contracycle

I know; I think thats a realy really strong indicator that the precautionary principle should be applied very vigorously indeed. We should start from thre assumption that crossing WILL happen and the modifications will not remain only in their host species.

We're talking about living, chaotic, entropic systems. It looks safe now - will it still be safe after 30 generations through multiple organisms? I mean, we acquire diseases from animals, for example, that are differentially effective in each species: we do not know and cannot know what this stuff is going to do if it EVER gets wild.

This is a non-point; for the manufacture of drugs and whatnot is so cheap these days that the the pharmaceatical companies have run a mutli-year campaign to limit production. Similarly, we destroy food annually to sustain price. If we wished, we could treat and feed people now.

We do not have any problems that increased production efficiency would solve. By comparison to the very, very, very serious risk posed by allowing crudely manipulated gene strains into the wild, there is no visible benefit IMO.

My concern is that the genes for the rabies vaccine cross into bacteria, that the bacteria exploit that code themselves, or develop immunities to it, that it becomes a new and improved pathogen due to selective pressure in the wild. We already have problems with bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics becuase we use them so heavily.

As I say, I'm all for the project under suitably controlled conditions: like, in a floating habitat in space. Cool; if it all goes wrong, expose to vaccum and/or incinerate and start again. Exposure to the open selection of the wilderness before we are as close to 100% sure of what we are doing as it is possible to be? No no no.

simian

Perhaps the first paragraph throws me:
Allergins are proteins. A 2nd quick glance through of the article does not say anything about limiting the production to non-allergins. It is the "any protein" that has me troubled. What safeguards will be in place to ensure that "any protein" does not actually mean any protein?

Edited to add:
The article does mention the production of beta-casein. While I can't speak to the beta form specifically, casein is a protein some people are allergic to.

Simian

MortalWombat

First of all, rabies is caused by a virus, not bacteria. Second, I'm not sure you are clear on what a vaccine is, particulary a recombinant one. It is the production of one or more proteins from that virus or bacterium (rather than using the whole virus or bacterium itself as a vaccine, so no chance of indavertant infection from incompletely inactivated preps) in another host, which are then purfied and used to inocculate the patient, who then develops antibodies against the viral or bacterial protein, thus protecting them against the virus or bacteria itself. So there is nothing that the viruses or bacteria in the wild can pick up that they don't already have. It's their own proteins to begin with that are being produced.

MortalWombat

Well, not all of them. Just as an aside, an allergen is simply a molecule that induces the over-production of allergen-specific IgE antibodies in some people, which then saturate the IgE binding receptors on inflammatory cells such as mast cells and basophils, which on first exposure to the allergen is not usually a problem. Once a person is exposed to the allergen on subsequent occasions, however, the allergens cause cross-linking of the receptor-bound allergen specific IgE antibodies on these inflammatory cells, which initiates a massive inflammatory response, releasing histamine, leukotrienes, and other mediators of the allergic reacton. But the allergen itself can be a non protein, such as penicillinBut these products aren't being made for consumer goods that you can pick up at the grocery store. They are made for therapeutic uses as pharmaceuticals, which, by the way, are extensively tested for safety, allergic reactions, etc. before being used by patients. If you are worried about these genes spreading to plants in the wild, then I don't see that as a problem, because unlike genes that convey resistance to such things as herbicides, insects, plant diseases etc, there is no selective pressure for a wild plant to maintain a gene for casein or an antibody.

ps418

That's just my point. Gene transfer already happens in nature, albeit usually between closely related organisms. Its not as if genes are going to stay put if we dont tamper with them.


Its perhaps easier to see this as a 'non-point' when you live in one of the wealthiest nations on earth and have good access to drugs. Yet the cost of production clearly does limit the number of people who get access to a drug, sometimes making the difference between life and death. People around the world dying every day because lack of access to drugs, while (so far at least) no one has ever been injured or killed by a transgenic crop. I don't deny the possibility it could happen, only that with due caution the risks could be perfectly acceptable compared to the benefits.

No visible benefit to cheap, rapid mass production of drugs or medically useful proteins? Well, alright then, I suppose I cant convince you, but I find that statement somewhat baffling. But again, I have yet to hear a convinving reason why pharm crops pose "very, very, very serious" risks, except in the case that they are created using genes whose protein products are pathogenic, which is not the case for the examples I've given. And why do you characterize such crops as "crudely manipulated," when the truth is that they are very specifically and selectively manipulated to produce a specific protein?

Patrick

ps418

For what its worth, here's what the article says about safety and containment considerations. Apparently the risk is low to begin with, and several types of countermeasures can make it even lower.

Patrick

contracycle

And my point is, if it already happens in nature, why make it happen faster and with stuff that we design?

Animals migrate, but that is not how rabbits got to Australia.

Hm,m, actually I thought I had read of a case in the states where soemone developed an allregy to a GM crop and died, but I don;lt recall the details. Nevertheless, if the access of the poor to drugs is your concern, i can only suggest you support campaigning bodies and protest groups who are trying to bring this about.

As I said, no productive increase will improve access: we already have MORE THAN ENOUGH productive capacity, that is not the problem.

No, becuase we already find them trivially easy to produce, and if we wanted to make them available, we could do so: the argument is that we SHOULD NOT do so becuase of the "moral hazard"; that is a political problem, not a distribution or production problem. No increase in efficiency will improve the situation any more than the Green Revolution of the 70's did.

Because we are making changes to an immensely complex system we don't properly understand. Its quite clear already that the supposedly safe farm-scale trials in the UK contaminated local fields despite exclusion zones - this is a live ecosystem we are talking about, with such a mind-bogglingly immense array of variables that it simply cannot be safe.

[qote]
And why do you characterize such crops as "crudely manipulated," when the truth is that they are very specifically and selectively manipulated to produce a specific protein?[/QUOTE]

Becuase, by comparison with the effects of natural selection, its a very crude cut-n-paste intervention. We don't and cannot know the ramifications of what will happen to that protein, for example, when it is ingested by the plants natural predators. We don't know what happens when that parasite is ingested by one of its predators in turn. And as you pointed out, its not even as if we have reason to expect the gene sequence to stay in place, so we also cannot predict where it will turn up.

If this research were being done suitably slowly, with suitable safeguards, I would not have a problem with it. But at the moment, I consider it highly suspect, reckless and stupid. And whats worse, warnings have been sounded, the rape crop i alluded to above which contaminated neighbouring feilds being a prime example of a failure correctly predicted by Frinds of the Earth. And yet, the drive to go GM continues - and the drive AGAINST labelling GM products just in case consumers exercised choice. The agenda driving GM crops has nothing to do with helping the world, and does not appear to be scientifically rigorous.

simian

Well, progress I guess. So we can agree now that allergens will be in these pharm crops?

I have no doubt that the drugs, used as drugs will be extensively tested. What I have a concern about is if these crops are planted near enough to food crops for pollenation to occur. The fact that the crops are being tested for effects on herbivores and insects tell me that there is at least the possibility of them being in an "open" environment. If the genes are transerred (and expressed) in a food crop, there are huge dangers. I tend to use corn for examples for 2 reasons: it gives huge yields, so is a tempting crop for pharms, and the pollenation distance is potentially huge. Right now, corn is completely safe for those with casein allergies. Corn that produces casein can be deadly for them. If the pharm corn can cross-pollenate at all with food corn, the entire corn supply becomes suspect due to the commodity nature of grain in the US.

Perhaps the gene would be selected against over the course of generations in normal field environments. First that assume that there is some factor in the gene that makes it more unfit than normal corn. Second, it assumes that in the generations that it takes for the gene to be removed nothing bad happens. Something bad like people dying from allergens that have not previously been in corn.

Again I will state that extensive testing is done of GM crops to ensure no allergens are carried along with gene transfer. When dealing with pharm crops, allergens are potentially part of the intended transfer. How is this kept completely isolated from the food crops?

Simian

ps418

For a very simple, very obvious reason that I've already been pointed out several times. To quickly and cheaply produce needed drugs, to save lives and years of life.

Me neither. In contrast to the numerous people who die every day due to lack of access to drugs that could be pharmed, or who die from natural food allergies (e.g. peanuts), I'm not aware of a single person ever having died from a GM crop.

Obviously its not an either/or proposition. I do support spending more of my tax money on drugs. But whether anyone wants to accept it or not, the price of production will always limit access to some extent, and potentially pharm crops can dramatically reduce production costs, resulting in more people getting access, and in more health care dollars being available for other needs (drug expenses are huge proportion of all health care expenses). Its elementary economics.

I'm not talking about capacity; I'm talking about production costs. Reduced production costs always means wider access, whether we're talking about cars, computers, or drugs. Again, that's hardly controversial.

No, by comparison to random mutation and natural selection, genetic manipulations to produce pharm crops would be about as specific and selective as you could possibly get.

Patrick

Majestyk

Hysteria vs. Science. No matter how many times we see it manifested in history, we just can't stop ourselves from engaging in it.