Yes to embryo cell research [Archive] - Bohemia Interactive Forums

bn880

Nov 19 2003, 15:56

EU Parliament Says Yes to Embryo Cell Research

Quote[/b] ]STRASBOURG, France (Reuters) - The European Parliament voted Wednesday to fund research using stem cells taken from human embryos, a controversial procedure opposed by anti-abortion activists.

The assembly's opinion sends a message to European Union ministers who are due to decide next month whether to lift a moratorium that prevents EU cash from going to such experiments, which are banned in several of the bloc's member states.

Full story (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=NW2Z3TTBVXMYECRBAELCFEY?type=healthNews&storyID=3852837)

I did not want to revive the ancient thread on this, so here is a new one...

I figure this will further anger Dubya as he appears to be playing Gods messenger and has tried to ban anything to do with genetics and abortions. (he's afraid we will realize he is inferior http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif )

Anyway, thumbs up from me, at least some nations don't have their heads up their butts when it comes to scientific progress and the reality of life rather than old religions. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

theavonlady

Nov 19 2003, 16:03

I figure this will further anger Dubya as he appears to be playing Gods messenger
It goes both ways. Could be the EU is trying to play god.

bn880

Nov 19 2003, 16:05

Yes, but at least they do not claim God wants them to do that or that God Blesses this. etc.

Dauragon

Nov 19 2003, 16:05

we could clone avon lady and then get a multi spam group

theavonlady

Nov 19 2003, 16:06

we could clone avon lady and then get a multi spam group
What for? I can do that single-handedly! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif

Dauragon

Nov 19 2003, 16:07

we could clone avon lady and then get a multi spam group
What for? I can do that single-handedly! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif
But with more of you it could become a mayhem http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif

What do you think they are gonna use the clones for, making a Uber Soldatum army? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif

theavonlady

Nov 19 2003, 16:08

and the reality of life rather than old religions. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif
Just a reminder of what this kinda language might lead to:

Forum Rule:

§1)No Flaming/Flame-baiting

Abusive comments, personal attacks and name calling are not allowed either on the board or through PM's. If you receive a PM that is abusive or you find offensive please forward it to a moderator who will investigate. Flame-baiting is also not tolerated, flame-baiting is making a post to someone that is obviously intended to elicit an angry response.

bn880

Nov 19 2003, 16:15

How is this for a response:

stop trying to get this thread locked Avon. Maybe it is not obvious to you but the religions against research and abortions ARE old. (forgot to mention, the pope is getting there himself http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif but he's not giving in)

theavonlady

Nov 19 2003, 16:21

stop trying to get this thread locked Avon. Maybe it is not obvious to you but the religions against research and abortions ARE old.
So are the ancient beliefs of agnostics.

I'm not trying to get this thread locked. Had you used a Swedish sharpshooter's pistol, you'd be pointing in the right direction. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif

bn880

Nov 19 2003, 16:23

Tamme

Nov 19 2003, 16:29

I think this is good news. If it's used to cure deceases and to save peoples lives it's acceptable. If it's used to make Berlusconi's own personal clone army it's bad.

RalphWiggum

Nov 19 2003, 17:02

funny thing is Bush was so outspoken about stem cell research, calling it a step towards cloning. then came Nancy Reagan with argument that stem cell research could help Alzheimers. suddenly, the criticism stopped.

if EU show improvement in the area and that translates into better health, sooner or later, US is to follow.

Acecombat

Nov 19 2003, 17:30

Ok, I am merely trying to suggest that perhaps Religions need to adapt to the realities of life a lot faster. It looks to me like most are always lagging by a century or 50 years. On the other hand in the days of Ancient Rome the tides were different and Christianity was ahead of Roman culture. IMO.
Realities of life ??

I think youre wording this incorrectly its suppose to be "Interpreting and conforming their laws to modern times..." rather then 'that'.

What did they threaten Galileo with btw ? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

EiZei

Nov 19 2003, 17:39

Phew, I almost feared that this one was not going to be passed. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Hellfish6

Nov 19 2003, 17:49

Strom Thurmond even supported stem cell research. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wow_o.gif Now that man was a bible thumper, but he could see the usefulness of the procedure.

I think stem cell research is going to be a potentially huge step forward in health - equivalent at least to Pastuer's discovery of bacteria and the discovery of genetics. I was a biomedical policy minor in college, so I've seen the potential that stem cell research and cell therapy can offer. It has nothing to do with God and everything to do with common sense, IMHO.

I don't see how using embryos for research could be considered immoral, either. The only way these guys are getting their embryos in the first place is because when people undergo fertilization treatment creat many dozens more embryos than they actually need in order to create a child. These embryos are frozen and, when not needed anymore, they are simply disposed of. I think giving parents the option of donating their embryos for research purposes is the very least that you can do.

bn880

Nov 19 2003, 18:26

Strom Thurmond even supported stem cell research. Now that man was a bible thumper, but he could see the usefulness of the procedure.

I think stem cell research is going to be a potentially huge step forward in health - equivalent at least to Pastuer's discovery of bacteria and the discovery of genetics. I was a biomedical policy minor in college, so I've seen the potential that stem cell research and cell therapy can offer. It has nothing to do with God and everything to do with common sense, IMHO.

I don't see how using embryos for research could be considered immoral, either. The only way these guys are getting their embryos in the first place is because when people undergo fertilization treatment creat many dozens more embryos than they actually need in order to create a child. These embryos are frozen and, when not needed anymore, they are simply disposed of. I think giving parents the option of donating their embryos for research purposes is the very least that you can do.

Hey cool, I didn't expect so many peeps here to agree with me. So I agree with the above post. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

bn880

Nov 19 2003, 19:23

Realities of life ??

I think youre wording this incorrectly its suppose to be "Interpreting and conforming their laws to modern times..." rather then 'that'.

What did they threaten Galileo with btw ? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif
Ok you are probably right when being politically correct. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

According to this (http://www.catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp)
wonderfull article with Mary and Jesus on it Galileo was not threatened at all. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif

Major Fubar

Nov 19 2003, 22:41

IMHO there is nothing wrong with religions being against certain areas of scientific research - it is their prerogative. As long as these religions are NOT allowed to influence government decsions, however. That's the whole point of seperating church and state.

toadlife

Nov 19 2003, 23:26

As long as these religions are NOT allowed to influence government decsions, however. That's the whole point of seperating church and state.
Actaully, you will find that religious folks don't mind seperation of church and state, as long as the state's laws don't contradict their religious beliefs. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif

Stem cell research is defintely something that should be looked into. I saw a story once of a young boy striken with some horrible disease (Polio?). He was injected with stem cells from an appropriate donor and his affliction disappeared completely. The only side effect was that his blood type changed to the blood type of the stem cell donor. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif

Acecombat

Nov 19 2003, 23:49

How can a persons blood type change? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wow_o.gif

First of all even in Blood transfusion you need the same blood group ..so wouldnt the principle b same for stem cells? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif

Hellfish6

Nov 20 2003, 00:25

Because stem cells are the cells that make everything in your body. So, if you put stem cells into your body, basically they fix what is broken, and in some cases totally rebuild you. You can even regenerate damaged nerves.

denoir

Nov 20 2003, 00:47

Well, it's like this: Various functions in the body are regulated by different types of cells. While they have some basics in common they are generally very different (compare blood cells to nerve cells for instance). Stem cells are blank template cells that can be turned into any cell type.

The ultimate goal is to grow organs in vitro. If you can grow a kidney or a heart in a bottle, there would be no more shortage of organs. As I understand it a lack of organ donors is a huge problem today.

And while this sounds like science-fiction, it's far from it. For instance at the Karolinska institute here in Stockholm, they're already sucessfully growing complete human ears in vitro. Growing replacement skin for burn victims has already been in practice for several years and is proving quite sucessful.

Also, stem cell research should not be confused with genetic modifications as they use natural human DNA. So there is little chance of something going wrong (as opposed to GM plants and animals released into the ecosystem).

The ethical grounds against stem cell research are very questionable becuase the cells are taken at the earliest possible stage: when the egg is fertilized. And I don't think that even the most hardcore Christians could argue that one fertilized cell could constitute a human being.

edc

Nov 20 2003, 00:56

toadlife

Nov 20 2003, 01:03

And I don't think that even the most hardcore Christians could argue that one fertilized cell could constitute a human being.
Oh yes they could - and they do. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/mad_o.gif

bn880

Nov 20 2003, 01:04

Denoir, you would be surprized about the last bit...

as for cloning, well cloning adult animals/people will not work too well because our DNA basically degenerates with time, kind of explains aging. And why a person with low metabolism and low physical "wear" is likely to live longer than someone like a football player or weight lifting dude. (as long as you don't feed yourself garbage and get moderate cardio work for your organs)
To expand on that, every time a cell is copied there is a good chance DNA result is not ideal, do that a few thousand/million times and you get a body that is simply not regenerating itself in the proper form. Adios amigos.

So AFAIK it is for research purposes not cloning of adults...

Hellfish6

Nov 20 2003, 01:10

I would agree to some extent that stem cell research is probably a good thing, as long as the embryos are used carefully and only for scientific research to curing diseases. Cloning of humans, on the other hand, would be a very, very bad thing, and definately should not be allowed anywhere. There's pretty much no legitimate reason to clone a human, and there would be very, very little, if any benefits, to doing it, whereas there would be very large risks involved.
Whoa, whoa, whoa... nobody is saying anything about cloning a human being here. Stem cell therapy is totally different. Stem cell research uses only fertilized embryos that are, I think, between 16 and 64 days old. Outside of this limit, and the cells are totally useless for research purposes. And, if someone wants to get super prickly about this, even the Catholic Church has said that embryos under 60 days old are not considered to be living. If I dig around for my old university notes, I'm sure I'll have a source here somewhere.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody in favor of cloning. I, for one, think we have too many people on the planet. The last thing I think we need is more mouths to feed.

That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with trying to help people out, especially for things they have no control over, like genetic maladies and byproducts of our environment. Someone who has a broken spine from a collision with a drunk driver should have a chance to walk again. Life may not be fair, but that doesn't mean it can't be.

Quote[/b] ]Also, abortion is nothing short of murder. Part of max's sig a few months ago expressed (IMO)the views of many liberals well, "Kill babies, not convicts". Not to try to pull this off-topic, just it was mentioned in the first post.

I think you're wrong. But we're not going to talk about this. I think we've all had talks about this with friends and enemies in the past and nobody is going to change anybody's mind about it. And, FYI, Max's little quip was meant as a joke and nothing more.

Harnu

Nov 20 2003, 01:32

Stem cell research as I understand it should definately be looked into. All the possibilities it can have for the diseases it can cure. Cloning I'd probably be against. I.E. The last thing you need it two of the wrong person.

Quote[/b] ]Part of max's sig a few months ago expressed (IMO)the views of many liberals well, "Kill babies, not convicts". Not to try to pull this off-topic, just it was mentioned in the first post.

If that is the one I'm thinking of, that was during an MP game on OFP. If you could have read everything before hand, you'd knows it's just a joke.

Quote[/b] ]And why a person with low metabolism and low physical "wear" is likely to live longer than someone like a football player or weight lifting dude.

Tack one more on the "Reasons I'll die early" list http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif

Hellfish6

Nov 20 2003, 01:45

Stem cell research as I understand it should definately be looked into. All the possibilities it can have for the diseases it can cure. Cloning I'd probably be against. I.E. The last thing you need it two of the wrong person.
Well, you can clone Hitler, but it will be Hitler only in genetics. When you clone something, you don't get a full size exact replica of the host. You get a fertilized egg that is born and grows up exposed to a different world. So you can clone anybody you want to and it will be a fundamentally different person. Nature vs. Nurture and all of that.

Harnu

Nov 20 2003, 01:53

Doh! I forgot about that lol. I've been doing some exercise the past hour and don't think 100% straight afterwards. (Not saying I think straight before hand, but hey http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif )

Hellfish6

Nov 20 2003, 02:06

Ah... oxygen deprivation. Good for you! Stem cells can cure that... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/tounge_o.gif http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wink_o.gif

denoir

Nov 20 2003, 08:26

Well, you can clone Hitler, but it will be Hitler only in genetics. When you clone something, you don't get a full size exact replica of the host. You get a fertilized egg that is born and grows up exposed to a different world. So you can clone anybody you want to and it will be a fundamentally different person. Nature vs. Nurture and all of that.
Exactly. A very good example of it: CopyCat/CarbonCopy (http://www.msnbc.com/news/862384.asp) - the world's first cloned cat. They have a picture of the original as well. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

And we've had clones since the dawn of man kind - monozygotic twins.

No, the real issue with biotech is creating plants and animals that get out in the eco system and which the eco system can't handle. So while I'm all for research in the are, I think we should be waaay more careful before exposing people and nature to it. Our current knowledge of the long term effects of GM are non-existent and GM has the potential of fucking up the world really, really bad.

So, I'd like to see much more testing and research before planting that GM tomato that after a few normal rounds of mutation starts reproducing like hell and killing all the other plants. We have to know better what we are doing. It's quite possible that it will turn out that it's harmless. The potential bad things that could happen make it however very important to invastigate all the effects of GM properly.

Hellfish6

Nov 20 2003, 08:56

We have GM crops everywhere around me right now. Drive about thirty minutes in any direction and you'll pass GMO fields. It's kinda creepy, but in more of a "What exactly did they do to my food" kind of way instead of a "Killer tomatoes from Monsanto" kind of way. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

denoir

Nov 20 2003, 09:31

I'm not so worried about the food part. I'm sure they do testing to see that it isn't toxic or anything. And it's not exacly like you mate with your food, so I don't see any genetic threat to people.

The problem is that our knowledge of genetics is still very limited. When they're chaning the DNA of wheat or whatever, they just change some small bits that they have seen can be changed to achieve some effect. They do not however know what other effects changing those small bits might have. Plus the bastard mutates in nature. If it goes wrong it would be very bad as it could ruin the eco system.

And I'm not talking about the environmentalist "you have to recycle or you'll ruin the eco system". I'm talking really bad stuff such as one plant becoming completely dominant through efficient reproduction and becuase it kills all other plant life. The same concerns you might have for biological warfare applies in principle here as well. If you loose control over the biosystem then you're screwed.

Quote[/b] ]. It's kinda creepy, but in more of a "What exactly did they do to my food" kind of way

Oh, nothing dramatic - they just took fish-DNA and inserted it so that it would be more resiliant http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/wow_o.gif

Oligo

Nov 20 2003, 11:43

Denoir, you don't seem to know all the facts behind GMO plants and animals. However, I don't have time to write a reply now, but I'll get back to this tomorrow.

Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX

Nov 20 2003, 15:03

When they're chaning the DNA of wheat or whatever, they just change some small bits that they have seen can be changed to achieve some effect. They do not however know what other effects changing those small bits might have. Plus the bastard mutates in nature.
IMO GM is no different from plants mutating by themselves or selective breeding for specific genes. They could all produce some bastard mutant that decimates the competition but they are all equally unlikely to.

DJ_Mittens

Nov 20 2003, 20:10

EiZei

Nov 20 2003, 20:41

I would not call 6th day a realistic or indepth documentary about cloning. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

Tamme

Nov 20 2003, 20:44

The doll was annoying. I hated it.

Hellfish6

Nov 20 2003, 20:54

Are you kidding me? What if someone lost their pet dog or cat, or what if they lost a family member in a tragic accident? Watch 6th Day, that's what would happen with cloning technology.
You're serious? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif Look at what Denoir posted just above about the cloned cat. It'll have almost the exact same DNA, but even if it looked like your dead pet/relative, it still wouldn't be that person! You can clone me, and I promise you that whomever pops out will not be me. It won't have my experiences, my musical taste, my general disdain for captialism, and it probably won't look too much like me either.

theavonlady

Nov 21 2003, 04:46

You can clone me, and I promise you that whomever pops out will not be me.
Cloned moderators.

Do you really want this folks? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/ghostface.gif

Hellfish6

Nov 21 2003, 04:58

Even I don't want that... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/crazy_o.gif

Oligo

Nov 21 2003, 07:54

Okay, here is my rant on GMO plants. I'm trying to make it an objective one.

Typical multi-celled eukaryotic organisms like humans and soy beans have around one billion base pairs (bp) of DNA, give or take a few orders of magnitude. A typical gene is a stretch of sequence of about 500 to 10000 bp in length. The chemical structure of DNA in all organisms is the same, it's the sequence of the four bases (A,G,C,T) that is different. However, the sequence homology between different species is astounding, especially in the case of "household genes", the most numerous of genes, which are responsible for basic metabolic processes. Furthermore, since the genetic code is degenerate (many different words can mean the same thing), the functional homology between different species is even greater than the sequence homology. One big happy family.

Now, what we do in genetic engineering is take one or a few of those 500-10000 bp genes and transfer them from one organism to another or we destroy one or more genes to make the organism function better for us. Examples:

Tomatoes spoil easily, because tomatoes have a gene, which codes for an enzyme which hastens the spoiling of the tomato. Obviously the tomato needs this gene in order to compete better against other plants or it wouldn't have it. We humans surely don't want rapidly spoiling tomatoes, so we have engineered a tomato called "FlavrSavr" in which that one gene has been deleted. So this species is better for us, but weaker in competition against other plants. No risk of übertomatoes developing here, right?

Rice does not have vitamin A. People who mostly exist on rice diets have a lot of vitamin A deficiency (ceuses blindness). By introducing three new genes to rice (two from a flower species, one from a species of bacteria), researchers have been able to get a species of rice which has A vitamin in it (Golden Rice). Unfortunately it currently does not have enough of it to make a major nutritional impact (it can only provide 8% of the daily recommended intake), but research is ongoing. These three new genes offer the plant only an extra energy expediture, so Golden Rice is at a competitive disadvantage in nature. No chance of überrice developing, right?

Plants can get frostbite and die, every northern farmer knows this. Frostbite is caused by the crystallization of water (ice) inside plant cells in low temperatures, which causes disruption of the cell machinery. With genetic engineering we can introduce one gene from certain fish to certain plants. This gene codes for a protein, which, when present, inhibits water crystal formation in cells. Thus the cold tolerance of these plants is better than that of the normal plants (but not infinite). Therefore these plants could fare better against other plants in nature in very cold areas. However, producing the protein in every cell consumes a lot of resources, which is a competitive disadvantage for the plant. Could überweeds take over if they got a hold of this gene?

Weeds are killed from fields by the use of pesticides, which do not harm the plants being cultivated, but also do not rapidly break up in nature. Glyphosate is a pesticide, which kills all plants and breaks up in nature very rapidly (soil bacteria eat it). With genetic engineering researchers have introduced a gene to some plants (like soy beans), which makes them resistant to glyphosate. Thus fields can be treated with glyphosate and only weeds are killed. The gene, of course, is a metabolic burden to the planty that carries it. Could überweeds take over if they got a hold of this gene?

In order to better judge the last two questions, you have to consider such thing as antibiotic resistance of bacteria. When subjected to antibiotics, some bacteria pick up antibiotic resistance genes from the environment or get them by mutations of their own genome. But once the antibiotics are taken out (and this has been proven several times), the bacteria start kicking out the resistance genes, since having them in an environment free of antibiotics is a waste of energy better spent on outbreeding the competition. This is why antibiotics resistant infections often happen in hospitals, which are environments rich in antibiotics. Having useless genes is a competitive disadvantage, people!

To conclude, in my opinion regulating genetic engineering with regulations that make sense is a good thing, but the witch hunt we have been seeing especially in Europe is downright idiotic. Greenpeace sucks arse. Thank you.

theavonlady

Nov 21 2003, 08:07

Could überweeds take over if they got a hold of this gene?
Are you being sarcastic or is there a way that these modified genes could transfer over from one species to another? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif

Quote[/b] ]Greenpeace sucks
LOL! But only to an extent. You have to admit there would be a lot more environmental abuse without them in cases most people would agree upon.

Hellfish6

Nov 21 2003, 08:25

I think your post is one of the most intelligent things I've read in a long time, as it sounds like you know what you're talking about in a more-than-casual-interest kind of way.

Except this part:

Quote[/b] ]Greenpeace sucks arse

As a member of Greenpeace, I have to disagree with you. I do not suck arse nor does anyone else I know. I don't know exactly why they're opposing GMOs in Europe (I'm more of a wildlife/resource person myself) but I would think they'd have good reason. The only thing I can think of right now is that American GMOs would, if used/sold in Europe, rapidly destroy the European agricultural sector. Europe simply doesn't have the kinds of investments in GMOs that America has, and therefore is trying to protect itself and its farmers. Not an altogether bad thing, IMHO.

Morally, and being as that I fancy myself a Socialist, I'd much rather have my veggies coming from Pierre down the road than some chemist/geneticist over at ADM or Monsanto. But, I'm an American, so I have very little choice in the matter. I buy organic when I can, but I can't always. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/sad_o.gif

Oligo

Nov 21 2003, 08:36

Are you being sarcastic or is there a way that these modified genes could transfer over from one species to another?
I'm not being sarcastic and yes, there are theoretically two ways such transfer could be possible:

1. If cross-pollination of for example a weed with pollen from GM plants were to produce viable offspring, this offspring could have the extra gene in it. Such offspring would probably be sickly as compared to the parent plants (conflicting genes and such) and would probably lose in competition in nature. Also, if genetic exchange with cross-pollination would be commonplace in nature, there would be a lot of cases of food poisoning (people eating plants with toxin generating genes transferred from toxic plants).

2. Some plant viruses and bacteria can pick up DNA from their host and transfer it to a new host as they infect a new plant. This is probably also quite rare, since genetic exchange between plants seems to be quite rare in nature (see above).

You also have to remember that nature is a master of adaptation to competition meaning that the species we find in nature are pretty damn well optimized for survival. It is my personal opinion that we could not (currently) generate an überplant even if we tried our damnest to do it. We can only improve on areas the nature is not interested in improving, like suitability for human consumption and farming properties.

Oligo

Nov 21 2003, 08:50

Hellfish6, here are some points:

Me saying "greenpeace sucks arse" just reflects my frustration and like you noticed, it was written under the clause "in my opinion". I used to like greenpeace, but then I realized that they oppose everything new just for the sake of opposition, since their arguments are always designed to make the average Joe alarmed. Their opposition of the Golden Rice for example is ridiculous: They say that since you can only get about 8% of your daily recommended intake of vitamin A from Golden Rice, it is not worth eating. Answer me this, is it better to get 8% than nothing?

About Pierre down the road, well, where do you think Pierre gets his seeds? Since nobody anywhere I believe is farming the natural variants of edible plants, but the variants produced by thousands of years of selective plant breeding, Pierre buys his seeds from seed companies every once and a while in order to keep his plants maximally producing. So Pierre down the road could buy his seeds from Monsanto and farm away, thus enabling you still to buy your veggies from Pierre. Remember that if Pierre uses glyphosate resistant GMO seeds he can use environmentally friendly pesticide which does not screw up nature like the other pesticides do.

CosmicCastaway

Nov 21 2003, 09:26

With things like genetic modification of plants, whilst it can provide benefits to the human population (not to mention profits to the companies that produce them), there are definate fears (especially in Europe) about the supposed 'contamination' of the natural environment.

The issue of plant species 'escaping' into the wider environment is quite real, the long term effects of such contamination are yet to be determined however. (Most studies up to this point have been woefully inadequate) Perhaps a more important issue with the modifaction of certain plant species, would be the adaptation of the insect species to the changes. There are certain crops that have been modified to produce their own insecticide. Whilst this may be effective in the short term, nature has a knack of adapting to changing circumstances, and it would not be long before a more adapted variant of the plants previous pest popped up.

But as we can see from cases such as the 'Golden rice' possibly preventing blindness (they used a gene from the Daffodil for that one), the need is generally very obvious, whilst the ramifications of such modification are much less so.

So, genetic modification has potential, however as with most things the development of such technology is driven by the need for profit. (Not a sense of altruism on the part of the companies involved) As such, the promotion of the widespread use of such technology is being pushed, generally with very little long term testing and study.

Oligo

Nov 21 2003, 09:47

The issue of modified plant species escaping into the environment is something the opponents of GMO plants always bring up without understanding a few basic facts: 1. Nothing in this world is truly separate from the environment, 2. GMO species are already cultivated in the U.S. so their "escape in to the world" has happened already and 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.

About the plants that produce their own pesticide: Into these plants, a gene from an insect virus (Baculovirus) has been introduced. This gene codes for a protein, which can form holes in the surface of the digestive tract of some insects (=dead insect). This gene has been present in the nature for ages, baculoviruses are probably much older than humans. Yet, insects have not developed a resistence to the porin gene. 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. Remember that insects becoming resistent to chemical pesticides has not stopped us using chemical pesticides. DDT still saves lives in the third world (and that is some bad shit).

And finally, about the motivation of the scientists developing GMO crops: Scientists need money to work (like we all do) and what best funder but a commercial company. If such products as Golden Rice or RoundUp resistant plants are made with such obvious benefits to the whole humankind, I don't care whether the motivation of the scientists is greed, altruism or the will to play god.

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...

denoir

Nov 21 2003, 09:55

Tomatoes spoil easily, because tomatoes have a gene, which codes for an enzyme which hastens the spoiling of the tomato. Obviously the tomato needs this gene in order to compete better against other plants or it wouldn't have it. We humans surely don't want rapidly spoiling tomatoes, so we have engineered a tomato called "FlavrSavr" in which that one gene has been deleted. So this species is better for us, but weaker in competition against other plants. No risk of übertomatoes developing here, right?
Really Oligo? Wow you almost have me convinced there, almost. 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.

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.

Yeah so no we have something that reproduces very fast and mutates very fast. And within some time your little non-spoiling tomato has hairy legs and eats small animals.

No but seriously, suddenly your tomato becomes a factor in the eco system. And what you didn't know was that the XYZ bug's favourite plant was ran over by your übertomato. So it has no food and starts dying. And the YZX bird that eats the XYZ bug dies. And once that starts happening the whole eco system comes crashing down on you.

theavonlady

Nov 21 2003, 10:04

And within some time your little non-spoiling tomato has hairy legs and eats small animals.
/avon passes up on fresh salad for lunch

denoir

Nov 21 2003, 10:09

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

Nov 21 2003, 10:11

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'. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

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

Nov 21 2003, 10:13

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

Nov 21 2003, 10:30

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

Nov 21 2003, 10:34

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... http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/rock.gif

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

Nov 21 2003, 10:38

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. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

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

Nov 21 2003, 10:52

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.

http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

Oligo

Nov 21 2003, 10:53

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). (http://www.new-agri.co.uk/99-1/focuson/focuson9.html)

Tex [USMC]

Nov 21 2003, 11:00

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

theavonlady

Nov 21 2003, 11:07

@<hidden> 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! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

CosmicCastaway

Nov 21 2003, 11:08

@<hidden> Nov. 21 2003,13:00)]Well personally, I'm in it for the hairy carnivorous tomatoes.
It'd definately be something worth seeing. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif You'd have to fight for you're cheese and tomato sandwich from then on. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif

RalphWiggum

Feb 12 2004, 18:19

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

Feb 12 2004, 18:23

In short time we will clone our soldiers! http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/ghostface.gif

bn880

Feb 12 2004, 18:37

That is great news, I heard about it this morning. And South Korea, who would have thought. http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/smile_o.gif Actually they are getting to be quite competetive across the board...

RalphWiggum

Feb 12 2004, 18:43

so now we have to change the subtitle of the thread? http://forums.bistudio.com/oldsmileys/biggrin_o.gif

Balschoiw

Feb 12 2004, 18:44

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

Feb 12 2004, 18:45

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

Feb 12 2004, 18:51

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

Feb 12 2004, 19:17

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

Feb 12 2004, 19:40

I'm no expert either, but this is what I found (http://www.nih.gov/news/backgrounders/stemcellbackgrounder.htm).

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 (http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/dna/article.jsp?id=99993953&sub=Gene%20therapy) 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.