5 ms·

'insects have developed resistances' Some insects. And you're very correct that the insect-insecticide battle has been going on for a while - that doesn't mean

'insects have developed resistances' Some insects. And you're very correct that the insect-insecticide battle has been going on for a while - that doesn't mean giving one side a huge leg-up won't have consequences. Genetic engineering can accomplish millennia of evolution in a single generation - the two are not the same.

Baeocystin 9y ago
I don't disagree that there are risks. But genetic reshuffling, recombination, and horizontal gene transfer has been going on en masse in the microbiota we are surround by for billions of years. I think once we start considering introducing truly novel genes, we will have a case for greater caution and reserve. But so far, all projects are of the 'transfer this already existent gene to this other organism', and I think that is a less risky proposition overall.
- unknown_apostle 9y ago
  In this matter of extreme complexity and nonlinearity, how can you ever tell the point where being paranoid is the right thing to do? E.g. how can you know that transferring a gene from maize to petunias is still "sufficiently close" to the level of variation seen in ancient natural processes and evolution? (Genuine question but also genuine worry about this.)
funnyfacts365 9y ago
Some insects? What about nicotine? That insecticid kills them all, humans included
- _0ffh 9y ago
  Bar the tobacco beetle, I presume.
- undersuit 9y ago
  >In 1997, the last year for which global data was available, over 5.5 million pounds of the pesticide fumigant methyl bromide were applied to tobacco fields worldwide. A few tobacco plants in isolation are going to be protected from insects easily developing a resistance to their natural defenses. We've been growing tobacco plants in massively concentrated fields for 400 years in this country. Nicotine is still a useful insecticide, just as Penicillin is still useful antibiotic.

Baeocystin 9y ago

I don't disagree that there are risks. But genetic reshuffling, recombination, and horizontal gene transfer has been going on en masse in the microbiota we are surround by for billions of years. I think once we start considering introducing truly novel genes, we will have a case for greater caution and reserve. But so far, all projects are of the 'transfer this already existent gene to this other organism', and I think that is a less risky proposition overall.

unknown_apostle 9y ago
In this matter of extreme complexity and nonlinearity, how can you ever tell the point where being paranoid is the right thing to do? E.g. how can you know that transferring a gene from maize to petunias is still "sufficiently close" to the level of variation seen in ancient natural processes and evolution? (Genuine question but also genuine worry about this.)

funnyfacts365 9y ago

Some insects? What about nicotine? That insecticid kills them all, humans included

_0ffh 9y ago
Bar the tobacco beetle, I presume.
undersuit 9y ago
>In 1997, the last year for which global data was available, over 5.5 million pounds of the pesticide fumigant methyl bromide were applied to tobacco fields worldwide. A few tobacco plants in isolation are going to be protected from insects easily developing a resistance to their natural defenses. We've been growing tobacco plants in massively concentrated fields for 400 years in this country. Nicotine is still a useful insecticide, just as Penicillin is still useful antibiotic.