3 ms·
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,
by 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 agoIn 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 agoMy 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.