering say that unexpected protein sequences could be created by this process.

You left out this part

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.

This means that the gene was not found in any other place than where they wanted it. They undoubtedly selected the transcription site by locating a place where the protein could be expressed properly. Any deviation would have shown up in their sequencing and been discarded. The only possible health risk here would be to the fish, with a foreign protein doing gods know what to its organ system. That's why this isn't done in humans - you don't want heart muscle floating around in your foot. It doesn't mean your foot isn't edible and delicious to a salmon - we process all kinds of protein through our digestive tracts every day, and it's a rare beast that actually affects us more than being dissolved into its component parts. The specific protein we've added, as has been stated, is used in ice cream FFS.

You act as though all possible problems can be evaluated and accurately assessed for risk by someone casually reading about this stuff and that simply isn't true.  These genome alterations and the ways in which they interact with other biological systems are not something to be taken lightly.

And here lies the problem. You want to imply that GM is harmful, and yet you refuse to do any amount of research on why it might be so. No one is taking this lightly but you.

None of your proofs that there's nothing to be worried about hold up to even the mildest scrutiny.

As far as I can tell, you haven't given my 'proofs' any kind of scrutiny at all, besides trying to find logical and grammatical mistakes and omissions and outright denying any reason I try to give you.

Bleh.

[ChairmanPoo]

That's why this isn't done in humans

... but it IS done in humans. Though not for the purpose of making them tastier, obviously. :p

[Zangi]

...  This stuff you guys are talking about.  Going way over my head.


Is the gist of it...

There is a chance of modded Salmon turning into SUPER SALMON.

-or-

There is a chance of modded Salmon creating a Black Death part 2.