3 ms·

> These things spread in the wild, and we are basically playing god with the building blocks of (plant) life itself, which we definitely do not fully understand

> These things spread in the wild, and we are basically playing god with the building blocks of (plant) life itself, which we definitely do not fully understand. If we fail to acknowledge some detail after meddling with something that could not have happened in nature, we might not find out until it's reaped devastating effects on global agriculture or even long-term human health. Even if GMOs can do a lot of good in the short-term, it would be terrifying to find out in the long-term that we've caused horrific damage due to our arrogance. But as a species, we've been "playing god with the building blocks of plant life itself" for several thousand years - in far more dramatic and riskier fashion than any current modern biotechnologies would be capable of. Selective and cross breeding of plants has brought about all modern vegetables and fruits we eat today, and has dramatically altered their genetics, biochemistry, and phenotypes in ways that at the time we never understood and certainly could never control. Yet, nothing inherently disastrous happened - some scary mega plant of our design never took over the world out of our control. With modern biotechnology, scientists are not only able to be a LOT more sure of what the heck they're doing when they're editing a plant by specifically targeting understood and characterized genes, they are also far better able to characterize and test the nutritional and safety profile and ecological impact of a genetic modification. We've been playing God with plants for thousands of years, and there has been no disastrous implications, and it seems like now that we have technologies that make that safer than ever, people are suddenly crying alarm. Also, out of curiosity - what sort of "devastating effects" could you realistically imagine? As a biologist, it's hard to imagine anything "devastating" that sounds realistic. I could imagine critical biological impacts - such as perhaps the impact of bt-corn on Monarch butterflies - but nothing that we wouldn't be able to recognize and swiftly respond to. Of course, if there's some malevolent people who seek to hide or discredit such findings, or disrupt such a response (as we see today with fossil fuel funded climate change denial), then that's a whole different, but entirely political, apple.

byuu 10y ago
I really think that messing with the underlying DNA of plants is more severe than trying to cross breed and selectively breed certain desirable traits. > Also, out of curiosity - what sort of "devastating effects" could you realistically imagine? Hard to say. We have a pretty lousy track record of thinking certain foods/drugs are safe, and then finding out years later that actually, they're quite bad for us. Anything is possible. What if our change results in the plant becoming susceptible to a new bacteria that devastates entire crops? What if it undergoes a change in the wild, thanks to our editing, that starts producing huge amounts of amygdalin? What if we find out that a side-change that doesn't affect humans was actually contributing to something like bee colony collapse? What if something like this happens, and the plant spreads out of control in the wild? But like I said, I'm not arguing for a ban on GMOs, either. I just think it's a situation where both solutions have their risks and rewards. I'm not prepared to give science a total pass, nor pass off people with GMO concerns in the same light as anti-vaxxers or climate change deniers.
- Jakob37 10y ago
  In a way, when we cross breed, we mess with the DNA on a genome wide scale hoping to end up with a particular combination of genes from the two original parents. GMO can of course be applied in many different contexts. One for me seemingly benign application of GMO is when a gene in a particular crop variety is desired in another variety - instead of doing a messy and expensive breeding process to get an offspring with the desired gene, transfer the desired gene directly between the crops using gene technology. As in all research, there are rightful concerns and less rightful concerns. What concerns me is when unscientific concerns dictates how science should be done.
- collyw 10y ago
  "I really think that messing with the underlying DNA of plants is more severe than trying to cross breed and selectively breed certain desirable traits." Its the same thing. One is relying on nature to do it randomly until the desired effect is achieved, the other is being more specific.
- rpdillon 10y ago
  My main issue is that this is mostly raised in relation to 'GMO' crops, which seems arbitrary. We do it by cross-breeding, sure, but we've also been doing crazy stuff like mutation breeding for decades (blast tons of seeds with radiation and chemicals and see what shakes out). That's considered 'non-GMO' by, for example, the EU. The whole thing feels like a false dichotomy.

byuu 10y ago

I really think that messing with the underlying DNA of plants is more severe than trying to cross breed and selectively breed certain desirable traits. > Also, out of curiosity - what sort of "devastating effects" could you realistically imagine? Hard to say. We have a pretty lousy track record of thinking certain foods/drugs are safe, and then finding out years later that actually, they're quite bad for us. Anything is possible. What if our change results in the plant becoming susceptible to a new bacteria that devastates entire crops? What if it undergoes a change in the wild, thanks to our editing, that starts producing huge amounts of amygdalin? What if we find out that a side-change that doesn't affect humans was actually contributing to something like bee colony collapse? What if something like this happens, and the plant spreads out of control in the wild? But like I said, I'm not arguing for a ban on GMOs, either. I just think it's a situation where both solutions have their risks and rewards. I'm not prepared to give science a total pass, nor pass off people with GMO concerns in the same light as anti-vaxxers or climate change deniers.

Jakob37 10y ago
In a way, when we cross breed, we mess with the DNA on a genome wide scale hoping to end up with a particular combination of genes from the two original parents. GMO can of course be applied in many different contexts. One for me seemingly benign application of GMO is when a gene in a particular crop variety is desired in another variety - instead of doing a messy and expensive breeding process to get an offspring with the desired gene, transfer the desired gene directly between the crops using gene technology. As in all research, there are rightful concerns and less rightful concerns. What concerns me is when unscientific concerns dictates how science should be done.
collyw 10y ago
"I really think that messing with the underlying DNA of plants is more severe than trying to cross breed and selectively breed certain desirable traits." Its the same thing. One is relying on nature to do it randomly until the desired effect is achieved, the other is being more specific.
rpdillon 10y ago
My main issue is that this is mostly raised in relation to 'GMO' crops, which seems arbitrary. We do it by cross-breeding, sure, but we've also been doing crazy stuff like mutation breeding for decades (blast tons of seeds with radiation and chemicals and see what shakes out). That's considered 'non-GMO' by, for example, the EU. The whole thing feels like a false dichotomy.