5 ms·

How long until someone releases a gene-drive that dramatically reduces the yield of a staple food crop? Humanity is nowhere near responsible enough for this tec

by deogeo 8y ago

How long until someone releases a gene-drive that dramatically reduces the yield of a staple food crop? Humanity is nowhere near responsible enough for this technology - we should be terrified of it.

Santosh83 8y ago
We'll have to deal with it the same way we have dealt with nuclear weapons. By the threat of MAD. Since we do not have the maturity as a species not to weaponise in the first place.
- jfktrey 8y ago
  There’s a major visibility difference between a nuclear bomb and gene editing.
- captainmuon 8y ago
  I'm not convinced MAD actually works. Once you see the bombs flying, the only logical thing to do is to give up your pre-war resolve of retaliation and completely submit - start printing Soviet flags so to speak. Of course, pre-war you'll try to convince the enemy that it isn't so, but they are not stupid. The only thing that saved us IMO was the power of the political elites (in East and West), that despite all saber-rattling rhetorics, never wanted a war. Now that that power is waning, I'm not sure what will save us this time around. Maybe religious elites can instill a taboo against using this kind of technology for harm?
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    MAD works until bombs start flying. But if you let the enemy know you won't retaliate after the bombs fall, MAD breaks down and they're no longer deterred from dropping bombs in the first place. MAD works by creating a clear, indisputable casual relationship between you attacking and you getting destroyed.
  - opwieurposiu 8y ago
    Vulcan's might do the logical thing, but Humans will fight back. MAD is one case where human emotion is both the cause and solution of a problem.
  - nokcha 8y ago
    >Once you see the bombs flying, the only logical thing to do is to give up your pre-war resolve of retaliation and completely submit Not necessarily -- it depends on one's ethical philosophy. And it is well-known that humans do sometimes seek revenge even at the risk of their own lives. Plus, there are procedures in place for retaliating responding to a nuclear attack, so all that is required is for military personnel to act in accordance with the established procedures.
- rbanffy 8y ago
  The difference is that I can't enrich Uranium in my garage and no country can do that undetected. A bio-weapon like this is much simpler to develop and the fewer resources you can dedicate to keep it, the higher the odds it leaks into the environment with catastrophic effects. Nukes cause localized damage - a blast zone, some fallout and that's it. These weapons are not that easily contained.
abcc8 8y ago
In this example, humans would have to willingly propagate whatever crops have been altered to include the gene drive and have reduced yield. It would be trivially easy to just plan a different cultivar of whatever transgenic crop was affected or just use the same CRISPR-Cas9 technology to remove the gene drive from the genome. I think that the point missed in this and many of the other comments is that gene drives don't follow typical mendelian inheritance patterns - they propagate in all progeny but can't 'infect' other individuals in a population.
- deogeo 8y ago
  No willing propagation is required - if you're unlucky and your crops get pollinated with the useless-for-food gene, then all their progeny will carry the gene as well. How would you stop this gene from spreading throughout the population? Cultivate everything in hermetically sealed greenhouses?
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    The offspring of the useless-for-food plants won't make it to reproduction themselves if humans don't nurture them along. Farm plants are completely dependent on constant human intervention to survive, that's why there are no natural cornfields. What's being proposed would have to be a "superweed," able to outcompete all of the plants that are already out there and trying to grow in cornfields.
    - deogeo 8y ago
      So just go through your cornfield, examine each stalk of corn if it's carrying the gene, and if so, pull it out? It's not competing the same way a weed competes - all it has to do is pollinate the other plant. A weed can't do that.
      - whatshisface 8y ago
        You can't just jump straight to the end state of the air being completely packed with compromised pollen. The gene would have to work its way through the seed distribution system, and that's where it would be stopped. Here's how a country could control an attack: If a field contains the gene, burn it (don't bother discriminating between carriers and non-carriers). Don't plant seeds that came from fields that had the gene. As a result, the initial attack will last only for one generation, no worse than if the attacker killed the plants. This is practical because the initial attack will be limited to a small number of fields that the country will be able to afford to loose.
wonderwonder 8y ago
We have had the ability to release bio weapons and or chemical weapons for a long time now with almost no real world use outside of the middle east. Virtually no individuals have done so (there are a few cases). Someone with the scientific know how to produce a gene drive edited crop as you suggest would likely also have had the ability to produce a bio weapon and they have not. So the odds are probably very low. The production of ricin in large volumes is even easier and there have been only a handful of real world cases and those have been small cases.
- dTal 8y ago
  The difference is that when you have a big red destroy-the-species button, "virtually no individuals", "almost no real world use" and "probably very low" and "handful of real world cases" just isn't good enough. It only takes one person doing this once to affect the whole world. Can you think of a single offensive technology that hasn't been used even once?
  - wonderwonder 8y ago
    I hear what you are saying and generally agree with your points. Like most dual use technologies though, nuclear for example, their are pro's and cons. I do think that there are enough benefits to pursue the technology though such as the potential to eliminate malaria, sickle cell, Huntingtons etc. I completely agree that there are risks but I think the technology is likely simple enough that those risks exist now regardless of institutional support so we may as well seek to get the most out of it. Also I think the risk here is likely overstated, the genetically edited organisms still need to breed and populate to spread the edited gene. You cannot utilize this technology in weaponized form in something like a gas attack or wide spread targeting. If its an edited person, it would take dozens of generations to affect the general population and would likely be stopped in the mean time. So I am not really seeing the major risk.

by deogeo 8y ago

How long until someone releases a gene-drive that dramatically reduces the yield of a staple food crop? Humanity is nowhere near responsible enough for this technology - we should be terrified of it.

Santosh83 8y ago

We'll have to deal with it the same way we have dealt with nuclear weapons. By the threat of MAD. Since we do not have the maturity as a species not to weaponise in the first place.

jfktrey 8y ago
There’s a major visibility difference between a nuclear bomb and gene editing.
captainmuon 8y ago
I'm not convinced MAD actually works. Once you see the bombs flying, the only logical thing to do is to give up your pre-war resolve of retaliation and completely submit - start printing Soviet flags so to speak. Of course, pre-war you'll try to convince the enemy that it isn't so, but they are not stupid. The only thing that saved us IMO was the power of the political elites (in East and West), that despite all saber-rattling rhetorics, never wanted a war. Now that that power is waning, I'm not sure what will save us this time around. Maybe religious elites can instill a taboo against using this kind of technology for harm?
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  MAD works until bombs start flying. But if you let the enemy know you won't retaliate after the bombs fall, MAD breaks down and they're no longer deterred from dropping bombs in the first place. MAD works by creating a clear, indisputable casual relationship between you attacking and you getting destroyed.
- opwieurposiu 8y ago
  Vulcan's might do the logical thing, but Humans will fight back. MAD is one case where human emotion is both the cause and solution of a problem.
- nokcha 8y ago
  >Once you see the bombs flying, the only logical thing to do is to give up your pre-war resolve of retaliation and completely submit Not necessarily -- it depends on one's ethical philosophy. And it is well-known that humans do sometimes seek revenge even at the risk of their own lives. Plus, there are procedures in place for retaliating responding to a nuclear attack, so all that is required is for military personnel to act in accordance with the established procedures.
rbanffy 8y ago
The difference is that I can't enrich Uranium in my garage and no country can do that undetected. A bio-weapon like this is much simpler to develop and the fewer resources you can dedicate to keep it, the higher the odds it leaks into the environment with catastrophic effects. Nukes cause localized damage - a blast zone, some fallout and that's it. These weapons are not that easily contained.

abcc8 8y ago

In this example, humans would have to willingly propagate whatever crops have been altered to include the gene drive and have reduced yield. It would be trivially easy to just plan a different cultivar of whatever transgenic crop was affected or just use the same CRISPR-Cas9 technology to remove the gene drive from the genome. I think that the point missed in this and many of the other comments is that gene drives don't follow typical mendelian inheritance patterns - they propagate in all progeny but can't 'infect' other individuals in a population.

deogeo 8y ago
No willing propagation is required - if you're unlucky and your crops get pollinated with the useless-for-food gene, then all their progeny will carry the gene as well. How would you stop this gene from spreading throughout the population? Cultivate everything in hermetically sealed greenhouses?
- whatshisface 8y ago
  The offspring of the useless-for-food plants won't make it to reproduction themselves if humans don't nurture them along. Farm plants are completely dependent on constant human intervention to survive, that's why there are no natural cornfields. What's being proposed would have to be a "superweed," able to outcompete all of the plants that are already out there and trying to grow in cornfields.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    So just go through your cornfield, examine each stalk of corn if it's carrying the gene, and if so, pull it out? It's not competing the same way a weed competes - all it has to do is pollinate the other plant. A weed can't do that.
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      You can't just jump straight to the end state of the air being completely packed with compromised pollen. The gene would have to work its way through the seed distribution system, and that's where it would be stopped. Here's how a country could control an attack: If a field contains the gene, burn it (don't bother discriminating between carriers and non-carriers). Don't plant seeds that came from fields that had the gene. As a result, the initial attack will last only for one generation, no worse than if the attacker killed the plants. This is practical because the initial attack will be limited to a small number of fields that the country will be able to afford to loose.

wonderwonder 8y ago

We have had the ability to release bio weapons and or chemical weapons for a long time now with almost no real world use outside of the middle east. Virtually no individuals have done so (there are a few cases). Someone with the scientific know how to produce a gene drive edited crop as you suggest would likely also have had the ability to produce a bio weapon and they have not. So the odds are probably very low. The production of ricin in large volumes is even easier and there have been only a handful of real world cases and those have been small cases.

dTal 8y ago
The difference is that when you have a big red destroy-the-species button, "virtually no individuals", "almost no real world use" and "probably very low" and "handful of real world cases" just isn't good enough. It only takes one person doing this once to affect the whole world. Can you think of a single offensive technology that hasn't been used even once?
- wonderwonder 8y ago
  I hear what you are saying and generally agree with your points. Like most dual use technologies though, nuclear for example, their are pro's and cons. I do think that there are enough benefits to pursue the technology though such as the potential to eliminate malaria, sickle cell, Huntingtons etc. I completely agree that there are risks but I think the technology is likely simple enough that those risks exist now regardless of institutional support so we may as well seek to get the most out of it. Also I think the risk here is likely overstated, the genetically edited organisms still need to breed and populate to spread the edited gene. You cannot utilize this technology in weaponized form in something like a gas attack or wide spread targeting. If its an edited person, it would take dozens of generations to affect the general population and would likely be stopped in the mean time. So I am not really seeing the major risk.