Yes to embryo cell research

[denoir 0]

1. Nothing in this world is truly separate from the environment,

I disagree. We don't see designed weapons grade viruses floating around in nature. They're successfully kept in labs.

Quote[/b] ]

2. GMO species are already cultivated in the U.S. so their "escape in to the world" has happened already and

So? We have also dropped several atomic bombs. That doesn't mean that it's good.

Quote[/b] ]

3. the genes that have been introduced into the GMO plants are natural genes from different species, thus they are already present in the environment.

Oh please, if anybody, you know that it's combinatorics that's relevant. The question is what that gene does in combination with the rest of the system. And you don't have the first clue about what other functions it might induce.

Quote[/b] ]Besides, I know of many experiments done in countries with free legislation, where insane amounts of GMOs have been dumped into the environment without any harmful result, but lots of beneficial results, especially in the area of environmental clean up.

And have they waited 200-300 years to see the results?

Quote[/b] ]As a researcher in biotechnology, I find it insulting that our moral values are always questioned. People think that you have to be a greedy bastard to be in biotech...

How could they not? And I'm not concerned with the greed. I'm concerned about the lack of discussions on biotech ethics among you. I am concerned about your incredible arrogance. The things you don't know about geneteic processes largely outweight the things you know. At the same time you, if anybody are perfectly aware of the conesequences your work can hava. We're talking about the basic building blocks of nature.

If you want to release your damn tomatoes in my eco system, you have to do the following:

1) Map all the genes and all their functions from the tomato DNA

2) Run limited contained eco system simulations in closed environments for at least several reproduction cycles of all the plants found in the target eco system.

3) Run simulations on crosspolination

The way it's done today is utterly irresponsible. They run a toxicological test (to see that it directly won't poison you) and then they dump it into the nature.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

3. the genes that have been introduced into the GMO plants are natural genes from different species, thus they are already present in the environment. Besides, I know of many experiments done in countries with free legislation, where insane amounts of GMOs have been dumped into the environment without any harmful result, but lots of beneficial results, especially in the area of environmental clean up.

As a researcher in biotechnology, I find it insulting that our moral values are always questioned. People think that you have to be a greedy bastard to be in biotech...

The whole thing about them being natural genes already present in the environment is all well and good, but never ever ever in the natural world would you find a tomato incorporating the genes from a fish. It just doesn't happen. That is something entirely of our doing.

The reason the insects have most likely not become resistent is because there has been no need, as they have been able to survive on their chosen food source without encountering it. Introduce it into the food supply, and to coin a cheesy phrase 'nature will find a way'.

Quote[/b] ]Also, if the insects did develop a resistence to porin producing GMO plants, it would not make any difference, except maybe to the cash flow of the company producing the GMO seeds.

Although now you would also have insects running around immune to said substance, so the plants would have to be re-engineered once again, introducing another bactierium into the equation, (or some other method of killing the insects). Insects become resistant, plants re-engineered, it's a nice little circle (but admittedly job security).

Quote[/b] ]As a researcher in biotechnology, I find it insulting that our moral values are always questioned. People think that you have to be a greedy bastard to be in biotech...

I'm not questioning you're moral values, I'm not particulary concerned as to the moral reasoning behind the individual scientist. The issue is that the corporation employing said scientisits, are ultimately profit making entities, and as such products tend to be pushed through without sufficient research into the long term, or far-reaching consequences. (usually exactly because the research would take a long time, and hence cost money).

Everything in the environment is connected, and has evolved as such. When we start adding what are essentially 'new' species into the system, we have absoltuely no idea what the consequences could be. Generally though, the profit making capacity takes precedence, and any potential issues are played down or not even researched.

[Oligo 1]

Quote[/b] ]The problem is that that one little gene that regulates the enzyme that spoils the tomato could be responsible for 100,000 other functions that you have not got the slightest idea about. That one little gene could very well be regulating another enzyme that controls the production of some carcinogenic substance.

We know for a fact exactly (by analysing the mRNA expression profile of the tomato plant) that this one gene produces only one protein with a certain sequence. In knock out tomatoes, the coding part of the gene has been deleted, but not the surrounding regulatory region. The deletion obviously did not cause production of toxins or carcinogens, since animal tests have proven that the properties of these tomatoes are exactly the same as the properties of regular tomatoes (same lethal dose).

Quote[/b] ]Or it could be controlling the composition of the DNA validation wetware and making it easier to mutate. Plus why not that it regulates the reproduction cycle of the tomato.

Nor did this deletion affect the "DNA validation wetware" as you call it, since we pretty much know how DNA damage is repaired in eucaryotes and the deleted protein had nothing to do with it. Besides, having a high mutation frequency is a competitive disadvantage in nature. You can test this yourself: Irradiate plants with gamma rays (this introduces mutations) and see whether the irradiated plants can outcompete their unirradiated peers.

But I can point out the evidence for you: GMO crops are routinely cultivated in U.S. in actual fields. I haven't noticed the eco system crashing down faster than it already did...

[denoir 0]

We know for a fact exactly (by analysing the mRNA expression profile of the tomato plant) that this one gene produces only one protein with a certain sequence. In knock out tomatoes, the coding part of the gene has been deleted, but not the surrounding regulatory region.

You'll have to give me more than that. AFIK genes can control far more than just the production of protienes and one gene can have many functions. As long as you don't map the whole genetic mass of the tomato and don't map all it's functions there is no way of really knowing what exacly else removing a gene can affect.

Quote[/b] ]The deletion obviously did not cause production of toxins or carcinogens, since animal tests have proven that the properties of these tomatoes are exactly the same as the properties of regular tomatoes (same lethal dose).

No, no, no. That's not the question. The question is if some side product doesn't in a long run break down in nature and combined with something else leads to the manifestation of toxins or carcinogens.

Quote[/b] ]

Besides, having a high mutation frequency is a competitive disadvantage in nature. You can test this yourself: Irradiate plants with gamma rays (this introduces mutations) and see whether the irradiated plants can outcompete their unirradiated peers.

It's a competitive advantage if you have a faster reproduction cycle. (To a certain point of course).

Quote[/b] ]But I can point out the evidence for you: GMO crops are routinely cultivated in U.S. in actual fields. I haven't noticed the eco system crashing down faster than it already did...

That's no evidence. You have a couple of GMO plants that have been cultivated for a few years. The point is not that all GMO crops will destroy the eco system but that it could and we've had no long term testing. The effects could be so disasterous that it warrents a very very proper investigation of the effects GMO crops have on the nature. There is no such proper testing. They don't wait 100 years to see what long term consequences it will have. And while the current GMO wheat (or whatever it is that they have on mass scale) may not have any nasty side effects some other thing could. You're playing russian roulette and there's too much at risk if it would go wrong.

Genetic modifications of plants, animals and even humans can be very benifitial. It's something that should be researched and made into a safe technology. Right now it's not safe as we don't really know what the hell we are doing. And in the same way as if done right, there could be very nice payoffs, if done wrong it could have disasterous consequences. There's simply too much at stake to do it with trial-and-error methodology, as it's done today. You have to know exacly what you have modified and all of its effects before you release it into our balanced eco system.

[Major Fubar 0]

I wonder if GM vegatables are any worse for us than the steroid pumped and pesticide ridden junk that they're selling at the markets now...

Go out and buy a typical grocery store tomato, then go and buy an "organically grown" tomato...the two almost bear no resemblance to each other...

[Oligo 1]

Quote[/b] ]Oh please, if anybody, you know that it's combinatorics that's relevant. The question is what that gene does in combination with the rest of the system. And you don't have the first clue about what other functions it might induce.

If you're so damn concerned about combinatorics, you sure as hell aren't considering selective plant or animal breeding enough. What about Boysenberry? That's a hybrid between raspberries, blackberries and loganberries. That's a new species with thousands of new genes, it has been around since 1923 and it hasn't taken over the world. No crop in the world is natural, they are all creations of selective breeding and hybridisation with cross-pollination. These species have random combinations of tens of thousands of genes. Yet, there have been no problems. All we have managed to produce are plants more dependent on us, not less.

Quote[/b] ]How could they not? And I'm not concerned with the greed. I'm concerned about the lack of discussions on biotech ethics among you. I am concerned about your incredible arrogance. The things you don't know about geneteic processes largely outweight the things you know. At the same time you, if anybody are perfectly aware of the conesequences your work can hava. We're talking about the basic building blocks of nature.

The things I know about genetic processes have convinced me that I could not make a weed that would spread across and suffocate Sweden, even if I wanted to.

Seriously, all the outbreaks of species in nature we have seen have been caused by the introduction of exogenous species to some place, not by some subtly altered variant of an endogenous species.

Quote[/b] ]Everything in the environment is connected, and has evolved as such. When we start adding what are essentially 'new' species into the system, we have absoltuely no idea what the consequences could be. Generally though, the profit making capacity takes precedence, and any potential issues are played down or not even researched.

You know, we are not really introducing new species, since GMOs (which have only a few new genes at most) are perfectly capable of cross-breeding with the original variant. Thus they should be called GMO variants, since the definition of a species is that it cannot cross-breed with other species.

The only new species that get introduced into the environment are new species created with traditional plant or animal breeding schemes and the transport of species from one place to another by humans.

[CosmicCastaway 0]

The thing is, traditional cross polination and selective breeding is always essentially 'kept in the family' so to speak. A species of wheat, cross bred with another species of wheat to introduce a favourable charactaristic. Or a type of flower cross bred with another to develop a new colour, etc.

You can't tell me that introducing a gene from a fish into a vegetable is in any way comparable? That's not something we have anything to refer to, it's all new ground. We have no idea of the consequences.

Something like genetic modification of that type, with the potential to screw up something so inherently essential for the survival of all, deserves a significant amount of research and testing before it's even considered commercially viable.

But as I said before, profit tends to come first.

[Oligo 1]

Quote[/b] ]You'll have to give me more than that. AFIK genes can control far more than just the production of protienes and one gene can have many functions. As long as you don't map the whole genetic mass of the tomato and don't map all it's functions there is no way of really knowing what exacly else removing a gene can affect.

Genes have a promoter region, which is a stretch of DNA sequence that can bind proteins like RNA polymerases and transcription factors essentially controlling the expression of the gene, and a coding region, which is a stretch of sequence that describes the amino-acid sequence of the protein to be produced. In the knock out tomatoes, the coding region has been truncated so that the gene now expresses just a small bit of trash instead of the spoilage enzyme.

But again, think about plant breeding, which has been done for thousands of years without ill effect (and without public outcry and without regulation). In modern plant breeding, ionizing radiation has been used to produce new and exciting variants of plants. Essentially the radiation works so that it mutates either the coding or promoter region of the plant genes, totally at random. Then you just select the interesting variants for further breeding and so on. I could produce the knock out tomatoes purely with this kind of plant breeding (just select the one with the spoilage gene knocked out by the radiation) and nobody would mind. With genetic engineering techniques we can go from random radiation and other breeding techniques to accurate modification of the plant or animal DNA with the precision of a single base pair. With genetic engineering, we actually know what we are doing.

Ironically you are now opposing the specific technique and advocating the totally random technique.

Interesting link on modern plant breeding (no GMO).

[Tex -USMC- 0]

Well personally, I'm in it for the hairy carnivorous tomatoes.

[theavonlady 2]

@ Nov. 21 2003,14:00)]Well personally, I'm in it for the hairy carnivorous tomatoes.

Come to think of it, would be handy for making instant meatballs. Just heat and serve!

[CosmicCastaway 0]

@ Nov. 21 2003,13:00)]Well personally, I'm in it for the hairy carnivorous tomatoes.

It'd definately be something worth seeing. You'd have to fight for you're cheese and tomato sandwich from then on.

[ralphwiggum 6]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/02/12/science.clone/index.html

Quote[/b] ]SEOUL, South Korea (CNN) -- South Korean researchers reported Thursday they have created human embryos through cloning and extracted embryonic stem cells, the universal cells that scientists expect will result in breakthroughs in medical research.

Hanyang University professor Hwang Yoon-Young said, "Our research team has successfully culled stem cells from a cloned human embryo through mature growing process in a test tube."

The findings by a team of researchers led by Dr. Hwang Woo Suk of Seoul National University were presented to South Korean scientists and will be published in the U.S. journal Science.

The paper describes a detailed process of how to create human embryos by cloning, saying the scientists used the eggs donated by Korean women.

The technique, scientists said, was not designed to make babies but to further the process known as therapeutic cloning, a possible treatment for a multitude of diseases.

Advances in stem-cell technology have been hailed as holding potential cures for many crippling illnesses, such as diabetes, spinal cord injuries and Parkinson's disease.

According to the U.S. National Institutes of Health, stem cells can be manipulated by scientists to develop into many other human cells.

While they can be found in adults, those found in days-old embryos are far more prevalent and more easily manipulated into specialized cells, which then could be used to create cures or even grow replacement organs, the NIH reports.

[Ironsight 1]

In short time we will clone our soldiers!

[bn880 5]

That is great news, I heard about it this morning. And South Korea, who would have thought. Actually they are getting to be quite competetive across the board...

[ralphwiggum 6]

so now we have to change the subtitle of the thread?

[Balschoiw 0]

They do it to get spare parts for individuals right ?

I´m a bit doubtful though because dolly (bääääähhhh) the sheep didn´t make it that long (6 years) and had heavy arthritis. Doesn´t seem to work flawless.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]In short time we will clone our soldiers!

Or you just make them the old fashioned way.

Quote[/b] ]I wonder if GM vegatables are any worse for us than the steroid pumped and pesticide ridden junk that they're selling at the markets now...

They aren't, in fact a lot of the organic pesticides they use on "organic" produce are actually quite harmful to humans. I'm fine with eating genetically modified food.

[denoir 0]

As I understand it this is quite a big step. Previous attempts of cloning monkeys have failed miserably.

But still, there is a long way to go before it's actually useful. The stem cells still contain the DNA of the original embryo and you still have to face the problem of the body rejecting it. All cells routinely go through a DNA check and if it doesn't match then it is flagged as alien material and attacked by the immune system.

[Postduifje 0]

Don't know much about this, but they said on the news with this new technique the body wouldn't reject it, because it was the same dna.

[denoir 0]

I'm no expert either, but this is what I found.

Quote[/b] ]Why do scientists want to use stem cell lines?

Once a stem cell line is established from a cell in the body, it is essentially immortal, no matter how it was derived. That is, it does not have to be created again from the original embryo or adult. Once established, it can be grown in the laboratory indefinitely and widely distributed to other researchers.

In addition, before scientists can use any type of stem cell for transplantation, they must overcome attempts by a patient's immune system to reject the transplant. Human stem cell lines might in the future be modified with gene therapy or other techniques to overcome this immune rejection. Scientists might also be able to replace damaged genes or add new genes to stem cells in order to give them new characteristics that can ultimately help to treat diseases.

I found another article from New Scientist talking about a special kind of stem cells, extracted from the brain, that unlike normal ones seem to bypass the immune system and be accepted.

[bn880 5]

They do it to get spare parts for individuals right ?

I´m a bit doubtful though because dolly (bääääähhhh) the sheep didn´t make it that long (6 years) and had heavy arthritis. Doesn´t seem to work flawless.

It depends on where you get the stem cells. Get it from a very young organism(embryonic) and voila. Get it from an adult and you've got trouble.