3 ms·

This is precisely an area where CRISPR can have a huge impact in a fairly short timeline. With animal/crop genetics we often have more understanding for what ge

by entee 10y ago

This is precisely an area where CRISPR can have a huge impact in a fairly short timeline. With animal/crop genetics we often have more understanding for what genetics are important for what feature and how to introduce the CRISPR machinery into cells, combined with room for error. Remember that with CRISPR you usually need a whole bunch of cells/embryos etc. because the recombination step after cutting the DNA (CRISPR just cuts) may not always succeed as expected. Hard to do that (and unethical) with human embryos, much easier with chickens. That said, we also need to get over the GMO thing. The science is pretty clear that GMOs are not toxic and no worse for the environment than normal crops (in some cases less harmful actually). We should continue to be careful and ethical as we explore this technology, but let's not get distracted by pseudo-scientific fear-mongering on GMO foods.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> The science is pretty clear that GMOs are not toxic Perhaps more precisely, the science is pretty clear that GMO as a method of introducing traits is completely orthogonal to toxicity, environmental harm, and everything else that "GMOs" are blamed for. Particular GMOs may have some of those harms, either inherently or in the agricultural methods and business practices they support (because of the actual regulatory environment, toxicity of the GMO itself is pretty low probability, though), but that's no more true than it is of any other technique of developing new crop traits.
Zigurd 10y ago
> That said, we also need to get over the GMO thing. That, of course, is incontrovertible in that anything that's been domesticated has been genetically manipulated, often to the extent that it can't survive in the wild. It's just a matter of how fast and how precise the manipulation gets with induced mutations, recombinant methods, and CRISPR Cas-9. But to be fair to the anti-GMO people, what they're really complaining about is bad outcomes that are not proximate to GM technology, but are enabled by it, like having herbicide residue on their herbicide-resistant crops, or that are part of commercializing GM technology, like overreaching IP laws.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  > But to be fair to the anti-GMO people, what they're really complaining about is bad outcomes that are not proximate to GM technology, but are enabled by it, like having herbicide residue on their herbicide-resistant crops, or that are part of commercializing GM technology, like overreaching IP laws. No, people with that kind of complaint are a vanishingly small presence among anti-GMO people. What they're really complaining about is that a part-fish part-tomato is contrary to the order of the universe.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    I think the progression was something like this: 1. Advocate: "GMO crops altered to be resistant to herbicides have problems and some people are getting sick!" 2. Advocate: Hmm, that's a mouthful, we'll just say GMO and people will understand. We can also foment fear in GMO in general, which won't hurt us. "GMO crops are making people sick!" 3. Consumer: Woah, this is GMO? But I keep hearing GMO is bad! This became clear to me after the wife of a friend who is a nature educator at a state park posted something about stopping GMO crops. I was confused about what was so bad about GMO crops, so asked. She explained that "GMO crops" refers to GMO engineered crops that are herbicide resistant, and that's what causes the problems. There was a war over terminology at some point, and the side of accuracy lost. This is the outcome. Our educators use terminology that imply a lot of unfounded negative connotations because that's the common parlance, and the public doesn't know how to disambiguate. This is not a new problem. Politicians use this to their benefit on a regular basis. In the meantime, we're all slightly worse off.

by entee 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago

> The science is pretty clear that GMOs are not toxic Perhaps more precisely, the science is pretty clear that GMO as a method of introducing traits is completely orthogonal to toxicity, environmental harm, and everything else that "GMOs" are blamed for. Particular GMOs may have some of those harms, either inherently or in the agricultural methods and business practices they support (because of the actual regulatory environment, toxicity of the GMO itself is pretty low probability, though), but that's no more true than it is of any other technique of developing new crop traits.

Zigurd 10y ago

> That said, we also need to get over the GMO thing. That, of course, is incontrovertible in that anything that's been domesticated has been genetically manipulated, often to the extent that it can't survive in the wild. It's just a matter of how fast and how precise the manipulation gets with induced mutations, recombinant methods, and CRISPR Cas-9. But to be fair to the anti-GMO people, what they're really complaining about is bad outcomes that are not proximate to GM technology, but are enabled by it, like having herbicide residue on their herbicide-resistant crops, or that are part of commercializing GM technology, like overreaching IP laws.

thaumasiotes 10y ago
> But to be fair to the anti-GMO people, what they're really complaining about is bad outcomes that are not proximate to GM technology, but are enabled by it, like having herbicide residue on their herbicide-resistant crops, or that are part of commercializing GM technology, like overreaching IP laws. No, people with that kind of complaint are a vanishingly small presence among anti-GMO people. What they're really complaining about is that a part-fish part-tomato is contrary to the order of the universe.
- kbenson 10y ago
  I think the progression was something like this: 1. Advocate: "GMO crops altered to be resistant to herbicides have problems and some people are getting sick!" 2. Advocate: Hmm, that's a mouthful, we'll just say GMO and people will understand. We can also foment fear in GMO in general, which won't hurt us. "GMO crops are making people sick!" 3. Consumer: Woah, this is GMO? But I keep hearing GMO is bad! This became clear to me after the wife of a friend who is a nature educator at a state park posted something about stopping GMO crops. I was confused about what was so bad about GMO crops, so asked. She explained that "GMO crops" refers to GMO engineered crops that are herbicide resistant, and that's what causes the problems. There was a war over terminology at some point, and the side of accuracy lost. This is the outcome. Our educators use terminology that imply a lot of unfounded negative connotations because that's the common parlance, and the public doesn't know how to disambiguate. This is not a new problem. Politicians use this to their benefit on a regular basis. In the meantime, we're all slightly worse off.