Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Genetically-Modified Everything 495

Posted by michael from the not-just-for-breakfast-anymore dept.
BreadMan writes "The Economist has an interesting article about how the use of GM (genetically modified) plants extends well beyond the food industry. Altered trees that make better paper, insect-resistant cotton, potatoes that contain the right kinds of starches. An interesting read to see where the industry is going in light of problems with having GM foods on the dinner table. There's more industrial uses for agricultural products than you'd think of right away, so this may be a lucrative use for GM technology."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Genetically-Modified Everything More

Genetically-Modified Everything

Comments Filter:

  • GM has been done for thousands of years. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by havaloc ( 50551 ) * on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:32PM (#10506250) Homepage
    Just ask Gregor Mendel.

  • Better, cheaper paper (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mcmonkey ( 96054 )
    Altered trees that make better paper

    You misspelt 'hemp'

    • Re:Better, cheaper paper (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You may have been trying for funny, but people have seriously discussed GMO hemp [google.com] without the THC because indeed hemp produces better paper (grows faster, consistent quality, etc) than trees but isn't grown much because of the THC.

      Wonder what would happen if the GMO-hemp industry grows big -- would those genes dilute the pot to the point that this may be the final victory in the war on drugs?

    • Nope- these trees have been around for decades. Now that I think about it, given the growth cycle of a Wyerhouser Super Tree- it's about the right time to begin harvesting the second generation (those that weren't wiped out, anyway, by that disease that ran through Eastern Oregon a while back- since all the trees were clones they had no natural defense). WSTs grow extremely fast- reaching full maturity in about 30 years, as opposed to 80-100 years for other trees of these species. But their wood is ONLY
    • Actually, I've long wondered why we can't produce paper in a lab, instead of chopping down trees. As far as I know, wood pulp is mostly cellulose, and with some other binding agents, most of that we should be able to produce artificially. Anybody know of any reason why this isn't done, or perhaps isn't feasible?

      One guess might be that it's easier to let trees grow on their own, instead of having a lab pump energy into a vat to grow the cellulose.

  • GM plants... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Infinityis ( 807294 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:33PM (#10506260) Homepage
    And here I thought GM plants only produced vehicles... I tell you what, I learn something new every day
  • I realise that the summary also mentioned non-fod items such as cotton and trees, but it still seems odd to talk about non-food and use potatoes as an example.

    I realise that you can also fire them from potato cannons, but I'm fairly certain they still count (overall) as food.

  • Killer App: Pets (Score:5, Interesting)

    by PedanticSpellingTrol ( 746300 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:33PM (#10506271)
    I've always thought the ultimate use of genetic engineering would be to make puberty-free, Permacute puppies and kittens. Not only is it a lucrative market, there wouldn't be worries about the altered genes entering the natural ecosystem because of the sterility.
    • Making them bright enough to be toilet trained would be nice too.

      I don't know about pets that literally remain puppies or kittens, though. They need to grow up a little to be trained.
    • Not only is it a lucrative market

      First, lets alter genetics to eliminate the source of greed that drives everyone to fuck with everything they can. Maybe I'm the only one, but sometimes I think things are getting out of hand.

      there wouldn't be worries about the altered genes entering the natural ecosystem because of the sterility.

      And Microsoft produces bug-free code. No amount of engineering can produce "worry-free" systems.

    • That's #1 on my list of scientific advances I want to see. Cute fluffy permakittens.

    • Re:Killer App: Pets (Score:5, Interesting)

      by TiggertheMad ( 556308 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:48PM (#10506463) Journal
      I've got an even better one: GM housecats to look like tigers, cheetas and leopoards. How much would you pay for a housecat that looked exactly like a bengal tiger?

      Interestingly enough, this also might stop some of the hunting for great cats in the wild. Why risk jail time when you can just breed and skin housecats? In the long run, it would also help destroy the appeal of rare furs, as if people live with the animals, I think they emphasize with them to a greater extent. (for example, most people would think you were psychotic if you tried to sell them a dog skin coat. Is is because dog hair makes bad coats, or because they like dogs and would feel revulsion to the idea as a result?)

      Your idea of GM kittens and puppies also has a major plus. By making them puberty-free, they are already fixed, reducing the problem of unwanted breeding and stray animals.

      • Re:Killer App: Pets (Score:5, Informative)

        by untermensch ( 227534 ) * on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @04:53PM (#10507292)
        I've got an even better one: GM housecats to look like tigers, cheetas and leopoards. How much would you pay for a housecat that looked exactly like a bengal tiger?

        Actually you can already get pets like this through traditional breeding. There's a wild cat species called the Serval, which is considerably larger (and smarter) than a house cat but much smaller than the big cats. In the last few years, they have successfully bred Servals with housecats to produce what they call a Savannah cat. The Savannah cats are much larger and smarter than a housecat, have a leopoard-like fur pattern, and several other very exotic characteristics. IMHO they're a gorgeous animal and are supposed to make great pets (if you can proof your home/yard to an animal with the curiousity of a cat coupled with greatly increased intelligence and size :) ). Of course they cost a fortune right now, expecially for a first generation cross, but maybe in a few years.

        There's also a fairly recent hybrid between housecats and another wild cat species, but I can't remember what it's called, a small relative of the leopard I think.
      • Because people are psychotic about getting rare stuff. We can make diamonds but can you buy them anywhere? No marketting would have us believe I want a real 24 carrat diamond but not a fake one. Why because the fake one is TOO perfect.

        Well fook you! I want diamond claws!

    • Re:Killer App: Pets (Score:5, Funny)

      by typedef ( 139123 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:49PM (#10506476)
      Fuck the cute little doggies. I'm all about having an anime catgirl that calls me "Goshujin-sama" and does all the cooking and cleaning.

      (so lonely :[)

      • Fah. Re:Killer App: Pets (Score:5, Funny)

        by StefanJ ( 88986 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @04:01PM (#10506622) Homepage Journal
        Catgirls.

        Fah.

        50 weeks out of the year they'll scratch you silly if you try to make a move on them, and when they *are* in heat you end up burned out and drooling while they go wandering around the neighborhood, yowling in frustration and dropping thong for anything with a Y chromosome.

        Cleaning? Cooking?

        Yeah, right.

        Clean themselves, maybe, but you know who is going to be scraping the hair balls off the carpet, right?

        And the way they run to your side and stare at you like you're God when you use the can opener, that's cute and gratifying at first, but after a few times you realize they're actually in awe of the can opener.
      • Fuck the cute little doggies.

        YACK, Never put to your p0rn collection online!

    • Re:Killer App: Pets (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mikael ( 484 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:50PM (#10506493)
      Aren't cats already permacute large feline cubs? Bred by Egyptians to keep granaries clear of rodents? (I was told this was the reasons why cats like to run through closing doors and jump into boxes). And dogs are permacute wolve cubs adapted to various roles (retrieving, searching, attacking, guarding etc...).

      • Re:Killer App: Pets (Score:3, Informative)

        by lawpoop ( 604919 )
        Acutally, there probably wasn't much breeding going on. If you look at an African Wildcat [google.com], they pretty much look like cats (compare dogs and wolves). They are about the size of a fully grown house cat.

        Some anthopologists speculate that the cats hung around the graineries, because that's where the rodents were. Gradually people and cats got used to each other. I, for one, don't think cats are particularly domesticated.

    • Would you buy a genetically altered egg to guarantee a certain type of child?

      Would you abort a child that broke this guarantee?

  • It's a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grunt107 ( 739510 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:35PM (#10506298)
    GM plants can be VERY beneficial if modified correctly. This crop can be used as a fuel source, replacing oil-based gasoline. Get the yield high enough my GM'ing, and it becomes a great replacement - less pollution, more energy independence on any country capable of producing crops, and an industry that may finally get agriculture off the government dime.
    • The only problem is getting the energy to convert it still requires fossil based fuel or nuclear energy ultimately. Sure a small fraction will come from wind and solar but you still have to heat it in the process. I talked to a guy who was trying to use pecan shells to create fuel but it wasn't economically feasible to convert it to a clean energy source.

    • Re:It's a good thing (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Why not just use the natural canola that is being grown right now? Or if you drive a diesel, go down to your local hamburger shop and get their cooking oil.

      Volkswagon TDI engines can use thier canola based diesel ("bio-diesel") or cooking oil. The main consequence is that your exhaust smells either french fries or popcorn.

      We have the solutions to many of our problems, humanity just can't be bothered to save itself.
    • If you bred a species of animal that contained the properties of more than one (such as the goats that give spider silk), do you believe there's any difference between doing that and trying to get the incompatible species to mate? Do you think nature prevents this for a reason?

      Stated more provocatively, would you make a smart dog by mating with one?

    • Problem with GM. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by einhverfr ( 238914 )
      GM foods have been controversial partly because of the power that patented foods would give to companies like Monsanto. I fear these other organisms would be the same way...

      A prev. poster likened this to open source and closed source and in this regard he is completely right (though it was modded funny rather than insightful) but it is worse than closed source software because it is aimed at replacing vital commodities with intellectual property rights.
    • Lovely in theory, but the sole purpose of very first GM products on the market was to allow the manufacturer to sell more herbicide!

      Not only that, but they then have the temerity to go and prosecute people who's fields have been contaminated by their products for patent infringement. They should be made responsible for clearing up gene flow. After all the bloody stuff is now immune to the conventional herbicides.

  • The side ones will be profitable (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:36PM (#10506303) Journal
    Back when I was a genetists (early 80's), I worked at Coors Biotech for a summer. The project was kind of interesting. Chickens that are sold in US stores had colorizers to turn the flesh pink. They were feed dafodils just prior to slaughter. We took the genes from the dafidils and splice it into algae. Worked great and I think that it was a fraction of the price of the flowers. I do not know if it is used today, but I do know that FDA did not regulate it. If it was not directly consumed by humans, it was off limits (per the reagan admin).

    • I'm scared to ask (Score:4, Funny)

      by roystgnr ( 4015 ) <roy&stogners,org> on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:42PM (#10506379) Homepage
      What color was the chicken flesh originally?
    • Yes, we all believe you really were a geneticist. I mean, look, you almost spelled your former job title correctly! And "daffodils" you got wrong, in two different ways!

      Your story makes absolutely no sense (why again were you splicing the genes of a daffodil with that of algae) and why was a beer maker doing GM work on chickens in the early 80's.

      Nice try though. I'm sure you'll get up to about +4 Interesting until some mods actually ready your little tale.
    • There's a lot more wrong with the chicken industry than just that. If you've ever been to a commercial chicken farm (i assume you have?), you would (should?) be disgusted by the amount of mutated chickens. Chickens with breasts so big they are falling forward from the weight of them.

      And how the hell does Hooters serve chicken wings that are the size of turkey wings anyway? They seem to be 30% larger than the chicken wings you get at a pub.

      IMO, Genetic modification (and steroid use too) has gotten out o

      • Well, I grew up in farming country and have worked the farms, but that was in the 60's. while I am aware of the commercial chicken farms, I have never been to one (nor desire to be there).

        Keep in mind, that this was an extra item added to checken feed. The chicken itself was not GM. Now, if that checken that you buy is slightly pink, then be assuered that either the algae or the daffidils were fed to the chicken. Dead Drained Chicken is pasty white.

  • Modifying everything to suit us? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by prell ( 584580 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:37PM (#10506317) Homepage
    I'm a little concerned about how the goal of most GM projects, that I know of, is to modify something so that it most benefits humans. Isn't that a bad idea? I mean, I know we're at the top of the "food chain," and we're clever and everything, but the world works because of cycles -- life and death; mutual symbiosis in one capacity or another. What if we modified everything and then we were suddenly rendered extinct? I have a feeling that if scientists tried to figure how to make a given organism more beneficial to its entire environment, they would come up with no major alterations.
    • What if we modified everything and then we were suddenly rendered extinct?
      Then it wouldn't matter. We'd all be dead and it wouldn't be our problem.
    • We've been doing it for millenia already....just slower. Dogs, cows, cats, heck, even some of the common types of corn/maize sold today were all specially bred for certain purposes.

      The main difference is that before now we had to work through the API that life gave us (reproduction), but now we can get right at the code (modifying genes). Of course, this also gives us the ability to completely fuck the system up a lot quicker than before, too.

  • At Last! Caffeinated EVERYTHING!!! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Researchers have identified the caffeine gene in coffee [washingtonpost.com], making it a cinch to just yank it out and make caffeinated paper, milk, pork, flour. Heck, I'm sure with gene therapy I could never have to sleep again!

    Hooray for modern medicine!

  • Don't screw with things you don't understand (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:40PM (#10506357)
    I'm not religious, so I'm not saying "Don't play God", but it is the height of arrogance for scientists to say they understand genetics sufficiently to control GM.

    Some GM stuff in labs can perhaps be controlled, but once modified geness are released into the RealWorld they are very difficult to control. The risk of doing bad things is great. We already see the effects of cross contamination of crops etc.

    If this goes more widespread (eg. GM trees for paper production) we can expect weird things happening (eg. say we remove some substance from trees to make them easier to process but that gene provides disease resistance etc. If that crosses into wild populations then we end up with sick forests etc).

    Agriculture and food production are regulated and controlled (well to a degree anyway), industrial stuff less so. It concerns me that all the GM bads we see in agriculture will be far worse in the industrial sector.

    • eg. say we remove some substance from trees to make them easier to process but that gene provides disease resistance etc. If that crosses into wild populations then we end up with sick forests etc).

      Genes generally don't just "cross" into wild populations, so if the GM trees have unforeseen problems it won't affect any natural forests.

      In the more general case, yes of course there is a lot of room for screw-ups with GM plants but there is also a staggering potential for good, just like any new technology.
    • I was going to mod you down, but thought a response would be better.

      I'm not religious, so I'm not saying "Don't play God", but it is the height of arrogance for scientists to say they understand genetics sufficiently to control GM. Some GM stuff in labs can perhaps be controlled, but once modified geness are released into the RealWorld they are very difficult to control. The risk of doing bad things is great. We already see the effects of cross contamination of crops etc.

      Funny how you say that they don'

      • Re:Oooo, the sky is falling (Score:5, Insightful)

        by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @06:43PM (#10508479)
        Funny how you say that they don't understand genetics, yet that is what they do for a living.

        I'm not saying that people are acting in bad faith or that we should kill research. What I am concerned with is the "trust me, I'm a scientist" attitude that you are promoting. Even when applying the best knowledge at the time, people make mistakes. Some mistakes are easy to reverse and some are not. The scientists of the day construct models and work to those models. The scientists of tomorrow will debunk those theories and models and make new ones.

        Studies showed Thalidamide (sp?) was OK. Doctors prescribed it because it was a very useful drug. Suddenly deformed people started being born.

        Thirty years ago the flavour of the day treatment for a variety of many mental illnesses was shock therapy. It is now frowned upon. The people applying it were not witchdoctors or alternative healers, they were the scientists of the day.

        The dumb-ass that brought possums and rabbits to NZ or snakes to that pacific island (some US base, I forget which)did it with the best of intentions. Now those animals cause havoc because there are no natural preditors.

        All the scientists involved did this as their life's work. They understood the science of the day and acted accordingly. They still made the wrong actions though.

        GM can perhaps be controlled in the lab, but remember that pollen is genetic material and some pollen can travel thousands of miles to contaminate other crops. Once the genie is out of the bottle it is impossible to control.

        Likening GM to GPL is really stupid. Humans have control over GPL, but they don't have control over genetic material once it is released into the wild.

    • Seriously. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by pavon ( 30274 )
      Sorry for the unfinished post - darn enter key submits form badness.

      I understand that it is easy to just write off these concerns as just more wacko technophobe hysteria, but look at how many problems we have created just by introducing non-native species into other habitats. These aren't genetically modified, or in many cases even bred by humans for specific traits. They are perfectly natural organisms that simply evolved in different places. And yet they have reeked havoc in their new habitat because the

  • Danger! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dnoyeb ( 547705 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:41PM (#10506363) Homepage Journal
    I don't thing GM things are any more or LESS dangerous than nuclear research. If we allow corporations to do as they please, they will find the easiest way to maximum profits.

    This did not used to be so bad. But today the shortsightedness, or rather the self centeredness of the modern executive can be very dangerous to the publics health and the publics wallet.

    • Re:Danger! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by prell ( 584580 )
      One factor often left out of the "evil corporation" equation is the consumer. It's dangerous to believe you are safe; that there's a babysitter watching out for you.

      If you really want to blame someone for pollution, nuclear disasters and destruction, and secret research projects, start with the government. Oh wait, you can't blame them: they have immunity!
  • Someone, somewhere is going to engineer some bug or plant or animal that will cause an environmental conflagration, either directly or indirectly. Ecosystems are resilient things, but all it takes to make them tumble is the right lever. Call it the environmental butterfly effect, if you will.

    I'm not against GM products, on the contrary. As population pressures grow in a seemingly exponential way we are going to need these things to survive. The planet can only do so much on its own.

    But it's bound to hap

  • Penn & Teller Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)

    by L3on ( 610722 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:42PM (#10506378) Journal
    Penn & Teller (the magicians) have a show on the Showtime network called "Bullshit" in which they take a topic and explain how it either doesn't make sense or needs to be changed. One of the shows covers genetically modified foods and the people that are against them. It's very interesting to learn what people think about genetically modified food and the facts of it. For anyone interested I suggest you check the show out.

    Basically, the show says that the people against genetically modified food don't know the facts and say that it isn't monitored by government agencies, while it is infact monitored by the FDA and EPA. Furthermore, genetically modified foods are solving the problem of world hunger by producing more output per area and being more resilliant in harsh climates.

    Personally, I believe genetically modified plants are required to sustain life on earth with our current population.

  • The holy grail is HYDROGEN production (Score:3, Insightful)

    by helix_r ( 134185 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:42PM (#10506380)

    Forget about designer fruit...

    There are bacteria that can generate small amounts of hydrogen gas. If genetic engineering can make these bacteria much better at this function, we will have very good renewable energy source.

    • Re:The holy grail is HYDROGEN production (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mcrbids ( 148650 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @05:35PM (#10507766) Journal
      There are bacteria that can generate small amounts of hydrogen gas. If genetic engineering can make these bacteria much better at this function, we will have very good renewable energy source.

      Hydrogen is a very poor source of energy - it's energy density is very low. (it takes 1/3 of the available energy in the hydrogen just to compress it to a liquid!) It's explosive. It's very inefficient.

      Better to consider alge that produces bio-diesel [unh.edu] - much denser, more compact, no expensive compression, no equipment retrofitting... the list of benefits goes on and on....
      • Energy density is only important if you need to store/transport. Thus, hydrogen might not be ideal for cars, but if you can generate it onsite, its great for powerplants.

        Onsite hydrogen generation could conceivably allow for extremely clean/efficient power plants, running directly on hydrogen and producing water as a byproduct, either at a large scale or even at the individual scale, depending on the amount of support structure necessary.

        For that matter, depending on how much bacteria it takes to generat

  • GM plants would be great, except ... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by RealAlaskan ( 576404 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:42PM (#10506388) Homepage Journal
    GM plants would be great, except for the threat they pose to farmers [percyschmeiser.com]. That link takes you to a site about a farmer who could lose his farm because Monsanto carelessly allowed their patented GM canola to contaminate his fields.

    Monsanto's GM canola has also crossbred with Canadian canola strains, making it impossible for Canadian farmers to guarentee that their canola crops are GM free, thus locking them out of the EU markets. Now, they want to do the same thing with wheat. [bbc.co.uk]

    Leaving aside the fears and marketability problems surrounding GM plants, we still have the problem that patented plants are a huge threat to farmers. You can get in big, expensive trouble if you didn't license the genes that are growing in your field, even if you didn't plant them. If you save your own seed, and that seed gets contaminated by someone's patented, GM genes, you could loose a lifetime of work.

    • Re:GM plants would be great, except ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jdigriz ( 676802 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:55PM (#10506560)
      That's not GM posing a threat, that's patent law and patent enforcement getting out of hand again. This is Slashdot, we should be able to differentiate between the technology and the poor policy decisions and laws surrounding it.
      • That's not GM posing a threat, that's patent law and patent enforcement getting out of hand again.

        Yep. Until we get the patent laws fixed, GM plants carry that very real threat. It's not the plant's fault, and not the fault of the techniques which created it, but the threat is no less real for all that, and it definitely goes with the plant..


  • I'm waiting for the GM soy product that tastes as good as my Big Mac I had for lunch and is still healthy...that would be awesome.

  • End of the drug war (Score:3, Funny)

    by WilyCoder ( 736280 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:44PM (#10506404)
    Mark my words: once someone invents a way to have ordinary looking house plants produce your narcotic of choice, the drug war will finally be over.
  • potatoes that contain the right kinds of starches

    I'm all for genetically engineered foods if it's for the right reasons. What we really don't need is the next high fructose corn syrup or partially hydroginated vegitable oil. What's wrong with the starches that occur naturally in potatos? I mean, if you can avoid the use of pesticides in growing insect resistant potatos using GE, that's great. But the best kinds of starches?!
  • Ever since I figured out that you can't make a chicken taste like BBQ by feeding it spices and hot peppers, I thought genetically engineering spicy chicken was a good idea.

    Combine that with genes for better feathers, and we'll also get fluffier pillows!

    And meatier chicken feet... hmmm hmmm

  • We've been GMing for 1,000s of Years (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Prien715 ( 251944 ) <agnosticpope@nOSPaM.gmail.com> on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @03:48PM (#10506459) Journal
    Corn was originally a grass, with each kernel being very small. Through very careful breeding, the Aztecs managed to increase kernel size to its present state.

    Dog breeds have been around for a long time as well.

    The only difference between what the Aztecs did and what scientists do is whether or not you access the genes directly or through the natural "API" (aka breeding, Java programmers no doubt hate GM food).

    (Waits for jokes about kernel size.)
  • I've seen lots of papers about the 'horrors' of genetically engineering crops and people but really I don't understand it. If you knew your kid was going to be born horribly crippled and with a simple shot you could fix it, wouldn't you? With how much relegions change over the years would letting your childs life be ruined be worth your current relegious dogma?
  • The problems people have with genetic modification of plants, animals, and of course, people, fall into two categories:
    1. If I eat this GM orange, will I turn into a fruitfly?
    2. It's morally/ethically wrong to play with genes - that's playing God.

    Can anybody tell me (in a semester or less :-) why either of those two problems are different than the results of traditional breeding and cross-pollination?

    Before I get shouted down as flamebait, let me hint that it's possible to breed plants that are more

  • I hear a lot about leftist groups screaming about how terrible GM foods are, but insofar as I know, they're on people's dinner tables all the time and we've chomped plenty of them down with no ill effects.

    The urge to improve on what we've been given in life is an incredibly strong human trait, and it's one of the things I most admire about us as a species. So I am disinclined to listen to this almost religious hatred of the idea.

    GM foods seem like excellent ways to make food more abundent and cost-effect
  • "problems with having GM foods on the dinner table"

    problems indeed...

    All overreactions.
    All unproven.
    All irrelevant given the older style GM organisms such common corn, wheat, grapefruit, etc.

    Basically, thousands of people starve because of technocrats & self-righteous bureaucrats.

    scandalous...

  • Poll (Score:2)

    by fizban ( 58094 )
    Altered trees that make better paper, insect-resistant cotton, potatoes that contain the right kinds of starches.

    Where's the CowboyNeal option?
  • Shape mountains,
    Create lakes,
    Create 100% radioactive test envioronments
    Observe radiated species mutations
    Study human health.

    Nukes are REALLY USEFUL THINGS. Industry's just chomping at the bit, looking for ways to make money off of em, too.

    And just to get your children's thoughts rolling with the possibilities, we [of slashdot staff] will be hyping the uses of nuclear landscapes [for free].

    Socially irresponsible? Inconsiderate? NOT AT ALL! We'll test it out in miniature scale, first, by giving sticks

  • Has eaten genetically modified food. Maize itself has been cultivated by man over the past thousand years from a grass-like grain with ears a few inches long to the foot-plus long ears we have today.

    GM by itself is not harmful when exercised with care and due diligence. But, much like any other technology, those who value profit above public safety will find a way to use GM to line their pockets at the expense of the public.

    Until we thoroughly understand GM and its implications, we'd do well to regu

  • Kind of exaggerated, with respect to paper (Score:4, Interesting)

    by k98sven ( 324383 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @04:01PM (#10506628) Journal
    Do not expect Canada or the Nordic countries to be shortly covered with GM pines; commercial use of GM trees in Europe is at least ten years off. But it is on its way.

    How is it on its way? Because some guys are researching it?

    Now the I can't speak for the entire world, but I live in Sweden, I know a lot of people in the paper industry, and I've personally spoken with people belonging to senior management of several scandinavian paper companies.

    And they all said the same thing: They currently have no interest whatsoever in GMO trees. They're not researching for it, they don't want it. The are interested in biotech, but only to the extent that it can give them insight into how to do traditional forestry better.

    Why trust them? Well, the reasoning behind this is that this industry has been harshly critizied by environmentalists for a long time. Today, they've pretty much 'cleaned up their act' (in scandinavia), aiming for FSC [fsc.org] acreditation and so on.

    They are not about to throw all that work away.

    That said.. I'm personally positive to biotech, and I think that we might very well see GMO trees out there. But not in ten years time. Not in the nordic countries anyway.

  • serious issues (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tsiangkun ( 746511 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @04:18PM (#10506846) Homepage
    How do they keep the new bioengineered products from cross pollenating with the standard food varieties.

    GM "products" should be engineered to be sterile . . . it's not that hard to craft a triploid strain, or knock out a fertility factor. The crops are still clonable by traditional agriculture methods . . . but don't breed to make hybrids.

    That, or we should be able to sue a company into oblivion for contaminating a nations agricultural products. Contaminating a nations food source, is bio-terrorism, and should be handled as such.

    luckilly $$$ will keep broski off the backs of these corporations, and in the library watching what I read.

  • GM food is great, except... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Saeger ( 456549 ) <farrellj@g m a il.com> on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @04:19PM (#10506871) Homepage
    GM food is a great advance, except for a few minor drawbacks (in order of importance):
    1. The Law of Unintended Consequences when (not if) genetic freaks get loose and upset global ecosystems, forcing dependence upon the outcompeting freaks and counterfreaks.
    2. Greedy corporations like ADM and Monsanto who aim to OWN food production by claiming "IP" rights on genes.
    3. Frankenfood FUDsters who would throw the golden-rice baby out with the bathwater because of fear and romantic notions about old-fashioned organic food somehow being better for you, even if it's not sustainable.
    GM was inevitable, but it would be very sad if we ended up destroying our natural ecosystems, or locking it up in IP monopolies, only a few decades before we developed the molecular nanotech needed to self-sufficiently manufacture food, without depending on Mother Nature and top-down distribution.

    --

  • The genes will get loose... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by radtea ( 464814 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @04:33PM (#10507061)
    ...and that will cost someone money in coping with the resulting ecological changes.

    There is one certainty in all of this: the genes spliced into GMOs will get loose in the world due to inter-breeding with non-GM organisms of the same species. This is as certain as losing in Vegas.

    So how does this sound: I propose to release novel self-replicating entities into your environment, and I don't know what the consequences will be. I can be almost certain they won't lead to the end of the world as we know it, but on the other hand it isn't a great strech to imagine that my self-replicating entities are going to have a significant effect on the ecosystem you live in and depend upon.

    Personally, I'd be very unhappy with someone making this proposal, and the comparisions that come to mind with existing activities, such as selective breeding for domestication, don't really hold water because a) the whole point of GMOs is that they contain genetic combinations that would not occur in nature and b) selective breeding for domestication has already been responsible for major environmental changes.

    Domestic species both force out non-domestic ones (as happened with prairie grasses) and due to increased genetic homogeneity may also be more susceptible to disease. So comparing the GMO process to domestication is not entirely reassuring.

    "Industrial biology" has been extremely good for us humans in the past hundred-odd years. We can feed ourselves, worldwide, better than at any time in history. But there have been costs, and I'd like to see a really compelling case made for adding to those costs with GMOs.

    So far, that case has not been made, and many GMO proponents simply deny that there are going to be costs. Only when they admit to that will there be a meaningful debate. Of course, for that to happen, the "GMOs are the work of Satan" mantra from the other side would have to fall silent as well.

  • The only problem with this... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Audacious ( 611811 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @04:56PM (#10507340) Homepage
    ..is that the wind will blow the GM plants pollen and/or seeds around and pretty soon these things show up everywhere.

    There was already a case where Monsanto was growing plants across the road from a farmer and the farmer had to pay Monsanto thousands of dollars because their seeds blew over into his planting area. Seems to me that Monsanto should have been sued for polluting the farmer's planting area. Or to put that another way - GM plants should be treated like toxic waste sites. If the toxic waste contaminates the area around the site - it is the responsibility of the owner of the site to clean up their mess. Not the other way around.

  • GM biotech today = closed source. Big problems... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by geekotourist ( 80163 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @08:03PM (#10509134) Journal
    Many of these issues were discussed in earlier stories-- Open Source Life [slashdot.org], Smart Breeding as a way to beat GM biotech [slashdot.org] and Open Source Biotech [slashdot.org]. As commented [slashdot.org], there's a big problem with much of current GM technology: It is proprietary / closed source / locked hood genetics. The applications are wonderful (note: I've GM'd organisms myself), but the methodology and implementations are badly done

    Its analogous to proprietary software: you can't just buy the algorithm: you have to buy the whole package (and support and perhaps hardware too). In much of current GM technology you can't just buy the nifty new gene, you have to buy the whole potato (w/a limited selection of potato types if any choice at all) *and* you're just leasing the potato *and* you have to keep buying the upgrades each year.

    Problems with the closed-source methods of GM tech include:

    • GM isn't the only solution. Word isn't the only way to write a document. Golden rice isn't the only way to get more vitamin A to people.
    • Opportunity Costs- what do you lose if you spend a big chunk of money on a single proprietary solution? You lose flexibility. Continuing with Golden Rice: sure, its gets people more vitamin A, and no one wants blind babies (think of the children!). But what about veggies which already contain high quantities of beta-carotene (yams? carrots? Other richly-colored veggies and fruits filled with other vitamins / phytochemicals we've smart-bred in for 3000+ years). The royalty payments for Golden Rice could instead pay for a variety of other seeds. And if you do want to up the A content of rice, should people get to choose which varieties get upgraded?
    • Useful applications get locked away. Losing a beautiful algorithm in software? Sad. Losing 100,000 lives per year? [slashdot.org]...more of a life-or-death choice. If it weren't for the facial hair application those people'd be back to injecting arsenic medicine with its 1/20 chance of death and the feel of injecting bleach.
    • The food itself is secondary to locking you into a company's support products and support cycle. The problem that Montanto is trying to solve isn't "how can farmers improve crop yields and reduce weeds?" Monsanto's problem is "How can we lock farmers into using our weedkillers?"
    • The proprietary product is often based on (taken from / stolen from) older open source projects. Documented cases of stealing? the Neem patent [corvelle.com]- patenting a 2000 year old method of using the Neem tree oil as a pesticide. Or the Enola yellow bean patent [biotech-info.net] where an American company got a patent on a bean they'd bought from Mexican bean farmers. They then sued those farmers exporting yellow beans into the US. They're not only violating the GPL, but patenting the software they've borrowed.
    • Standards for patents can be low. I argue [slashdot.org] that they're often not being novel. Take BT: is simply moving a gene [slashdot.org] that original?
    • They're closed source, top-down implementations that lead to monocultures and kill off smaller but better competitors. Monocultures = bad: think 1/4 the US corn crop wiped out in one season [oregonstate.edu].
    • they have all or nothing security models (they focus on zero tolerance for weeds / pests: in the long run this will be more expensive than "accep

  • The problem with GM (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fbg111 ( 529550 ) on Tuesday October 12, 2004 @09:13PM (#10509653)
    One problem with genetically modifying everything is that the modifications are done to solve a specific problem, or a relatively narrow set of problems. But do the modifiers thoroughly consider the far ranging consequences of their modifications? Eg, if a genetically modified butterfly flaps its wings in New York, does a typhoon still occur in Hong Kong, or is it a flood in Bangladesh? Is it even possible to discern what the unintended consequences may be five, ten, fifty years in the future? Nature spent thousands, millions of years evolving itself to a state of balance, and then we come along and start altering that balance willy-nilly to solve a few immediately pressing problems. I worry that we're taking an approach to GM similar to a very bad software development project - no overall plan, build features and modifications in response to isolated needs, and spend the rest of the project lifetime putting out fire after fire after fire. It's just that fires in software development are not quite as consequential as fires that affect the natural state of the world ecology.

Slashdot Top Deals

"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs

Close