11 ms·

Who's Afraid of Synthetic Biology?

3 points by cwan 16y ago

JoeAltmaier 16y ago
Nature is inventing new bugs every day. Humans genetically craft new plants and animals all the time, the old-fashioned way, by crossbreeding. Now we can do it without random side-effects. It can actually be safer.
- locopati 16y ago
  Random side-effects are a part of reality. It's dangerous to assume that corporations deploying GM technology: a) have accounted for dangerous side-effects, b) are concerned about anything beyond the bottom line. For example, Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM technology leaks into the wild via pollen such that Monsanto brings charges against farmers who didn't plant GM grain because they are using Monsanto technology without paying fees to Monsanto (http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm). And, for further consideration, Monsanto has had plans to develop seedless technology so that the farmer would always have to buy their seeds from Monsanto - what if that got into the wild? This is one corporation. I don't see how we can monitor them all adequately to prevent a colossal problem. And all it will take is one big mistake (see BP and the Gulf of Mexico). Still think the gain is worth the risk?
  - DanHulton 16y ago
    Wait, wait. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but how would "seedless technology" get "into the wild?" I mean, wouldn't it be totally incapable of doing that, by definition?
- teilo 16y ago
  "without random side-effects" Sorry, but no. We understand, down to the smallest detail, how a computer works. Yet our computer code, which we completely understand, has no seemingly random side-effects, is bug free, never crashes? Contrast now to biology. We only understand a part of how DNA works. There are new and surprising discoveries being made all the time. And somehow we are going to fare better with DNA programming than we do with computer programming? We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
teilo 16y ago
From the article: "Better medicines, carbon neutral fuels, cheaper food, and a cleaner environment—who could be against that? Well, quite a few people, as it turns out." That is begging the question. No one is opposed to these things. This is exactly equivalent to arguing against those who are opposed to nuclear power: "You are for pollution and opposed to clean energy." Sorry, but the possibility of great advances for humanity in any given field, does not, in and of itself, cancel out the real dangers involved, nor negate the arguments of those who urge caution. Do not get me wrong. I am a big proponent of nuclear energy, and also think that bioengineering has huge potential, but let's not use hyperbole to stifle legitimate debate, and label any opposition as hysterical hand-wringing. It's a rather unreasonable argument for Reason.
plesn 16y ago
I find this article not only strongly biased (both in the presentation of the actors of the debate and in the poor addressing of the arguments themself) but also completely missing the core of the debate. Opponents are depicted as driven by their "fears" (of accidental or voluntary release of dangerous synthetic organisms). Whereas propoents have a "goal" (to produce efficient and clean products, and even to clean our current ecological situation). One of the opposing organism, the ETC group, is described as an "anti-technology group" even if its position is basically presented as people wanting to think before acting. More, on ETC website I am reading: "developments of technologies useful to the poor and marginalized". The "fears" of the opponents are not stated as groundless as they are not negated, but solutions are presented in the second part of the article: synthetic organisms would not be dangerous because it's too early, we survived extinctions related to movements of organisms caused by humans, and because synthetic organisms could be watermarked and controlled with chemical deficiencies. First one is not even logic, second one is saying that retroaction is not useful in the process until we are not dead, and the third one, well, what about voluntary leaks, evolution. Well, maybe I've seen to much science fiction. But in the end, this article is just poor because it hides its position in the debate behind "it's science!" and just doesn't address the true political questions appearing with each technology: who will control it and towards which end? Obvously, discussing patents and interests of Venter and associates (which happen to be... Exxon Mobile or BP...) should definitively be out of the discussion scope, just like the irony of the way the try to surf the "bio-ecologial" wave: "look ma, we're going to repair damages we've made and make $$"

3 points by cwan 16y ago

Nature is inventing new bugs every day. Humans genetically craft new plants and animals all the time, the old-fashioned way, by crossbreeding. Now we can do it without random side-effects. It can actually be safer.

locopati 16y ago
Random side-effects are a part of reality. It's dangerous to assume that corporations deploying GM technology: a) have accounted for dangerous side-effects, b) are concerned about anything beyond the bottom line. For example, Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM technology leaks into the wild via pollen such that Monsanto brings charges against farmers who didn't plant GM grain because they are using Monsanto technology without paying fees to Monsanto (http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm). And, for further consideration, Monsanto has had plans to develop seedless technology so that the farmer would always have to buy their seeds from Monsanto - what if that got into the wild? This is one corporation. I don't see how we can monitor them all adequately to prevent a colossal problem. And all it will take is one big mistake (see BP and the Gulf of Mexico). Still think the gain is worth the risk?
- DanHulton 16y ago
  Wait, wait. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but how would "seedless technology" get "into the wild?" I mean, wouldn't it be totally incapable of doing that, by definition?
teilo 16y ago
"without random side-effects" Sorry, but no. We understand, down to the smallest detail, how a computer works. Yet our computer code, which we completely understand, has no seemingly random side-effects, is bug free, never crashes? Contrast now to biology. We only understand a part of how DNA works. There are new and surprising discoveries being made all the time. And somehow we are going to fare better with DNA programming than we do with computer programming? We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

teilo 16y ago

From the article: "Better medicines, carbon neutral fuels, cheaper food, and a cleaner environment—who could be against that? Well, quite a few people, as it turns out." That is begging the question. No one is opposed to these things. This is exactly equivalent to arguing against those who are opposed to nuclear power: "You are for pollution and opposed to clean energy." Sorry, but the possibility of great advances for humanity in any given field, does not, in and of itself, cancel out the real dangers involved, nor negate the arguments of those who urge caution. Do not get me wrong. I am a big proponent of nuclear energy, and also think that bioengineering has huge potential, but let's not use hyperbole to stifle legitimate debate, and label any opposition as hysterical hand-wringing. It's a rather unreasonable argument for Reason.

plesn 16y ago

I find this article not only strongly biased (both in the presentation of the actors of the debate and in the poor addressing of the arguments themself) but also completely missing the core of the debate. Opponents are depicted as driven by their "fears" (of accidental or voluntary release of dangerous synthetic organisms). Whereas propoents have a "goal" (to produce efficient and clean products, and even to clean our current ecological situation). One of the opposing organism, the ETC group, is described as an "anti-technology group" even if its position is basically presented as people wanting to think before acting. More, on ETC website I am reading: "developments of technologies useful to the poor and marginalized". The "fears" of the opponents are not stated as groundless as they are not negated, but solutions are presented in the second part of the article: synthetic organisms would not be dangerous because it's too early, we survived extinctions related to movements of organisms caused by humans, and because synthetic organisms could be watermarked and controlled with chemical deficiencies. First one is not even logic, second one is saying that retroaction is not useful in the process until we are not dead, and the third one, well, what about voluntary leaks, evolution. Well, maybe I've seen to much science fiction. But in the end, this article is just poor because it hides its position in the debate behind "it's science!" and just doesn't address the true political questions appearing with each technology: who will control it and towards which end? Obvously, discussing patents and interests of Venter and associates (which happen to be... Exxon Mobile or BP...) should definitively be out of the discussion scope, just like the irony of the way the try to surf the "bio-ecologial" wave: "look ma, we're going to repair damages we've made and make $$"