4 ms·

Medicine is a great example. Do we really need to know everything about, say, penicillin or sundry vaccines to know that it's a good thing we have them? If GM

Medicine is a great example. Do we really need to know everything about, say, penicillin or sundry vaccines to know that it's a good thing we have them? If GM human milk can help babies that don't have access to enough actual human milk to be healthy in their infancy, then what more do we need to know? (OK, rhetorical device. Obviously it needs to be tested - but we don't need perfect understanding of everything to know that healthy babies >> unhealthy babies.)

StavrosK 15y ago
Oh, definitely. However, I'm not sure if testing shouldn't be proportional to the complexity of the thing we're testing. Shouldn't we study the long-term effects of GM food before deeming it safe for consumption? We know already that it's not poison, but we've had long-term issues with GM food already, no?
- JoeAltmaier 15y ago
  All food is 'GM' - usually done in your grandmother's back yard, as she randomly fools with crossbreeding to produce a better tomato. In the laboratory its done in a directed manner. Hard to see how it can be worse than "random".
  - pyre 15y ago
    Cross-breeding will never bring us glow-in-the-dark tomatoes (or cats for that matter). There is some amount of difference between breeding and splicing.
    - zeteo 15y ago
      Take the tomato genome and look at any random pigmenting gene. There are a finite number of mutations (flips, insertions, deletions) to change that into a gene producing glow-in-the-dark proteins. All of those mutations can, and do, occur without human intervention. If only there was any Darwinian advantage for tomatoes to glow in the dark, they would most likely be doing so already.
      - pyre 15y ago
        I think 'most likely' is an over-statement. Most of those mutations are based on random chance. There is nothing that states that over a certain amount of time, every possible random mutation will happen.
    - JoeAltmaier 15y ago
      But it might bring us apricots with arsenic in the flesh (instead of just in the pit) for instance. Or berries that harbor e-coli more readily. With splicing we can examine the goals and techniques and make a reasoned conclusion. Its astonishing to me that we accept "natural" (read: unknown, random) genetic modification without a peep. And yet when an Engineer creates a deliberate breed, the level of fear jumps off the chart. Says more about the public perception of science than it does about genetics I think.
- mseebach 15y ago
  It's hard not to sound cynical.. but there's really only one way to really find out the long term effects of GM food. I don't know, but I'm pretty sure some of the nasty side effects of penicillin (intolerance, resistance) took a while to discover, and probably people died in the process.
ahi 15y ago
There is no shortage of human milk. For every mother that can't produce enough there's a mother dumping extra down the drain. Back when we had functional communities these problems sorted themselves out.

StavrosK 15y ago

Oh, definitely. However, I'm not sure if testing shouldn't be proportional to the complexity of the thing we're testing. Shouldn't we study the long-term effects of GM food before deeming it safe for consumption? We know already that it's not poison, but we've had long-term issues with GM food already, no?

JoeAltmaier 15y ago
All food is 'GM' - usually done in your grandmother's back yard, as she randomly fools with crossbreeding to produce a better tomato. In the laboratory its done in a directed manner. Hard to see how it can be worse than "random".
- pyre 15y ago
  Cross-breeding will never bring us glow-in-the-dark tomatoes (or cats for that matter). There is some amount of difference between breeding and splicing.
  - zeteo 15y ago
    Take the tomato genome and look at any random pigmenting gene. There are a finite number of mutations (flips, insertions, deletions) to change that into a gene producing glow-in-the-dark proteins. All of those mutations can, and do, occur without human intervention. If only there was any Darwinian advantage for tomatoes to glow in the dark, they would most likely be doing so already.
    - pyre 15y ago
      I think 'most likely' is an over-statement. Most of those mutations are based on random chance. There is nothing that states that over a certain amount of time, every possible random mutation will happen.
  - JoeAltmaier 15y ago
    But it might bring us apricots with arsenic in the flesh (instead of just in the pit) for instance. Or berries that harbor e-coli more readily. With splicing we can examine the goals and techniques and make a reasoned conclusion. Its astonishing to me that we accept "natural" (read: unknown, random) genetic modification without a peep. And yet when an Engineer creates a deliberate breed, the level of fear jumps off the chart. Says more about the public perception of science than it does about genetics I think.
mseebach 15y ago
It's hard not to sound cynical.. but there's really only one way to really find out the long term effects of GM food. I don't know, but I'm pretty sure some of the nasty side effects of penicillin (intolerance, resistance) took a while to discover, and probably people died in the process.

ahi 15y ago

There is no shortage of human milk. For every mother that can't produce enough there's a mother dumping extra down the drain. Back when we had functional communities these problems sorted themselves out.