Tony, Perhaps acceptable things can sometimes come from a sick philosophy, world view, or scientific technique. There is no doubt that both biotechnology and molecular sciences have contributed to the emancipation of humanity from some world deadly material threats (...although often only for the rich countries), but they also serve as the backbone for many unethical socio-econo-industrial practices that can seriously harm our long-term well being. Motivations are often near sighted and only offer short-term solutions. The bigger picture is more complex and includes non-material issues. The question is which road shall we use to resolve our difficulties? Should we assert our dominance over material laws (e.g. genetics) without fully exploring spiritual laws? Materialistic science has a bad habit of creating a problem, fixing the problem, and creating another... and so on! While everyone makes money off this process, it certainly lacks long-term vision.
In ecology we have a simple equation for life. Life = genetic + environment + genetic*environment. Indeed, this is a simplification of the world. So... while biotech and genetic knowledge are being fully funded by governments and industries (e.g. Monsanto), and advancing at uncontrollable rates, our environmental and even more the G*E interactions are left in quasi darkness. Never mind legal, ethical, and other spiritual values. This is the disproportion that worries me. So... is there REALLY a ".. more benign form of genetic manipulation..."? A more simple question is: WHICH PATH DO I WANT TO TRAVEL? Regards, Robin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Nelson-Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: September 21, 2002 8:35 AM Subject: Acceptable GM? > > I have just been reading a report in New Scientist (14 Sept, p.7) about > research from USDA and Pioneer Hi-Bred resulting in the removal, in part by > genetic manipulation, of proteins which cause most allergic reactions to > soya. I deplore GMOs for all the usual reasons but wonder whether this > particular manipulation could be regarded as acceptable. It involves no > insertion of 'foreign' genes, but a process apparently called gene silencing > by sense suppression: extra copies of the soybean's own gene that codes for > a particular protein (P34) are spliced into the DNA, which leads the plant > to destroy the relevant RNA and then the gene that makes it. This is said > to affect no other proteins in the plant. Apart from a slim possibility of > reversal by random mutation or viral infection, the suppression is > permanently bred into the stock. Other allergenic proteins can be removed > by conventional cross-breeding with wild strains lacking the appropriate > genes (apparently very few lack the P34 gene). > This seems to be a much more benign form of genetic manipulation - I wonder > what BDNow! subscribers think about it? Tony N-S. > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com >
