YOU said it so much better than I could. Thanks Robin, I feel the same way. :)sharon. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robin Duchesneau" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2002 6:35 PM Subject: Re: Acceptable GM?
> 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 > > > > >
