Although the causative agent is not the same, I can't help but think of CCD in bees. The effects of systemic pesticides were proven to cause no harm to the bees that came into contact with the pollen and plants, therefore it was judged no harm. What they didn't look at was the consequence to the second generation of bees.

Harm cannot be adequately judged by simply deciding there is no harm to the modified organism. Harm has to be assessed on an environmental actors' level. And just because the organism is contained now doesn't mean it will continue to be.

cpelite -- yes, cattle die-offs because of cyanide released by grasses. Cyanide is released by several plants during early growth stages. We don't let the horses out onto some of the pastures when there is new grass growth in spring both because of the danger from the high sugar content of the grass and to give the cyanide time to dissipate. The grass implicated is a hybrid that's not new.

But like CCD, it's an example of the kind of thing that happens on the broad scale of environmental effects.

Didzo wrote:Just because some idiots decided to make glow fish and sell them doesn't make it ethical or right or acceptable.

Anyone ever heard of Monsanto?

Indeed I have. So much as they've made 'hardier crops' they've also used chemicals and methods for farming hazardous to the soil and eventually water as well. Not only have they made their superior chemicals and seeds, but they've also made sure that no one uses any seed for their crops but monsanto's. some farmers have commited suicide in India because of their debt from being forced to buy monsanto's toxic, and not to mention expensive seeds and dusts.

ashkelon wrote:Although the causative agent is not the same, I can't help but think of CCD in bees. The effects of systemic pesticides were proven to cause no harm to the bees that came into contact with the pollen and plants, therefore it was judged no harm. What they didn't look at was the consequence to the second generation of bees.

Harm cannot be adequately judged by simply deciding there is no harm to the modified organism. Harm has to be assessed on an environmental actors' level. And just because the organism is contained now doesn't mean it will continue to be.

cpelite -- yes, cattle die-offs because of cyanide released by grasses. Cyanide is released by several plants during early growth stages. We don't let the horses out onto some of the pastures when there is new grass growth in spring both because of the danger from the high sugar content of the grass and to give the cyanide time to dissipate. The grass implicated is a hybrid that's not new.

But like CCD, it's an example of the kind of thing that happens on the broad scale of environmental effects.

Absolutely.

That's the issue with just planting genes in things & making hybrids: goodness knows what's gonna come out, & the effects on the environment.
This brings about similar issues, such as what certain fertilisers & chemicals do when released into water etc., & the cost-benefit of deciding to drill into the alaskan wilderness etc.

As for those glowfish, you might want to ask them.
If anyone's heard of Norman Bourlag (agricultural scientist, if you need a clue), you'll see the benefits of GM at times (not to menton being able to make plants able to survive harsh climates to the benefits of 3rd world farmers), but you can never be too careful.

What I mean is, let's take something like Monsanto's. Making 'superior' products (though they may well be), but poisoning the soil & water.
And driving Indian farmers to suicide (by imposing their product using questionable actions). And that's just the tip of the iceberg; one should see the consequences of disposable bottle manufacture in India during the mid-1990's (bottles made to be exported to the US & Europe).
Yucky waste. And the users of the bottles not bearing the burdens. Oh, bother.

Some things can make absolutely amazing assets, but the other side of the coin can be dangerous if overlooked.
We've planted glow genes into rats, pigs & whatnot, but the same thing in many other contexts can be downright irresponsible.

The difference between domesticating Pit Bulls & letting them into playgrounds without discipline.
GM plants? If you can control them (which will probably not be so if we don't keep an eye out).
GM animals? maybe in the lab / for agriculture, but again... there are alternatives.

ashkelon wrote:

God-mod wrote:I was researching the probability of transplanting the gene from Panellus stipticus or Mycena fungi into plants Via Bactria, Virus, or using direct Genetic modification, transplanting the genes for the development of Luciferases cells, into a plant, allowing it to become bioluminescent, and Here are my questions;
A: Is this ethical? Please explain your reasoning.
B: Which method do you think would be best?
C: What are the possible unintended consequences for each method?
D: What parts of the plants would this likely effect?
E: What applications would this have?
F: What species of plants would be good candidates?
G: What impact would this have on the environment if it effected wild populations of plants?
H: Other, post below or PM; and I will add it to the list here.

Sounds like homework to me.

BBeast wrote:They have created luminescent mice, by adding certain genes from certain jellyfish into the mice. I do not see why it can not also be done in a plant.

The question is not so much if we can, but if there is a reason to do so, and a reasonable certainty of doing no harm.

I have a reason cheap light.

opticbronze wrote:I have a reason cheap light.

Dear sir,

Surely someone of your posting caliber would not stoop so low as to post with such elementary reaction images. Or with just that! Such an art form - nay, transgression - is lost in its intellect and does not properly convey the sure stupidity, lack-of quality, or even quality of the post responded to. In the same manner that posting with just that is a violation of one's old mental capability. There in, even if to be taken ironically the manifestation of those images in a post of yours truly would, in essence convey a certain lack of intellect as the internet is surely a world dry of any and all sarcasm.

And even if a image must be used, one should not stretch for one with such a blatantly imbecilic look and one should reach for something that conveys not only intelligence, but art-form. And should secondly be posted with an eloquence that details the point. Yay, the image to be posted should therefore be an illustration of the point, and not the point itself.

And even then, the lone posting of a reaction image is no rights a proper, progressive advancement in a discussion and brings nothing new to light.

As such, I shall post my honorable reaction to the post you have made as a whole:



With gentle regards,
Your Love, most platonic.

You're gonna wish you never said that.

grindstone wrote:You're gonna wish you never said that.

Dear sir,

You are no better than my uncle - who fought the War under a tarp - hiding your words like this.

As a master of the gentleman's trade it is my duty to go forth and improve the general culture of the world to make us all such. To disregard criticism is a might folly! And your blatant disregard of these prerogatives makes you no better than the Huns.

In regards,
A gentleman.

This batman was transfected with a luciferase gene. He almost ended up like a grindstone or like that permabancation seeking alt.

FYI :: Borlaug was a local. The world food prize headquarters is walking distance from my house in town. And he consulted on the sustainable agriculture project on the Garst Farms' grant (5K acres) at Whiterock conservancy.

But you know, in all the times I heard him speak about GMOs and the positive effect they have on agriculture, I never once heard him advocate crop advancement by experimenting with cosmetic changes to organisms, or otherwise just doing things "because we can".

He was a profound thinker and a very kind and personable one. And responsible in the extreme, as most humanitarians are.

Didzo wrote:Just because some idiots decided to make glow fish and sell them doesn't make it ethical or right or acceptable.

Anyone ever heard of Monsanto?

It doesn't matter, All that you have said here is subjective. No offense but I will not base genetic enginerring on someone's "morals" that is completely irrelavent.

You can have a problem with it all you want, but don't try to say that it's objectively wrong to make them.

"Dear sir,

You are no better than my uncle - who fought the War under a tarp - hiding your words like this.

As a master of the gentleman's trade it is my duty to go forth and improve the general culture of the world to make us all such. To disregard criticism is a might folly! And your blatant disregard of these prerogatives makes you no better than the Huns.

In regards,
A gentleman. "

Oh, please , come on kid give it up. if your only arguement basically amounts to is "LOLZ YUR KOMMENTZ DUN HERT MEH" then you aren't a gentleman, simply using more advanced and uncommon synonyms do not make you a gentleman.

The solid fact that you posted something as stupid as ponies, pretty much just sinkholes your arguement platform from beneath your toes.

In regards.
A Kaiser. "

Sheesh, take it to PMs, Ladies.

ashkelon wrote:Sheesh, take it to PMs, Ladies.

? that was my first post on the matter.

You do realize that Fighter5345 is an alt of an alt of a former member and current pseudotroll-but-also-occasional-contributor.

His tragic decline into internet madness is a warning to us all.

And don't take his response seriously.



Didzo's concern that engineered genes can "pollute" the genetics of wild-type organisms is well founded. Such cases have been observed many times (insects indiscriminately pollinate after all) and letting a new and unknown hybrid strain into an uncontrolled environment where it can mutate unpredictably can have major consequences.

In animals this is less likely due to the relatively tightly controlled reproduction mechanism, but bacteria have the remarkable ability to send genetic fragments between cells and even species in some instances. Engineered segments released into the wild can rapidly propagate into hundreds of different unique strains across multiple species, some of which may be pathogenic.

The risk of creating a superior species that devastates an ecosystem or polluting an important food crop with foreign genes is one that must be considered.

ZhaoYun9 wrote:I will not base genetic enginerring on someone's "morals" that is completely irrelavent.

What do you think ethics are? Let's just start up some eugenics programs, kill off anyone born with diseases, deformities, mental deficiencies etc. and engineer a perfect race in your image. Morality doesn't matter!

Ethics are part of how we arrive at decisions regarding whether or not to engineer something. If you want to ignore them be my guest, but don't be surprised when you're Dr. Frankenstein exiled in your castle somewhere and your own creation kills you and your family.

I know some of you guys are 10, but really?