OT science question

[dpb]

Robatoy wrote: ...

Monsanto has plenty of competitors...

So become a shareholder...

[Robatoy]

Maybe not intentionally....

[Robatoy]

Yup! You're certified. That's some funny stuff right there....

[J. Clarke]

I see. When you are dying of cancer be sure to turn down any treatment for which the doctors cannot tell you "how & why they work".

trying to find ways to treat or prevent it. If they don't have samples of disease to work with then they can't do that. Are you saying that scientists should not research disease cures because there's a chance that the sample of the organism that they are working with might escape? Then how would treatments ever be developed?

I'm sorry, but you're going off the deep end here.

learn the difference. This is the second time you've blamed science for the actions of a politician.

One side is engaging in political activism because they believe that the consequences if their untested models are correct are so dire that action must be taken. The other wants the models to be tested.

Uh, you clearly have not the slightest clue how science works. The idea is that you throw out an idea and it gets tested. If it doesn't pass the test then it was an invalid idea. This is the way science _works_. If all scientists agreed on everything then there would be no science happening.

[J. Clarke]

Some scientists are concerned, others are not. Always check the credentials of the ones who are "concerned"--many "concerned scientists" are not scientists and of the ones who are they are often "concerned" about matters way outside their field, and outside their field a scientist's opinion is no better than anybody else's.

[Art Greenberg]

Peer review (and potentially resulting disagreement among those peers) is necessary to the scientific method. These 31,000+ people are asserting their belief that the scientifc method hasn't been properly used in coming to the conclusion that global warming is human induced. I don't think their saying that is irresponsible, but rather quite the opposite.

[J. Clarke]

If the technology exists could you provide a link to more information?

So don't use the patented seed.

I'm not sure what concerns there are. Any plant that doesn't reproduce dies out in one generation so natural selection will kill it in the wild right quick.

[Robatoy]

Who says I'm not? I just find it distasteful to pretend it is all for the common good. I have no problem when people make money, even a lot of it. But I just wish they'd stop apologising for it, or trying to give it a more acceptable spin. Like Gore pretending NOT to be flying around in a jet. Why can't he just talk about the fact that his choice of Gulfstream is more efficient than McCain's Straight Talk Express?

Either way, I am repulsed by companies who genetically mess with my food. Finding more efficient ways to grow food, fine, but why do they have to splice the DNA of an onion into the genes of of a donkey? So I can have a piece of ass that will bring tears to my eyes?

[dpb]

I've certainly never seen Monsanto (or ADM for that matter) apologize for making a profit...in fact, if I read their annual report it seems quite concerned about doing so.

That they happen to make useful products and technology innovation is one of the prime if not the prime manner in which they do that is a primary motivation for doing so and that these products are useful is why they are profitable--if their products weren't any good or weren't meeting needs it seems highly unlikely they would be very profitable, doesn't it?

Well, that's the prime technique by which we can do that. I don't believe there's any way you would have any way you could tell such a thing had happened if it weren't in the papers. So, if you can't tell, what's the point in being so outraged other than for some irrational reason that you "just are"??? What difference does it make other than raise the blood pressure and what difference would it make that you could tell from what you're eating if it were to go away? The answer is, absolutely nothing other than price would go up and availability down. Hence, much ado over essentially nothing.

--

[Chris Friesen]

It's not that far-fetched.

Monsanto tried to grow a test plot of genetically modified rice right in the middle of India's Basmati-growing region (and got spanked by the Indian government for the possibility of contaminating the rest of the region with patented rice).

In British Columbia, tens of thousands of atlantic salmon are escaping from fish farms each year, and there is evidence that they are outcompeting the native pacific salmon. It seems likely that genetically modified fish would escape at similar rates.

Chris

[dpb]

J. Clarke wrote: ...

Look for information on GURT (genetic use restriction technology) or "Monsanto Terminator" -- one has to be fairly selective to avoid the paranoia as opposed to information of course.

Monsanto has announced they are not and don't have intentions of implementing or releasing a product (but that, of course, isn't the same thing as research). AFAIK, there's not a whole lot outside the scientific literature readily available outside the popular media which has been typically scathing.

Besides the patent-infringement issue, there are other potential benefits that could, as you note, be useful for undesirable species control owing to them non-proliferating. Others are concerned this could become too easy.

...

Well, easy enough to say, but there may be economic disadvantage to that as well. As in any question of any depth, it's not an easily solved problem other than totally superficially. Some of these patented hybrids actually far better suited varieties for certain areas so one is faced w/ the choice of probably lower yields w/ the benefit of the open seed as opposed to higher yield but the controlled seed source.

...

... A couple of concern areas at a minimum -- first, that the seed is sterile doesn't imply the pollen is so, for example, I could be the neighbor next door not using patented seed and planning on keeping back part of my crop for next year. Neighbor, otoh, buys this particular seed and it cross-fertilizes w/ my crop. I've been damaged economicall, perhaps relatively severely.

If it were to become widespread and prone, it could have such effects on a wide enough scale to be problematic perhaps. Or, say it isn't perfect but only weakens so that subsequent generations have sprouting rates of only 50% or so rather than 95% or greater--that's a great cost as well.

--

[Woodie]

What about concerned janitors?

[J. Clarke]

Where, exactly, in India did this happen? Do you have a link? And what was the nature of the patent?

When one genetically modified fish escapes then I'll worry about it.

[Robatoy]

=A0 Being concerned about people messing with my food is a rational concern.

And just because I can't tell, doesn't mean that the cute waitress doesn't have a disease that will kill me.

Staying deliberately uninformed of the facts will get you into deep trouble. Ignorance might be bliss. It doesn't work for me.

[Robatoy]

I saw two janitors sneaking out of a closet at the hospital... when they noticed that I had seen them, they certainly LOOKED concerned. Ipso facto... there *are* concerned janitors.

[dpb]

Robatoy wrote: ...

As a farmer who raises it, I suspect I have a far greater knowledge of the crop genetics than you have (other than your apparent penchant for sensationalistic "news").

--

[Upscale]

That's an easy one to answer. Let people die off until someone who is resistant to the disease is found and then harvest his antibodies. Or else, breed them like a puppy mill until the resistance has been passed throughout society. :)

[Puckdropper]

"J. Clarke" wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Well, the obvious solution is to get a longer board. 2x4s are available in multiples of 2' at many lumber yards. ;-)

You can use insanely long variable names and add much noise. Or you can add enough extra letters to express what it is you're trying to express without adding extra noise. This way you won't have to either provide a legend of variables or hope you remember what all of them are. It sure helps when you put something away and come back to it later...

Puckdropper

[Robatoy]

I have no doubt that you know more about crop genetics than I. You talk/write like a farmer. Not that there's anything wrong with that. And if you want to label the 'news' I read/watch as sensationalistic, just because you disagree with it, you're welcome to that too. The corporate greed which overrules ethics at Monsanto et al, is something you couldn't get your head around... for many reasons. Taking the nukes away from Saddam was a good move too, eh?

[Chris Friesen]

There's lots of information out there..ah, here we go.

Looks like I had some details wrong...it was the locals that burnt down a farm in Haryana, and now their Supreme Court has suspended all food trials.

's another one from a while back...Monsanto patented the gene sequence of an existing wheat variety that is a staple in India.

has also tried to patent specific types of pigs. In both of these cases, they're patenting a discovery, rather than an invention. You're not supposed to be able to get patents on discoveries, but that doesn't seem to make any difference.

Chris