View Single Post
Old 02-23-2011, 09:52 PM   #14
philip
Salamander
 
philip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: North Bergen / Cliffside Park New Jersey
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by suunto View Post
You might then find this British-made video clip entertaining, at least...
YouTube - The Daily Mail Song

The Daily Mail appears to have more in common with the National Enquirer than with more mainstream media such as The Daily Telegraph, the Guardian or The Times (of London).
Heh. Nice one Suunto.

Yeah, you'd be best off leaving out the Daily Mail alright. Just for the record, a while back The Times was bought by our friend Rupert Murdoch. I would be fairly careful about what's written in that subsequent to this purchase. I personally would take the Independent over the Telegraph, if I was buying an English paper. The Guardian is very good though, true enough.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calliandra View Post
Yikes, didn't mean to bring in something from an disreputable paper-- I just followed links through, and didn't double-check the source. My apologies to everyone, and lesson learned.

I am still curious about the terminator gene, though.

It seems like such a two-edged sword. On one hand, it reduces the chance of release into the wild (for example, if any of the bt crops were to escape, it could have unintended effects on butterflies). On the other hand, it prevents farmers from saving seed, so it creates economic hardship.

How do they grow the seed?

What if pollen from a terminator-gene crop inadvertently pollinates a non-terminator-gene field?
Basically all you have to do to make a Terminator strain is to remove the ability for the next generation to be viable. In reality there are lots of ways to break viability, so I suppose Terminator Gene is a little misleading (implying that there is some single thing added to the genome that results in death).

The whole point of it (again, not that I am defending or otherwise these companies) is they want to protect their technology from being "stolen" from them. They feel they have spent a few thousand PhD hours on making rice grow in slightly salty environments (for example) and they need to make this investment back somehow.

My point is, it's an application of genetic modification.

It's a bit like saying computers are bad because they are used in missiles. Yes, they are used in missiles, but they are also used for other things. Computers are not bad per se, however they can be used to do a lot of things.

Genomics / GM / genetic engineering is nothing more than science ever was. It's an application of knowledge. Science is not something to fear (that's what bank executives are for), it's a tool.

Regarding the question of what happens if they get into the wild, they presumably die. They are missing vital information that is needed for viability in the next generation, without which they cannot survive. Therefor they vanish.

All organisms that do not have this cross are fine. Life goes on, evolution by natural selection works.

Regarding animals that live on these plants, I would imagine they would not be effected either way by whether the plant can reproduce properly. Do you care if the tomatoes you eat are sterile or not? Can you tell?


Just... an aside, I hope I am not seeming to be obnoxious in my tone here. I suppose I work (ed) in this area for a while, and I maybe feel like I need to push my point a little.
I mean no offense *at all*.
philip is offline   Reply With Quote