6 ms·

How dangerous is this? Could we end up creating something indestructible like Japanese Knot weed except worse?

bayesian_horse 5y ago
This is exactly the kind of gene you wouldn't want to spread "horizontally" on its own, just like antibiotic resistance among bacteria. On the other hand, it hasn't, so far. It does exist in nature, and still doesn't pop up anywhere. Plants also haven't evolved this functionality on their own. There are evolutionary drawbacks to uncontrolled growth, and most plants have their growth "tuned" well below what would be theoretically possible given their light and nutrient conditions.
- i_haz_rabies 5y ago
  The problem is that if we introduce it, it might take a while for those evolutionary pressures to show up. Uncontrolled growth isn't an immediate pressure, it kicks in after the damage has already been done.
sfasf 5y ago
I think that'd be unlikely - there was a massive evolutionary benefit for the plant to produce the amount of carbohydrate stores that the plant naturally makes. If it'd been more beneficial to produce more carbs, the plant would already. I think a more likely question is what about nutrient density? Making more carbs, in a sense, is easy. Sunlight + CO2 == carbs. Nutrients are more stringently limited by the mineral properties of the soil. This just shoves into our food more calories we don't need diluting the nutrients we do. Unless their plan is to make cheap, tasteless, vodka and sake
- ravenstine 5y ago
  That's the thing that gets me about the idea that the world needs more food. Yes, people are better off being fed rather than not in countries where food is scarce. Better yielding crops are great for this. Should "developed" nations end up relying on rapidly growing crops that are selected for macronutrients (or perhaps just calories) at the expense of micronutrients? In my uncommon opinion, the answer is a likely no given that we generally eat way more than is necessary and at the expense of our long term health. The only way I can see it being beneficial in places like the United States is if it allowed individuals to grow their own food faster, cheaper, and more easily. But then we will likely implement regulations to discourage people from growing their own food. But that's pure speculation.
eplanit 5y ago
I predict that mRNA is going to be an obnoxious fad, where every marketer on the planet tries to leverage the concept/acronym/terminology into their product packaging (regardless of whether it's a medicine, a car part, a floor polish, ...) -- like how Blockchain became such a darling for several years.
- comicjk 5y ago
  Classic hype cycle. We've seen mRNA can do one thing really well, now it will be suggested to do everything. It will be a few years before we have a clear picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle
- spywaregorilla 5y ago
  That seems unlikely to me. mRNA could be vaguely defined as a biological programming language. I don't think people like thinking about it so its poor marketing too.
- politician 5y ago
  My money's on mRNAI/ML.
- cblconfederate 5y ago
  unlike other fads though this works. TBH i don't think it s going to be limited to RNA, DNA is already a major target especially after CRISPR. It's been 6 years since the CRISPR breakthroughs , how are we doing on that front?
- Scoundreller 5y ago
  I recently bought gluten-free bubble bath. Didn’t realize people were eating the stuff.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    Surely you've seen skin-based allergy tests. Allergies don't just affect the digestive system.
- 5y ago
stonemetal12 5y ago
If I had to guess I would say dramatically larger plants require dramatically more nutrition. It will probably be a net negative outside highly fertilized industrial farming scenarios, preventing it from spreading far in nature.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Weeds somehow manage to become giant and prolific in soil that wouldn't grow any food crops. I don't think we're near any limits of soil or biology with our foods.
Integrape 5y ago
I hope it's dangerous enough that it ends up creating ninja turtles, but not enough to bring dinosaurs back from extinction.

This is exactly the kind of gene you wouldn't want to spread "horizontally" on its own, just like antibiotic resistance among bacteria. On the other hand, it hasn't, so far. It does exist in nature, and still doesn't pop up anywhere. Plants also haven't evolved this functionality on their own. There are evolutionary drawbacks to uncontrolled growth, and most plants have their growth "tuned" well below what would be theoretically possible given their light and nutrient conditions.

i_haz_rabies 5y ago
The problem is that if we introduce it, it might take a while for those evolutionary pressures to show up. Uncontrolled growth isn't an immediate pressure, it kicks in after the damage has already been done.

sfasf 5y ago

I think that'd be unlikely - there was a massive evolutionary benefit for the plant to produce the amount of carbohydrate stores that the plant naturally makes. If it'd been more beneficial to produce more carbs, the plant would already. I think a more likely question is what about nutrient density? Making more carbs, in a sense, is easy. Sunlight + CO2 == carbs. Nutrients are more stringently limited by the mineral properties of the soil. This just shoves into our food more calories we don't need diluting the nutrients we do. Unless their plan is to make cheap, tasteless, vodka and sake

ravenstine 5y ago
That's the thing that gets me about the idea that the world needs more food. Yes, people are better off being fed rather than not in countries where food is scarce. Better yielding crops are great for this. Should "developed" nations end up relying on rapidly growing crops that are selected for macronutrients (or perhaps just calories) at the expense of micronutrients? In my uncommon opinion, the answer is a likely no given that we generally eat way more than is necessary and at the expense of our long term health. The only way I can see it being beneficial in places like the United States is if it allowed individuals to grow their own food faster, cheaper, and more easily. But then we will likely implement regulations to discourage people from growing their own food. But that's pure speculation.

eplanit 5y ago

I predict that mRNA is going to be an obnoxious fad, where every marketer on the planet tries to leverage the concept/acronym/terminology into their product packaging (regardless of whether it's a medicine, a car part, a floor polish, ...) -- like how Blockchain became such a darling for several years.

comicjk 5y ago
Classic hype cycle. We've seen mRNA can do one thing really well, now it will be suggested to do everything. It will be a few years before we have a clear picture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle
spywaregorilla 5y ago
That seems unlikely to me. mRNA could be vaguely defined as a biological programming language. I don't think people like thinking about it so its poor marketing too.
politician 5y ago
My money's on mRNAI/ML.
cblconfederate 5y ago
unlike other fads though this works. TBH i don't think it s going to be limited to RNA, DNA is already a major target especially after CRISPR. It's been 6 years since the CRISPR breakthroughs , how are we doing on that front?
Scoundreller 5y ago
I recently bought gluten-free bubble bath. Didn’t realize people were eating the stuff.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Surely you've seen skin-based allergy tests. Allergies don't just affect the digestive system.
5y ago

stonemetal12 5y ago

If I had to guess I would say dramatically larger plants require dramatically more nutrition. It will probably be a net negative outside highly fertilized industrial farming scenarios, preventing it from spreading far in nature.

nitrogen 5y ago
Weeds somehow manage to become giant and prolific in soil that wouldn't grow any food crops. I don't think we're near any limits of soil or biology with our foods.

Integrape 5y ago

I hope it's dangerous enough that it ends up creating ninja turtles, but not enough to bring dinosaurs back from extinction.