5 ms·

I worked in a big ag company with a genetics lab and in a DNA sequencing lab later (as a sysadmin), so I feel like I have a decent amount of insight into this i

I worked in a big ag company with a genetics lab and in a DNA sequencing lab later (as a sysadmin), so I feel like I have a decent amount of insight into this issue. My two primary (I have more) objections to GMO are: 1) Lack of rigorous testing, especially long term testing. Many of the GMO products in production spent a minimal amount of time in the lab before being selected for production, with little to no long term testing being done. (to find any number of potential issues and side chain-effect issues that can happen.) For example, while at the sequencing company, I learned that it's not just about the genome of the thing itself, but it's surrounding microbiome, which of course is almost an after thought to the big-ag gmo producers. 2) The way in which the pro GMO big ag has essentially corrupted the bodies set up to regulate itself. Monsanto is a perfect example of this, but only one of many. They have a supreme court justice who has refused to recuse himself on cases with obvious conflicts of interest. They have a massive online pr (read: propaganda) operation to keep these things out of the limelight or at least remove them quickly. They have basically taken over the most prominent FDA positions. They abuse K-street beyond what even most of the K-Street abusers do. It's this kind of systematic corporate corruption that makes me sympathetic with those who are anti-gmo. I also have a huge issue with the whole patent system when it comes to genomes, the system is broke enough for normal tech, but there have been some dangerous precedents set that I don't have the time to get into but they will have major consequences as sequencing costs and manipulation costs are reduced and therefore it becomes a more prevalent tech. Now, all that being said, I see a ton of FUD on the anti-gmo side that is easily refuted, but the problem is that I far too often see the illogical/irrational FUD of anti-GMO being the strawman used by pro-gmo people against the more reasonable and scientific anti-gmo arguments, which seems to be intellectually dishonest, very much like I find articles like this. I could go on, but just wanted to offer a quick two-cents. Oh, and don't even get me started on the horrible state of peer-reviewed science. As a layman with a huge interest in science, I held the process up on a pedestal, that is until I saw it from the inside. Bad science abounds and is rarely challenged, which only gives fuel to the anti-intellectual/anti-science movements which is the last thing we need as a species!

09bjb 10y ago
> but the problem is that I far too often see the illogical/irrational FUD of anti-GMO being the strawman used by pro-gmo people against the more reasonable and scientific anti-gmo arguments, which seems to be intellectually dishonest, very much like I find articles like this. My thoughts exactly, just better crystallized.
searine 10y ago
> Lack of rigorous testing, especially long term testing. There have been hundreds of studies over decades testing the safety of these gene products. Just because you choose to ignore them does not mean they do not exist. Also, just because something isn't tested each time you re-make it, doesn't me it isn't safe. How long would it take to build a car if you re-tested every part, every time? > They have a supreme court justice who has refused to recuse himself on cases with obvious conflicts of interest. They have a massive online pr (read: propaganda) operation to keep these things out of the limelight or at least remove them quickly. They have basically taken over the most prominent FDA positions. This is extremely paranoid and nowhere close to the truth.
jernfrost 10y ago
But what makes the alternative methods like mutagenesis safer? People always speak of GMO as if the alternative is purely natural and created alone by nature. They also act as if nature is static. More genes are changed in plants by the environment they live in than through GMO methods. This idea that getting genes from frogs and putting them in wheat is somehow dangerous deceives people by playing on their ignorance of how closely related living things are. I share 50% of my genes with a banana. An anti-GMO person might spin this has me being filled with unnatural banana genes which should never have been in a human.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago
  Erm, didn't you just perform the exact sort of spin you're arguing against? >More genes are changed in plants by the environment they live in than through GMO methods. // Which is to pretend that the potency of any genetic alteration is simply down to the number of genes altered. So, ADA deficiency (a disease caused by a single mutated gene) is less troubling than having red hair (due to [possibly] 4 pairs of genes, AFAIK). We're making alterations that it would be mathematically impossible to occur by natural mutation, to pretend that direct gene manipulation is only an evolution (eh!) of normal farming methods is exceedingly disingenuous IMO.

09bjb 10y ago

> but the problem is that I far too often see the illogical/irrational FUD of anti-GMO being the strawman used by pro-gmo people against the more reasonable and scientific anti-gmo arguments, which seems to be intellectually dishonest, very much like I find articles like this. My thoughts exactly, just better crystallized.

searine 10y ago

> Lack of rigorous testing, especially long term testing. There have been hundreds of studies over decades testing the safety of these gene products. Just because you choose to ignore them does not mean they do not exist. Also, just because something isn't tested each time you re-make it, doesn't me it isn't safe. How long would it take to build a car if you re-tested every part, every time? > They have a supreme court justice who has refused to recuse himself on cases with obvious conflicts of interest. They have a massive online pr (read: propaganda) operation to keep these things out of the limelight or at least remove them quickly. They have basically taken over the most prominent FDA positions. This is extremely paranoid and nowhere close to the truth.

jernfrost 10y ago

But what makes the alternative methods like mutagenesis safer? People always speak of GMO as if the alternative is purely natural and created alone by nature. They also act as if nature is static. More genes are changed in plants by the environment they live in than through GMO methods. This idea that getting genes from frogs and putting them in wheat is somehow dangerous deceives people by playing on their ignorance of how closely related living things are. I share 50% of my genes with a banana. An anti-GMO person might spin this has me being filled with unnatural banana genes which should never have been in a human.

pbhjpbhj 10y ago
Erm, didn't you just perform the exact sort of spin you're arguing against? >More genes are changed in plants by the environment they live in than through GMO methods. // Which is to pretend that the potency of any genetic alteration is simply down to the number of genes altered. So, ADA deficiency (a disease caused by a single mutated gene) is less troubling than having red hair (due to [possibly] 4 pairs of genes, AFAIK). We're making alterations that it would be mathematically impossible to occur by natural mutation, to pretend that direct gene manipulation is only an evolution (eh!) of normal farming methods is exceedingly disingenuous IMO.