Talk:Genetically modified organism
From Academic Kids
Just a note of interest: Mendocino County, California has recently banned the production of all GMOs within it's borders. The measure passed with a 57% majority. Thought you would be interested. DryGrain 18:40, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
(confused comment)
LDC's response to confused comment:
Monsanto's "terminator" seeds were merely seeds engineered to produce seedless plants so that farmers would have to keep buying seed from Monsanto. Farmers figured out pretty quick that this was a bad idea and the business model failed, as it should have, in the free market. The Monarch story was about corn engineered to be worm-resitant, so it wouldn't need to be grown with pesticides. A study showed that its pollen was also toxic to monarch caterpillars, who feed exclusively on milkweed. Milkweed often grows near corn fields, but the study failed to show that any significant amount of pollen actually gets onto milkweed leaves where any caterpillars might be harmed, and of course it entirely ignored the fact that without the gene mod, the fields would have been sprayed with pesticide that kills them all without question, so the gene can only be the benefit of the butterflies. --LDC
Recent evidence shows that genetically-modified plants may "escape" from fields in which they were planted and out-compete unmodified plants in surrounding fields. (Provide references)
- This is very unclear what "escape" mean here. This would gain between explained. Is the plant escaping by moving itself (:-)), is it the pollen that is "escaping" and could maybe fertilize plants of the same family, or is it that new modified seeds are produced, and could be left, and colonize surroundings ?
- In the second case, it does not matter maybe that the pollen escape if they are no plants of same family around (for exemple, there is no "native" corn in europe).
The "escaping" that was observed was that genetically-modified plants were found in fields (in which they had not been planted) surrounding the test fields. "Escape" is a standard term in the field of biotechnology. Various means of emigration may be posited, including pollen capable of fertilizing unmodified plants and the broadcast of the seeds of modified plants. Whatever the mechanism, the findings are important because it was not previously thought that these particular modified plants could escape. The findings are therefore worthy of mention in the article. As time allows, I plan to look up the references. David 17:13 Dec 2, 2002 (UTC)
ah, the "escape" word is the standard one !
Well, that's a pb such a word is not more precise.
I think a link to the mexican corn contamination would be nice
More on the terminator gene would be nice too, for use of sterile pollen is a way to avoid contamination through pollen dissemination.
I also think that article is not balanced at all. Far too much cons compared to pros. As time allows, I could plan to give it a more proper aspect :-)
I moved the link below, for it appears to be broken
- Allison Snow, an Ohio State University professor who received Scientific American1s first annual Research Leader in Agriculture award, has reported (http://www.osu.edu/researchnews/archive/sungene.htm) on several studies showing the strengthening of weeds due to genetic escape of the Bt variant.
I looked at the discussion page, and I see nothing. I suppose the reader is expected to look by himself in the search box for the Allison Snow; if so, that could be notified, rather than leading to a page where it is written in big large letters " The page you are looking for has moved or is outdated."
Second, I put back the "possible" word. You can change it into any other word you like, but reading the article slowly again and again, I must insist it is only a "possible" that is discussed here. I don't consider a BBC article with a caption stating "Pollen from GM rapeseed crops has certainly escaped" to be proof enough that pollen escaped. I think that here the "certainly" expresses a personal conviction of the writer, not a fact. When reading the text, I see
- But before that happens, some pollen will escape from the crop and be carried into nearby fields by the wind, or by bees.
- But in any case, the chances of the GM pollen establishing a foothold in British plants seem vanishingly small.
- The GM pollen will certainly escape into the surrounding countryside.
- It may land on the stigmas of native plants like wild mustard or wild radish, and it may pollinate them.
- there could be a problem with "volunteer" rapeseed growing the following year, plants originating from seed which went astray at the time of sowing.
- So they could perpetuate the gene flow
- etc...
could, would, may...
All I see here is fair evidence that it is likely to happen, not fact it did.
There is "certainly" (personnal conviction) somewhere an article with facts. This is not fact. And this is not clearly discussing the fact it happened.
Or...it is that the word "escape" is definitly not the good one. I look again at your above comment and my question is
- does "escape" means pollen go away from the perimeter we could expect it to limit itself (ie, on the other surrounding fields) or
- does "escape" means the above + success in contamination of the surroundings crops
In the first case, escape is a evidence, in the second, it is not (at least in this article).
There are now three articles with closely related content:
genetically modified organism which is a laundry list of current concerns. As an article, this one is weakest, partially because it has no point of view (not the same as having a neutral point of view).
genetic modification which is about the process and potentials, long-term, of gene manipulation. It is not restricted to current technologies, nor to current industries, and is not afraid to go off into science fiction territory with the Raelians. Nor should it be, as at least one article has to talk about the long term potentials without getting bogged down in Monsanto and the left-right arguments.
genetic engineering which is about the field the way the gene hackers themselves see it - with some limited lip service paid to the objections of those who deny it's engineering. Presently genetic manipulation links here, which might be appropriate if that term is explained as a more neutral replacement for 'genetic engineering' - presently in the 'modification' article.
All three articles contain content worth saving, and one article could probably not do what the three do. Probably it's important to confine speculation to a couple of lines and a link to one article that is mostly about those potentials and ethical dilemmas and politics, that presently being genetic modification.
Is it really correct to have two separate articles for genetic engineering and genetically modified organism, however? The issue seems to be that an 'engineering' process that outputs an 'organism' is totally new ground for the professions, and so it may be appropriate to discuss these in one article, but leave the speculations (as they are) off in another article.
"For instance, a bell pepper may have DNA from a fish added to it to make it more drought-tolerant." - Was this meant to be a joke or something? -Jedi Dan 16:55 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)
- I can't tell from the history where this statement came from, but it appears to either be an error, a joke, or reference to something very obscure. -º¡º
sigh...yes...a tiny gene copy for frost tolerance from a fish, the Arctic flounder, has been transferred to plants (strawberries initially, other perhaps, I havenot checked).
It is neither a joke, nor an error, nor anything obscure. This said, it is certainly not the best example that could be given...the majority of the initial generations are more about resistance to herbicides, salinity/drought/cold/frost (but from one plant resistant to another non resistant usually), disease or pest resistance, enhanced developement or final quality. user:anthere
- Read the above carefully and you will see where the error in the text is. The text says the DNA is to make the plant more drought-tolerant, which could be seen as a joke (a drought-tolerant fish?). The fact was the gene was to make the plant more frost-tolerant, which is a completely different thing. As I said, it was either a joke, an error, or an obscure reference. You have simply provided evidence towards the error scenario. -º¡º
- bah. Frost is certainly much much more correct. But, when a cell suffers from frost, one of the impact of frost is lack of water, for the water in the cell is in a non-available form (since frozen, he ?). Hence, the usage of "drought". Similarly, in tundra, the soil is very humid, but the climate is dry for most of the water is unavailable. I agree this might sound like a bad joke though. This example is not very good anyway, as it was used as a "pinpoint" (is that word correct?) by anti-gmos people, to insist on how un-natural gmo were. Hence, it is an example with "very heavy" history. Using this example in the introduction is imho pov. It certainly might be inside the text though. Besides, it sound so incredible that many would believe we are joking.
- I changed it. I couldn't find verification either. Koyaanis Qatsi 04:37 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)
- Thanks kq (hi btw :-)). Just type words like fish gmo strawberry tomato and should find it, all over the place. Hard to find scientific ref though. ant
- about the fish/frost example: If you know of an example with less cultural baggage, maybe you could put that in instead. I'm certainly not an expert on GMOs. Koyaanis Qatsi
- well, will see. We should perhaps give an example on cotton in China. It will have less cultural baggage than citing a Monsanto example :-)
- What "cultural baggage" does the current example have? Why would we replace it? -º¡º
- Oh Anthere, saying that the frost causes internal drought is really stretching things. Maybe this is something that comes from a difference between French and English, but we don't use the word "drought" in that way. Perhaps "dehydration" is a better fit, but drought, no that had to be an error. -º¡º
- ah, possibly. Well...that was a fun error anyway :) Imagination allow geneticians to stretch reality pretty far away. I will always dream of my blue roses...
- some years ago, I tried to breed blue roses. And hoped to see new colors and new features appear with some biotech techniques. Not with foreign gene insertion though. Some experiments worked. But, not the blue roses :-(
that article is totally messy PomPom 19:47, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Though 'totally messy' is a bit obscure, I would certainly say this article has problems. The radiation-treatment of wheat strikes me (as a layman) as entirely different from the deliberate modification of a DNA strain to give a specific, designed capability; yet the 'wheat point' is brought up several times thrugh the text as a counter-argument. As I said, I'm no biologist, but I think someone more qualified should take a good hard look at this article (and fix it). Radagast 23:14, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
Moved POV paragraphs
Moved from the page:
- Opponents often falsely present research conducted by scientists at the Imperial College London and the Universidad Simon Rodriguez in Caracas, Venezuela as revealing that the diamondback moth grew 56% faster when fed cabbage genetically modified to contain Bt than it did when fed cabbage without the Bt. This is not very honest, as the moths were fed on leaf discs treated with Bt, not transgenic plants. Therefore, the research has just as much potential relevance to organic farming, in which Bt is a commonly used pesticide, as it does to transgenic plants. The 56% figure is disingenuously picked because it is the largest number that can be derived from the data; the differences in pupal weight, development time, and pupal weight/developmental time are much, much smaller.
And:
- Compare a news article falsely claiming that diamondback moths grow faster on cabbage engineered to contain Bt than they do on cabbage without it, [1] (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=392044) with the actual published scientific manuscript, [2] (http://www.blauen-institut.ch/Tx/tP/tpG/722Plutella.pdf) , in which it is clearly stated that the moths were fed cabbage treated with several doses of Bt.
While the issue is certainly relevant, discussing it in such POV language is entirely unacceptable ("falsely present .. not very honest .. disingenuously picked .."). Furthermore, this smells like a straw man unless there are citations for the claims that are rebutted -- who says this? Reputable anti-GMO organizations, or some personal website? Furthermore, it neglects that the whole point of the paper is to present a hypothesis, not to test it (that's why the title ends with a question mark).
This whole article is an example of what NPOV shouldn't be, but these two paragraphs were especially egregious.--Eloquence* 22:06, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
I removed several paragraphs of material which were inherently biased; those issues are already covered better elsewhere. This article should focus simply on what a GMO is and what it isn't. As it is, it remains heavily focused on transgenic plants. While this is an application of genetics which is highly visible to the public, it is by no means the extent of applications of gene technology.
Some of the material I eliminated should be considered for integration into the other articles on genetics. Also, I think we should add some more paragraphs on the lesser-known uses of GMOs in the research community, e.g. oncology, immunology. Jeeves 23:07, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think that the "Genetic modification of bacteria" part is all wrong. I. The discussion is not about how the "genetic composition of bacteria can be altered...", but how the genetic composition of bacteria can be artificially altered. Or how the genetic composition is altered in practice. The only method used in the laboratories is transformation. The other two are the ways for the exchange of genetic material in nature.
- transformation, conjugation and transduction.
People who are opposed to GMOs remind me of the following line of thought:
THE EARTH IS FLAT!!!
There is no proof that GMOs are bad, just rumors spread by people opposed to scientific advancement.
- Its not "bad", but there are problems... 209.148.144.171 06:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I would question the neutrality of the final portion (controversies) of this article. Some parts in this section need editing for a less biased, more scientifically sound source of information. For example, the pollen spread concern is widely discredited in the case of the two largest transgenic crops, corn and soybean. For soybean, it is obvious reasons (does not cross-pollinate). For corn, while pollen grains may travel great distances, the viability of corn pollen grains is very short (around 10 minutes), therefore it is not a major concern. Many studies have taken place to address this, and farmers do plant "buffer zones" to prevent cross-contamination of adjacent fields following the findings of these scientific studies. For more information, check the list of references at the end.
Also, on the previous paragraph, there is no correlation between increased Bt resistance in insects with the opening sentence (being harmful to humans)
References:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/corn.html http://www.umaine.edu/waterquality/Agriculture/GE_Corn.htm
Burris JS (2001) Adventitious pollen intrusion into hybrid maize seed production fields. Proc. 56th Annual Corn and Sorghum Research Conference 2001. American Seed Trade Association, Inc. Washington, D.C.
Westgate ME, Lizaso J & Batchelor W (2003) Quantitative relationship between pollen-shed density and grain yield in maize. Crop Sci. 43, 934-942
Ma BL, Subedi KD & Reid LM (2004) Extent of cross-fertilization in maize by pollens from neighboring transgenic hybrid. Crop Sci. 44, 1273-1282
Stewart DW, Ma BL & Dwyer LM (2001) A mathematical model of pollen dispersion in a maize canopy. 2001 Annual Meeting Abstracts, The ASA-CSSA-SSSA Headquarters, Madison, WI.
Here is one evidence of transgene flow, from a canola field to another: Pollen flow between herbicide-resistant Brassica napus is the cause of multiple-resistant B. napus volunteers Hall etal. 2000 (http://www.bioone.org/bioone/?request=get-document&issn=0043-1745&volume=048&issue=06&page=0688)
