Meant to send this to the whole list and got a nudge from Wayne that I
might have hit the wrong reply button (I did). . .
attached mail follows:
Kamilla,
I'm not sure if you intended to send this only to me or to
the list. If you intended to send it to the list, then
it didn't get there.....
Probably you have a "reply to all" option: that one sends
things everywhere, but if you write "asa@calvin.edu" into
the "To:" box, and remove everything else, it will post your
message at ASA.
Take care,
Wayne
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wayne,
This is getting a bit long so I will try to cut and paste in a way that makes
sense.
Dawsonzhu@aol.com wrote:
> In general, if you want to supply a growth hormone to an organism, it
> is wisest to use a neighboring relative on the evolutionary chain.
> For a "frankenfish", best results are most likely to come from existing
> genes in closely related fish.
> So in this sense, the *principle* (where I can't emphasize
> the word "principle" enough) is similar to breeding.
If that were the case, I would agree with the principle. But, as far as
what I am
reading, it is not always the case. The only article I saved on this is a
publication of the Natural Law Party. They list a few of the trasnsgenic
foods
including potatoes with chicken genes, tomato with fish genes, apples with
silk
moth genes. Not exactly close relatives are they?
> To learn this, we need to do a lot of experimental work, and
> manipulating plant genes seems like a relatively benign way to struggle
> through this early stage of our ignorance. Even if I thought I had
something
> that could cure Hawkings now, I think it would be wise to test it somewhere
> else first...... Don't you think so?
>
> We have a long way to go.....
Yes, we do. And I'm not opposed to experimentation, even the use of live
animal
subjects under certain circumstances. But we don't have to release these
things
into the general population to accomplish this.
> Keep in mind again, that there are some cross breeds that are
> also infertile. The tangelo(sp?) (IIRR, a cross between a tangerine and
> a peach) is infertile. A mule is a cross between a horse and a donkey
> and is infertile. So in some cases, the infertility does not pose
> any unusual risks.
But these infertile cross-breeds are generally not created with the
intention of
controlling the supply, are they?
> I think in the case of the genetically modified (GM) corn, it might
> have been insect resistant corn and the monarch butterfly was an
> inadvertant victim. However, even the mindset that we need *more*
> toxins in plants because insects are becoming resistant to the current
> arsenal of insecticides seems to me the wrong way of solving the
> problem.
Yes, it encourages monoculture forms of agriculture which will only increase
the
need for bigger guns to support the monoculture. I still remember learning,
as a
school child, about the necessity of rotating crops to replenish the soil.
Whatever happened to that concept?
> Perhaps, in that sense, the only way that we can insure that (1) is
> advanced, and (2) is minimized is to link such research in publicly
> funded projects like current efforts in biosciences.
>
> by Grace alone do we proceed,
> Wayne
In the meantime, why don't we just apply a little truth in labeling huh? The
opposition to that is what raises my skepticism more than anything else.
Thanks,
Kamilla
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 20 2000 - 14:54:33 EDT