3 ms·

I had that same feeling rather early on when I reached this: > Opponents have frequently maintained that an interspecies gene transfer done in a laboratory—the

I had that same feeling rather early on when I reached this: > Opponents have frequently maintained that an interspecies gene transfer done in a laboratory—the insertion of a bacterial gene into corn to make it insect-resistant, for example—would never occur naturally and is therefore unethical and potentially unsafe. > The new study, published Thursday in the journal PLOS Genetics, undermines that argument. > "You realize that nature is creating genetically modified organisms all the time,” said Salvador Herrero, a geneticist at the University of Valencia, Spain, and co-author of the study. “It’s not so weird to transfer genes from one organism to another. I don't see how these results undermine the argument in any way, _whatsoever_, Mr. Naik. The only way it can undermine an anti-GMO agenda is to "equate" human genetic modifications to nature's genetic modifications. The gene vectors we create are different. Herrero's point laid out here also appears taken out of the scope of the results of the original study. Or, more accurately, Herrero's point was taken out of context by the authors of the WSJ piece.

eivarv 11y ago
I don't think there's much to undermine in the first place, as the opponent argument isn't much of an argument – just an appeal to nature (if I understand their position correctly). Whether the modifications are done by nature or by an agent is irrelevant in itself, as nothing is exclusively inherent to either approach. Any legitimate skepticism would be backed by critique of theory or argument, and/or contributing alternative explanations.
- 13years 11y ago
  The argument I have heard is that this is part of the basis for the significant difference. Random mutations - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559911/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559911/
  - eivarv 11y ago
    Consider this hierarchy: Natural/Artificial(whatever these terms mean) -> Genetic Modification(General field) -> Plant Transformation(Specific method) -> Using Agrobacterium tumefaciens(Specific technique) -> The application in practice. Even if one proves that something applies to a step/layer, one cannot generalize downwards (towards the general); only upwards (towards the specific). That's why I find the anti-GMO craze weird: Genetic modification in itself isn't harmful, and also happens in nature all the time (as if this makes a difference). It's specific outcomes of certain modifications, or side-effects of specific applied techniques (as noted in the article you linked to). So, whether a genetic modification is performed by "chance" (as in by nature), or deliberately (as in by humans) is irrelevant in and of itself. Weakness or risk is inherent not in the performing agent (or lack thereof), but in the the technique or its application – which is clear from the article.

eivarv 11y ago

I don't think there's much to undermine in the first place, as the opponent argument isn't much of an argument – just an appeal to nature (if I understand their position correctly). Whether the modifications are done by nature or by an agent is irrelevant in itself, as nothing is exclusively inherent to either approach. Any legitimate skepticism would be backed by critique of theory or argument, and/or contributing alternative explanations.

13years 11y ago
The argument I have heard is that this is part of the basis for the significant difference. Random mutations - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559911/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559911/
- eivarv 11y ago
  Consider this hierarchy: Natural/Artificial(whatever these terms mean) -> Genetic Modification(General field) -> Plant Transformation(Specific method) -> Using Agrobacterium tumefaciens(Specific technique) -> The application in practice. Even if one proves that something applies to a step/layer, one cannot generalize downwards (towards the general); only upwards (towards the specific). That's why I find the anti-GMO craze weird: Genetic modification in itself isn't harmful, and also happens in nature all the time (as if this makes a difference). It's specific outcomes of certain modifications, or side-effects of specific applied techniques (as noted in the article you linked to). So, whether a genetic modification is performed by "chance" (as in by nature), or deliberately (as in by humans) is irrelevant in and of itself. Weakness or risk is inherent not in the performing agent (or lack thereof), but in the the technique or its application – which is clear from the article.