Comments on: Genetic Manipulation

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Wed, 20 May 2009 15:53:25 +0000

@Brennan Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn. Your confusing genetic manipulation and cloning two different things, and what does “diapproved” mean? If you mean health risks have not been disproved, then that’s right, but they never will, it’s impossible to disprove health risks for anything. “violated the laws of nature”? Hmmm, starting to sound like a rant. But, then your sentence peters out in talking about something skipping the birth process in life…so not at all sure whether you actually have even a vaguely coherent argument in your head. You certainly didn’t type one into the comment box.

By: Brennen

Brennen — Wed, 20 May 2009 15:07:45 +0000

Genetic Manipulation would be a terrible thing to do it has not been diapproved against health risk and it violated the laws of nature by cloning animals. It skips the birth process in life and

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Thu, 15 May 2008 16:26:38 +0000

People on both sides of the debate can be biased. GM antagonists, such as eco groups want them banned per se, while the companies that sell the seed take the opposite stance for commercial reasons. As far as I know there is no evidence of any obvious health effects. I think the premature work on potatoes that kicked off the debate in the UK will go down in the annals of history on the same list as the MMR-autism scare.

By: Peter Gluck

Peter Gluck — Thu, 15 May 2008 16:13:57 +0000

Thanks, David! But the aim here is to prohibit the GM plants in the name of
humanism, (?) but for false reasons. For propaganda, more exacty.
I will study seriously this problembecause I know it is important- there
are great troubles with food worldwide and genetic engineering could
be a part of the Solution.

May I ask a negative question- is there some clear proof that these plants
have a bad effect on health?

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:32:30 +0000

It would be nice to imagine that such a document could exist Peter. Unfortunately, documents and reports have to be written by people and people have inherent biases no matter how hard they try to avoid them, so a document from any given organisation might talk of all the pros and cons, but will focus more on one side than another depending on those biases. Any attempt to write an entirely independent and rational report is going to be biased by the authors’ personal opinions and by the agenda set by whoever commissions such a report. The same occurs in almost every area of human endeavour from health and medicine to art.

By: Peter Gluck

Peter Gluck — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:36:22 +0000

Fearmongering being more profitable than objective analysis, we see explosions of hysteria against GM crops. At least here in Romania. There are politicians specialized in protecting people against their terrible harmful effects. (But no explicit data re damage or danger).

Is there a really serious, official, document about the pros and cons of GM, including proofs regarding all their effects on human health, positive or negative? Can somebody help me?
Thanks,
Peter

By: David Bradley

David Bradley — Thu, 15 May 2008 14:11:29 +0000

Thanks once again for giving Sciencebase the thumbs up JohnX. You’re right, of course, there are many factors (both known knowns, and known unknowns) that we need to be ready to be aware of should they emerge. But, people take quite bizarre risks with much more risky things in their lives, driving too fast, smoking, drinking to excess, etc etc, that worrying about whether a trace toxin engineered into a crop used to feed cows or make biofuel might somehow be hazardous to other crops seems almost negligible by comparison.

By: Johnx

Johnx — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:59:42 +0000

David:

Whenever I read an article such as this, I think of Barbara McClintock, who, and according to many, set the stage for our current “gene science”. But to me, she proved that genes can do things theretofore imaginable. I suspect that genes can still perform “tricks” of which we are totally unaware. We would be arrogant to state anything differently today.

On the one hand, I will readily eat GM crops, or for that matter, a GM lamb, steer or anything else.

On the other hand, scientists must continue research, lest a weed or some microscopic organism acquire the same traits. What a mess we would have on our hands.

Finally, restarting new crops with GM seeds, while a blessing (if I may use that word), also poses the same ultimate “OPEC” problem all of us are now enduring — and even though I think of it often, I really have no answer — maybe I will live long enough to arrive at a good idea.

Oh, what a dilemna we face.

Good article.