4 ms·

> What would be the “long tail risk”? All the CRISPR-Cas9 > systems would die out with the mosquitos. May I assume you have zero background in biology/biochemi

by tiatia 11y ago

> What would be the “long tail risk”? All the CRISPR-Cas9 > systems would die out with the mosquitos. May I assume you have zero background in biology/biochemistry/chemistry?

danieltillett 11y ago
No you may not (you can look at my profile here). Once again what is the long tail risk? Up thread there is lots of discussion about all of this.
- tiatia 11y ago
  A few points http://www.nature.com/news/caution-urged-over-editing-dna-in-wildlife-intentionally-or-not-1.18123 http://www.nature.com/news/caution-urged-over-editing-dna-in... http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/03/new-dna-construct-can-set-off-a-mutagenic-chain-reaction/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/03/new-dna-construct-can... http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf You release not only a gene but a technology into the wild. This is something that can not be undone. You may easily underestimate the scale, rapidness and evolutionary pressure of a fast replicating species. Throw a few atomic bombs on Brazil. The effects are a) temporary b) geographically limited. If something screws up with the CRISPR/Cas9 system, the effects are a) not temporary b) geographically unlimited. Proceed with caution.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    Basically a warmed up version of the "precautionary principle” - or as it should be named "don’t do anything new because something bad might happen” principle. This is not an argument for any long tail, just an argument for inaction because we don’t know what might happen and can never know unless we try. If our ancestors had taken the same approach we would still be living in trees being eaten by wild animals. What those propounding the precautionary principle forget is the do nothing approach is not cost free. 700 million people are made ill every year by mosquitoes and more than a million killed. Unless the risk adjusted consequences are greater than this then doing nothing is far worse. No one has been able to suggest any possible bad consequences of wiping out all human disease carrying mosquitos so there is nothing to be precautionary about [1]. As for the technology it is already in the wild - it was originally isolated from bacteria. One final point is yes it can be undone - see George Church’s paper [2]. George is on your side, but he does explain how any trial can be controlled. 1. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html 2. http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2014/07/17/007203.full.pdf http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2014/07/17/007203.f...
    - tiatia 11y ago
      "No one has been able to suggest any possible bad consequences of wiping out all human disease carrying mosquitos" This was not the question. But I see that "unlimited" risk is no problem for you. The problem I have is that I am sharing this risk for your actions. How about to try to get this insured? I am curious about the price quote for an "unlimited" risk that an insurance company would quote.
      - danieltillett 11y ago
        I think one of the major reasons for our disagreement is you perceive that there is an unlimited risk with GMO organisms - the paper you linked to explicitly states this [1]. Quoting from it: Ecologically, in addition to intentional cultivation, GMOs have the propensity to spread uncontrollably, and thus their risks cannot be localized. The cross-breeding of wild-type plants with genetically modified ones prevents their disentangling, leading to irreversible system-wide effects with unknown downsides. The ecological implications of releasing modified organisms into the wild are not tested empirically before release. The problem with this analysis is their assumption that GMOs have a propensity to spread uncontrollably. This is totally false. The problem with GMOs is they don’t spread very effectively unless under human selective pressure. The reason why is really simple - all organisms have a fixed metabolic budget which they can allocate to different functions (grow, reproduction, protection against predation, repair, etc). When you introduce new genes into an organism you have to take away some of this fixed budget to allocate to the new function. This means that when the GMO competes with other organisms in the wild they are at a disadvantage. If you make an argument based on a false assumption then you will get a faulty conclusion. It is a real shame with this paper as the rest is quite good and an excellent argument for not doing things where ...the consequences can involve total irreversible ruin, such as the extinction of human beings or all life on the planet. GMOs just don’t happen to be one of these things (I am leaving out of GMOs things like creating new pathogens, but you don’t need genetic engineering to create these as the USA and Russia showed in the 1950 and 1960s). The bottom line is GMOs are not that scary. In fact I know of no serious harm that has come from any other than to make people fearful for no reason and their absence to drive up the price of food. 1. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf

by tiatia 11y ago

> What would be the “long tail risk”? All the CRISPR-Cas9 > systems would die out with the mosquitos. May I assume you have zero background in biology/biochemistry/chemistry?

danieltillett 11y ago

No you may not (you can look at my profile here). Once again what is the long tail risk? Up thread there is lots of discussion about all of this.

tiatia 11y ago
A few points http://www.nature.com/news/caution-urged-over-editing-dna-in-wildlife-intentionally-or-not-1.18123 http://www.nature.com/news/caution-urged-over-editing-dna-in... http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/03/new-dna-construct-can-set-off-a-mutagenic-chain-reaction/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/03/new-dna-construct-can... http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf You release not only a gene but a technology into the wild. This is something that can not be undone. You may easily underestimate the scale, rapidness and evolutionary pressure of a fast replicating species. Throw a few atomic bombs on Brazil. The effects are a) temporary b) geographically limited. If something screws up with the CRISPR/Cas9 system, the effects are a) not temporary b) geographically unlimited. Proceed with caution.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Basically a warmed up version of the "precautionary principle” - or as it should be named "don’t do anything new because something bad might happen” principle. This is not an argument for any long tail, just an argument for inaction because we don’t know what might happen and can never know unless we try. If our ancestors had taken the same approach we would still be living in trees being eaten by wild animals. What those propounding the precautionary principle forget is the do nothing approach is not cost free. 700 million people are made ill every year by mosquitoes and more than a million killed. Unless the risk adjusted consequences are greater than this then doing nothing is far worse. No one has been able to suggest any possible bad consequences of wiping out all human disease carrying mosquitos so there is nothing to be precautionary about [1]. As for the technology it is already in the wild - it was originally isolated from bacteria. One final point is yes it can be undone - see George Church’s paper [2]. George is on your side, but he does explain how any trial can be controlled. 1. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100721/full/466432a.html 2. http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2014/07/17/007203.full.pdf http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2014/07/17/007203.f...
  - tiatia 11y ago
    "No one has been able to suggest any possible bad consequences of wiping out all human disease carrying mosquitos" This was not the question. But I see that "unlimited" risk is no problem for you. The problem I have is that I am sharing this risk for your actions. How about to try to get this insured? I am curious about the price quote for an "unlimited" risk that an insurance company would quote.
    - danieltillett 11y ago
      I think one of the major reasons for our disagreement is you perceive that there is an unlimited risk with GMO organisms - the paper you linked to explicitly states this [1]. Quoting from it: Ecologically, in addition to intentional cultivation, GMOs have the propensity to spread uncontrollably, and thus their risks cannot be localized. The cross-breeding of wild-type plants with genetically modified ones prevents their disentangling, leading to irreversible system-wide effects with unknown downsides. The ecological implications of releasing modified organisms into the wild are not tested empirically before release. The problem with this analysis is their assumption that GMOs have a propensity to spread uncontrollably. This is totally false. The problem with GMOs is they don’t spread very effectively unless under human selective pressure. The reason why is really simple - all organisms have a fixed metabolic budget which they can allocate to different functions (grow, reproduction, protection against predation, repair, etc). When you introduce new genes into an organism you have to take away some of this fixed budget to allocate to the new function. This means that when the GMO competes with other organisms in the wild they are at a disadvantage. If you make an argument based on a false assumption then you will get a faulty conclusion. It is a real shame with this paper as the rest is quite good and an excellent argument for not doing things where ...the consequences can involve total irreversible ruin, such as the extinction of human beings or all life on the planet. GMOs just don’t happen to be one of these things (I am leaving out of GMOs things like creating new pathogens, but you don’t need genetic engineering to create these as the USA and Russia showed in the 1950 and 1960s). The bottom line is GMOs are not that scary. In fact I know of no serious harm that has come from any other than to make people fearful for no reason and their absence to drive up the price of food. 1. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf