Genetically Modifying Animals

B

BlackParade

Registered Member
I'm doing a science case study on genetically modifying animals, and I'm meant to get opinions.
So what is your opinion on whether genetically modifying animals should be allowed?
Thanks
 
BlackParade said:
I'm doing a science case study on genetically modifying animals, and I'm meant to get opinions.
So what is your opinion on whether genetically modifying animals should be allowed?
Thanks
Click to expand...
I think it should not be allowed. If by genetic modification you mean bypassing the abilities of sperm and eggs to combine, rather than say the old breeding over generations for certain characteristics which has certainly led to some unpleasant dogs, for example, but does not scare me at all.

I think it should not be allowed first and foremost because they do not know what they are doing. I do not believe they can track the risks. I think there are too many variables.
 
It depends on the modification. Simply inserting a stretch of "normal" DNA from a close relative in place of a mutated stretch that would cause diabetes, for example, seems like something that should be allowed - carefully - even for people.

Direct, one for one substitution of desireable and pre-existing (in a realted population) alleles at the same place on the genome also seems reasonable to allow.

They can't do that yet, btw.

Bringing in whole genes and gene complexes from different phyla, or even synthetic, that do things no similar organism can do at all, and broadcast inserting them (and pieces of them, etc) throughout an organism's genome, should be done only under the same kinds of lab protocols that are standard for dealing with dangerous viral diseases.

And creating individual corporate dependencies on particular genetic modifications for a large proportion of a population's necessities - such as food, say - should be treated as a crime similar to fraud, embezzlement, and pyramid schemes.
 
Reasons why:
helps feed the people of the world and assure the world's population doesn't plumit becuase of starvation

proves that it doesn't take a prayer to make a bountiful harvest, but scieantific reasech

proves god wrong
 
BlackParade said:
I'm doing a science case study on genetically modifying animals, and I'm meant to get opinions.
So what is your opinion on whether genetically modifying animals should be allowed?
Thanks
Click to expand...

We create and utilise genetically modified animals all the time. This is to find out in vivo how a particular gene is relevant to a the functioning of an organism, what happens when that gene is knocked out or made dysfunctional. Using Cre-Lox or other transgenic methods, we can now over express or silence genes in specific tissues to find out if that gene has a role in that tissue of the body. All these techniques are significant for understanding the functioning of the gene in the organism for several reasons, like determining nutrient needs, recommended levels of nutrients, treatment of specific diseases etc.
 
Last edited:
Nothing against it. We're Human. Earth belongs to us. We do what we want with it.
 
I'm a little wary of tinkering with the DNA of microorganisms, because of the possibility that they can escape into the air. I'm also concerned about food crops that reproduce by scattering seed to the wind. We could inadvertently replace the entire population of a plant with a variant that isn't as able to withstand some vagary of nature that only happens occasionally.

Basically I'm worried about tinkering with any organism that could escape into the environment and reproduce, so that would certainly include rats. I don't see a problem with food animals or other animals that are large enough to track like cows or feeble enough to not pose a problem like turkeys.

As for the others, I'm not advocating a discontinuation of research, I'd just like to know that the researchers are doing a good job of safeguarding my planet. Much of this research is corporate and corporate America has a dismal record when it comes to safeguarding the planet. Lately the government hasn't been a whole lot more competent about it either.

If the Frankenstein story happens in real life, you can bet that it will be in a corporate or government lab, not that of a mad scientist
 
sowhatifit'sdark said:
We don't need GM to feed ourselves. And it is not the corporations behind GM intent to feed us per se, but to make she farmers pay them royalties on what they grow.
Click to expand...
Farmers are still free to buy "regular" seed that can be reused. Most choose to buy GM seed because even with paying royalties, it still grows so much better that they end up making more money.
 
I prefer organic food, obviously, but what I'm saying is that if we Humans want to do something, what will stop us? Intelligence is superior to nature.
 
Farmers are still free to buy "regular" seed that can be reused. Most choose to buy GM seed because even with paying royalties, it still grows so much better that they end up making more money.
Click to expand...
Farmers have been sued for reusing seed from their own fields that had picked up GM traits from neighboring fields.

And one of the principles of agriculture is not to let a pattern of individual decisions dig a hole for everyone's food supply - it's very dangerous to be dependent on one or two genetic lines of a major crop, to allow broadcast of genetic material that can escape into the wild or have unpredictable effects on health and safety, to depend on one or two corporations for an immediate necessity of life. Religion often handles that, in farming cultures, but ours won't: we have to be sensible, and regulate the stuff.

Why aren't we using this genetic stuff to develop crops that make our food supply less, rather than more, dependent on herbicides and fertilizers and corporation services ?
 
iceaura said:
Why aren't we using this genetic stuff to develop crops that make our food supply less, rather than more, dependent on herbicides
Click to expand...
How exactly would you go about creating a GM crop "less dependent on herbicides"? Weeds have to be removed, one way or another. What we do now is make food crop resistant to herbicide so that farmers can spray more of it without damaging crop plants. The only alternative is to gene-engineer the crop plant to make its own herbicide -- like pine tree, which kills any other plant in vicinity. Do you want THAT escaping into wild?
and fertilizers
Click to expand...
We are. No GM crop requires MORE fertilizer, and some require quite a bit less:

http://roguepundit.typepad.com/roguepundit/2005/09/gm_biodiesel_1.html

Search for "fertilizer".
and corporation services ?
Click to expand...
Where else do you expect them to come from? Companies which develop GM crops want to be paid.
 
Nasor said:
Farmers are still free to buy "regular" seed that can be reused. Most choose to buy GM seed because even with paying royalties, it still grows so much better that they end up making more money.
Click to expand...
Short term. And for the same reasons body builders should avoid steroid supplements, we and farmers should avoid these products.
Or the GM plants can survive more pesticides better and the farmers want to use more pesticides.
 
Norsefire said:
I prefer organic food, obviously, but what I'm saying is that if we Humans want to do something, what will stop us? Intelligence is superior to nature.
Click to expand...

Hate to tell you this but intelligence is a part of nature.

I cannot see what is different between you and a bratty child who treats his mother terribly.

I don't care if you are smart enough to connect the dots or not, Mr. Smarter than nature.
 
letticia said:
How exactly would you go about creating a GM crop "less dependent on herbicides"? Weeds have to be removed, one way or another. What we do now is make food crop resistant to herbicide so that farmers can spray more of it without damaging crop plants. The only alternative is to gene-engineer the crop plant to make its own herbicide
Click to expand...
Or making a plant that competes with weeds better in some other way - such as by forming a sod or ground-shading leaf layer, growing in higher density, being perrenial or biennial and getting an early growth start, harboring commensals that afflict weeds, rotating or intercropping in weed-suppressing ways, etc etc.

One problem with adding lots of herbicides is that they are poisons - you are broadcasting poisons unto the watershed, contaminating all the rivers and lakes and aquifers of the landscape. Another is that they are expensive and dependent on large agribusiness.
letticia said:
We are. No GM crop requires MORE fertilizer, and some require quite a bit less:
Click to expand...
Several GM crops are more sensitive to nutrition - meaning that the penalty for not fertilizing, or underfertilizing, or misfertilizing, can be more severe (various penalties - drastic yield cut, greater vulnerability to drought or disease, fragility in bad weather, etc) Since the GM seed is more expensive in the first place, all these are more critical for the marginal farmer.

Hence an immediate dependency on large corporate agribusiness. Patented, restricted use GM crops are a dependency that creates greater dependency - kind of like a Mafia setup that runs overweight trucks on the roads its construction company has the contract to fix.
letticia said:
Where else do you expect them to come from? Companies which develop GM crops want to be paid.
Click to expand...
Up until recently, and actaully right now as well, almost all this stuff came from research departments at the State land grant universities of America and various non-profit foundations spun off of them. It was then given to the public that had paid for the research.

Now the research at these taxpayer supported universities is licensed or sold or given to corporations, who make small modifications, patent the results, and charge the taxpayer for the "intellectual property" they own.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top