Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Alex Heartnet on December 04, 2012, 01:37:13 pm
-
So apparently General Mills made a facebook app. (https://www.facebook.com/Cheerios) And, well, it didn't go so well. (http://www.cheeseslave.com/cheerios-gmo-backlash-facebook-campaign-fail/) :p
Sadly this no longer seem to be live. But still...
-
Oh, look at all the anti-GMO wackjobs coming out the the woodwork. $10 says that fully 90% of the people commenting on the Facebook Wall and commenting against GMOs on that cheeseslave site couldn't actually tell you what GMO actually means, what it is, or how they negatively affect health.
The Internet has done a lot of good things for a lot of people, but if there are two areas of science where false information online has hurt society in general, it's vaccinations and genetics in general.
Literally EVERY SINGLE MASS-GROWN FOODSTUFF human beings have consumed for about the last 4000 years are technically genetically-modified foods.
-
Yep, MP, fkin right on.
-
damn hippies :P
-
I for one welcome glow-in-the-dark Cheerios.
-
I for one welcome glow-in-the-dark Cheerios.
Lux+ Cheerios for the win!
Actually, it's already been done with aquarium fish, several species of bacteria, etc. Not hard at all, though chances are the baking process would destroy their ability to glow. Have to coat them in some harmless Lux+ bacterium after baking...
...what you're really after is Cheerios coated in yogurt containing a lux+ probiotic.
Damn, I should totally market this. It's even better than my idea for blue hedgehogs (LacZ+, feed them X-gal, own a real, live Sonic).
-
Oh, look at all the anti-GMO wackjobs coming out the the woodwork. $10 says that fully 90% of the people commenting on the Facebook Wall and commenting against GMOs on that cheeseslave site couldn't actually tell you what GMO actually means, what it is, or how they negatively affect health.
The Internet has done a lot of good things for a lot of people, but if there are two areas of science where false information online has hurt society in general, it's vaccinations and genetics in general.
Literally EVERY SINGLE MASS-GROWN FOODSTUFF human beings have consumed for about the last 4000 years are technically genetically-modified foods.
None of those things involved the kind of tinkering with the natural order that GM does though.
I do believe it has the potential to in the future be a massive boon to the whole of humanity if this is done properly, but humanity has a terrible record when it comes to changing the natural order...
http://guides.wikinut.com/Invasive-Species/12is94fj/
I'm sure there are many more. I'm less worried about what eating the stuff will do than what potential disasters could arise that no one forsees like what is listed in that. You make your crop highly resistant and fast growing, and next thing it's out there spreading like wildfire, strangling out everything else and destroying ecosystems.
-
Occupy Food
:wakka: :wakka: :wakka: :wakka: :wakka:
-
Just what exactly do you think genetically-modified organisms are and are used for?
Invasive species are a secondary issue that occurs regardless of genetic-modification. In fact, introducing selective genetic markers into a GMO crop can prevent it from becoming invasive due to nutrient requirements. Every one of the invasive species on that list became invasive without any pre-existing modification, and virtually none of them were intentionally introduced either (as crops are).
Most GMO applications are relatively benign and are used only in plants - encouraging disease resistance, overall hardiness, longer growth season, larger growth, higher productivity. In fact, while all crops today can be considered genetically-modified, very few are actually subject to true molecular genetic manipulation. Most are simply cross-breeds of artificially selected individuals which produce strains.
-
I'm not-so-secretly-anymore amused.
(It's Cheerios).
-
Just what exactly do you think genetically-modified organisms are and are used for?
Invasive species are a secondary issue that occurs regardless of genetic-modification. In fact, introducing selective genetic markers into a GMO crop can prevent it from becoming invasive due to nutrient requirements. Every one of the invasive species on that list became invasive without any pre-existing modification, and virtually none of them were intentionally introduced either (as crops are).
Most GMO applications are relatively benign and are used only in plants - encouraging disease resistance, overall hardiness, longer growth season, larger growth, higher productivity. In fact, while all crops today can be considered genetically-modified, very few are actually subject to true molecular genetic manipulation. Most are simply cross-breeds of artificially selected individuals which produce strains.
Well, you've listed what I thought they're used for. It's about maximising production and minimising cost. However, I never thought/knew of the possibility of invasiveness prevention.
I'm not overly worried about invasiveness however, I would trust these scientists more than the people making the decisions on these animal introductions to get such a thing right, but the focus always is on what eating it might do, not on something like that, and I've never seen anything to concern me about actually eating the stuff. However, given a choice I would probably avoid GM simply for knowing one is safe and one is unproven. I do however remember when I first learned of the concept many years ago I thought it was greatly exciting. Either way it's not something I have to contemplate right now, GM food is banned here in the UK. SO I was greatly surprised to learn not only do you eat it in the US, you don't even need to label whether it's in the product.
If there was anything better than a tiny saving to be made buying GM though, I'd probably go for it come to think of it.
EDIT: I just checked up on the GM situation in the UK, and it looks like it actually is starting to trickle in a little now:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/gm/
-
Tiny savings? Unproven? You're a troll right?
There are countless studies regarding GMO crops and how they compare to what one might call normal crops. The fact that people say that it's unproven, as if no one would be interested in making studies about an issue that has as much visibility as this, says a lot about that argument...
-
Tiny savings? Unproven? You're a troll right?
No. I actually have no idea on what savings could be made to the pocket of the consumer. Remember I have nothing to compare in the UK. It's got to be at least a couple of years probably more since I seriously looked into this subject, so I'm open to the possibility of being ignorant of certain facts. There's already been one such fact in my last post. Actually two since I didn't know GM was being freely sold in America like that.
This financial crisis could be a huge boon to GM actually if it gets in the stores. People who might have avoided it before might not have a choice. Both manufacturers and consumers.
-
Right on MP.
Seriously, this gives me as much of a headache as the arguments against meat from cloned animals (A newstory about how a slaughterhouse was fined because meat from a cloned cow made it into a consignment a while back), and people were going "OH GOD CLONED MEAT IT'S HORRIFYING IT'LL RAPE OUR CHILDREN AND KILL US ALLLL!"
No, it won't. The whole ****ing point of it is that it's identical to a normal cow genetically, and everything else is environmental. It's A-OK, because a cow is OK. Twats.
-
The UK bans (banned? I haven't checked the landscape there recently) GM foods modified using molecular techniques. You've still been happily eating artificially-selected, cross-bred, and reproductively isolated GM foods since you were born.
Even if we confine the GMO definition to organisms modified through molecular genetics (as opposed to Mendelian genetics; breeding and such), the vast majority of risks are still trivial. Most modification involves introducing plant genes from one related species or genus to another. Only rarely do you end up with plant genes crossing larger genetic gaps within a Phylum. Genetic modification from one Domain to another is still less common (though it does occur, mostly commonly with bacterial genes being inserted into some plant species).
Anyway, the GMO bogeyman is way overblown. Absolutely I agree with forcing companies to label GM foods; it just means everything gets a GM label and then you need to sort out what technique was used. Molecular manipulation of foodstuffs is definitely riskier than selection.
-
The thing that is eluding you Lorric, is the statement that we have been doing "genetically modified crops" ever since we started agriculture. The only difference is that the big corporations have now a bigger commercial advantage because they own the genetic technology that makes these amazingly better crops, and they "own" the genes themselves, meaning that if you have a field and you are caught up with some crops with these genes (and you haven't licenced the crops) you will be prosecuted (and so on). It's a very big potential problem (copyrighting genes), but that's a very different "beast" than saying that GMOs are different.
Leftist hippies of the likes of Bill Maher always saying they are on the "side of science" but then they rail against GMOs. Nothing new under the sun.
-
The UK bans (banned? I haven't checked the landscape there recently) GM foods modified using molecular techniques. You've still been happily eating artificially-selected, cross-bred, and reproductively isolated GM foods since you were born.
Even if we confine the GMO definition to organisms modified through molecular genetics (as opposed to Mendelian genetics; breeding and such), the vast majority of risks are still trivial. Most modification involves introducing plant genes from one related species or genus to another. Only rarely do you end up with plant genes crossing larger genetic gaps within a Phylum. Genetic modification from one Domain to another is still less common (though it does occur, mostly commonly with bacterial genes being inserted into some plant species).
Anyway, the GMO bogeyman is way overblown. Absolutely I agree with forcing companies to label GM foods; it just means everything gets a GM label and then you need to sort out what technique was used. Molecular manipulation of foodstuffs is definitely riskier than selection.
Check the link I put in at the bottom of the post. Possibly you didn't see it since it's an edit. It should tell you all you want to know.
I do think there's a difference between previous methods and now, that was selective breeding/growing. Natural progression though unnatural selection. More gradual. GM is outright change that wouldn't occur naturally without human intervention.
Like I said though, I'm not that concerned about actually eating the stuff. I probably wouldn't be concerned at all honestly if it wasn't for the fact so many people are. I'll do the research if the food started appearing on shelves though and not just listen to the "mob". But I guess it's in the back of mind all these people, they must have a reason to be worried.... I can't remember the last time before today I heard anything about GM. It's just a nonentity here, it isn't in people's lives.
Is there a lot of GM food being sold in the states?
-
I do think there's a difference between previous methods and now, that was selective breeding/growing. Natural progression though unnatural selection. More gradual. GM is outright change that wouldn't occur naturally without human intervention.
Do you even read this stuff before you post it? You literally contradicted yourself.
EDIT: For the love god, you actually managed to do so twice using the same addition.
-
Is there a lot of GM food being sold in the states?
I think a large percentage of soy and corn grown in the US is Roundup Ready (modified to resist Monsanto's Roundup herbicide). I have no concerns about eating GM crops, but the intellectual property side of it is pretty screwed up IMO.
-
Eh... he's using "GM" to refer exclusively to the modern kind. Stubborn, but not self-contradictory.
-
Eh... he's using "GM" to refer exclusively to the modern kind. Stubborn, but not self-contradictory.
He's stating that natural progression through unnatural selection has qualitatively different results not excluding time to output from direct modification. Considering we don't create designer genes, we splice existing ones, that's a direct contradiction. Selective breeding is also gene-splicing but without the certainty.
He's also saying GM is outright change which would not occur without human intervention and this is why it is bad, after stating selective breeding is exactly that (unnatural selection).
Even in his own context he's contradicting himself.
-
Eh... he's using "GM" to refer exclusively to the modern kind. Stubborn, but not self-contradictory.
Yes. I'm talking about the difference between the two methods. Whether it's natural or not isn't an issue for me. One is tried and tested over hundreds of years, the other has never been done before. If it's proven to be harmless and healthy then serve it up and I'll chomp it down! I don't care whether it's GM crops or maybe in the future I wonder if meat could be grown instead of having to kill animals. I'd eat that too if it was safe.
-
if i didnt kill it its not food.
-
I'm not against GMOs. However, I am against corporations denying people knowledge what's in their food. So, they should not only mention that GMO is in there, but also some sort of code so that buyers may check exactly what kind of changes were made. I'd buy it anyway, but people deserve to know what they eat.
-
SCIENCE is BAD
-
It's worth pointing out that one of the biggest invasive species stories on that list (africanised bees) might not have happened if they had used modern genetic techniques rather than the cross-breeding that the stupid environmentalists now insist is better. The African bees were known to be more aggressive but hives of them were needed in order to cross-breed them.
Ironically the kind of scenario you see in the movies, where there is an accidental release of something bred by crazy genetic manipulation was actually caused by the kind of cross-breeding the hippies tell us we should be using. Well done guys! :yes:
To be honest though, when it comes down to it, I side with the guy who saved 1 billion lives (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC0QtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DtIvNopv9Pa8&ei=iqq-UM-eJaPjmAWJ_YCoDA&usg=AFQjCNG3xB3UGm5xEi3k1jY09yWZ1PPn8A) over hippies.
-
im kinda concerned the thing that happened with nuclear power will happen to gm foods. that being a bunch of uninformed hippies protesting it until a defacto research ban is established (which in the case of nuclear power resulted in us still using 1970's reactor designs). hippies are bad for science.
-
im kinda concerned the thing that happened with nuclear power will happen to gm foods. that being a bunch of uninformed hippies protesting it until a defacto research ban is established (which in the case of nuclear power resulted in us still using 1970's reactor designs). hippies are bad for science.
It's a very real scenario.
Policy-oriented protest is usually not science-driven, but fear-based, and most of the people doing the protesting have great intentions but are sorely uneducated on this subject. They think internet "research" is a substitute for education.
Oh, and to whomever said the IP of genetic modification is ****ed up, you are 100% right, and it's why most of the folks I studied with do not support gene patents except in cases where a person has designed a gene from the ground up - a completely novel, artificial sequence (which to my knowledge has not actually been done except in primer sequences, which aren't genes).
-
just want to say environmentalist /= to hippie ban science GMO. I'm an environmental scientist to be, am my compatriots and myself are not up at arms protesting GMOs
-
Teehee. I'm posting in the comments section of that second site Alex linked to; it's hilarious.
EDIT: Oh good grief, this site belongs to a raw milk advocate who recommended raw milk consumption to a pregnant woman who asked about it. *boggles* Maybe I don't want to even bother... yikes.
EDIT2: Oh, and she makes her money on a food allergy treatment program. Except what she's talking about are food sensitivities. Which she is attributing to the immune system. And sensitivities are not immunological in nature. In fact, very few people have food allergies as an allergy measn that consuming a food results in anaphylaxis. And she proposes that probiotics can cure allergies (they can't) but makes no mention of the fact that they can be used to treat sensitivities (they can). And...
*head explodes*
How the hell did you stumble on this wackadoodle, Alex?
-
Yes. I'm talking about the difference between the two methods. Whether it's natural or not isn't an issue for me. One is tried and tested over hundreds of years, the other has never been done before. If it's proven to be harmless and healthy then serve it up and I'll chomp it down! I don't care whether it's GM crops or maybe in the future I wonder if meat could be grown instead of having to kill animals. I'd eat that too if it was safe.
It has been proven. Molecular techniques are simply more precise ways of achieving Mendelian results. This isn't done blindly - gene functions have to be identified before you go putting them in places where they didn't previously exist.
This isn't cowboy magic, it's a pretty empirically-sound science. Cutting edge science I'll grant you, but that doesn't make it objectively more risky.
-
As the African bees thing quite clearly proves, the old-fashioned method can also be very risky.
-
As the African bees thing quite clearly proves, the old-fashioned method can also be very risky.
Indeed. Should I talk about antibiotic resistance or do we think people grasp the point? =)
-
Yes. I'm talking about the difference between the two methods. Whether it's natural or not isn't an issue for me. One is tried and tested over hundreds of years, the other has never been done before. If it's proven to be harmless and healthy then serve it up and I'll chomp it down! I don't care whether it's GM crops or maybe in the future I wonder if meat could be grown instead of having to kill animals. I'd eat that too if it was safe.
It has been proven. Molecular techniques are simply more precise ways of achieving Mendelian results. This isn't done blindly - gene functions have to be identified before you go putting them in places where they didn't previously exist.
This isn't cowboy magic, it's a pretty empirically-sound science. Cutting edge science I'll grant you, but that doesn't make it objectively more risky.
It seems strange then, why aren't we eating it now? I'm not denying what you say, but why isn't it out there feeding people now in a global recession? I would have thought in the current economic climate, it would be more imperative than ever that this goes through.
Come to think of it though, eugenics in general have a bad rep. Think of anything, any work of fiction involving eugenics. The story always tells you in the end it was a mistake, often a mistake with dire consequences, and/or morally wrong. I'm sure the nazi connection really doesn't help either. In fact maybe that's where the root of it all is.
I had a look in on that site where you've been commenting. You seem pretty passionate about this.
-
We are eating it now. It's just that manipulation by molecular genetics takes longer right now because we don't have a 'catalogue' of all the various genes and what they do. Mendelian genetics allows for trait selection directly. To use molecular genetics, you need to know what gene(s) correspond to what traits, then splice and insert them. It's a pretty involved process, and it's why most GMOs are still produced via selection, hybridization, and isolation. Molecular techniques become exponentially more efficient as they're used, but we're at the extreme bottom of that curve.
Most, if not all, crops feeding people today can be considered GMOs. Not via molecular techniques, but GMOs nonetheless.
And eugenics and genetics have literally nothing to do with each other. If you're confusing those two terms, I'd suggest you take a trip over to Wikipedia and refresh your memory.
-
inb4 Jurassic Bark :nervous:
As someone said before, I'm OK with genetically modified foodstuffs, so long as it doesn't turn out to be a bigger pain in the ass than what it's worth... such as a super-staple that inadvertently chokes out any and all native plant life that happens to come into contact with any of its seeds. I've had nightmares about mowing 9 foot tall Johnson grass day after day.
-
We are eating it now. It's just that manipulation by molecular genetics takes longer right now because we don't have a 'catalogue' of all the various genes and what they do. Mendelian genetics allows for trait selection directly. To use molecular genetics, you need to know what gene(s) correspond to what traits, then splice and insert them. It's a pretty involved process, and it's why most GMOs are still produced via selection, hybridization, and isolation. Molecular techniques become exponentially more efficient as they're used, but we're at the extreme bottom of that curve.
Most, if not all, crops feeding people today can be considered GMOs. Not via molecular techniques, but GMOs nonetheless.
And eugenics and genetics have literally nothing to do with each other. If you're confusing those two terms, I'd suggest you take a trip over to Wikipedia and refresh your memory.
I suppose you are right in a way, everything now will be different from when it was simply growing there all on it's own and pulled from the ground and eaten.
The thought process for me goes with the splicing genes in, let's say you have some disease which kills a crop. And someone puts in something to make that crop resist that disease. So the thought goes it can't have naturally occured or the disease resistent strain would have flourished naturally and spread all on it's own. So where did they get the new strain from and is it safe? I just don't know. And I'm going to be eating it. At school, I remember learning about food production techniques over the years in history class. No one teaches anyone this stuff in school though I'm sure. Maybe people just need educating. If the scientific community puts it's stamp of approval on it, I'm sure that will be good enough for me.
I guess I should stick to genetics then.inb4 Jurassic Bark :nervous:
As someone said before, I'm OK with genetically modified foodstuffs, so long as it doesn't turn out to be a bigger pain in the ass than what it's worth... such as a super-staple that inadvertently chokes out any and all native plant life that happens to come into contact with any of its seeds. I've had nightmares about mowing 9 foot tall Johnson grass day after day.
That was me.
-
One thing I find really hilarious is the whole issue about people saying GMOs are untested. Let me give you an analogy.
General Motors decide that they want to make a budget car with a fancy special braking system that is better than ABS. They currently have a car on the market with this (Car A) and they have a very popular budget model (Car B). Two execs are asked how they should make the new car.
The first exec suggests that they go back to the blueprints for Car A, and see how the brake system can be adapted for Car B to give them Car C. After the system is ready, they'll test the new version of Car C to make sure the new brakes work. They'll also test to make sure that any systems that could have been affected by the change of the brakes are also unaffected.
The second exec suggests a different method. They'll work in rounds. They'll simply take brake components from Car A & B and stick them together. Then they'll test to see if that works. If it works better in Car B, they'll use that new model as the basis for the next round. If it doesn't, they'll throw it away and start the round again. They'll keep doing that until they run out of money or they have something that seems good enough.
Which one do you think has been better tested? Exec 2's car has been through more tests but when you think about it, you'll realise that only the very last set of tests were on the car you'd actually be driving. All the other tests were on versions of the brake system that you are not using. If this last set of changes resulted in a hidden flaw, you've only had a short set of tests to realise it.
Personally, I'd pick Exec 1's car every time. Funnily enough, that is of course the one based on GMO style methods.
-
Uh... excuse me kara, but you can't just compare building a car to growing a plant like that. I mean, cars are man-made and artificial, and therefore bad. Plants come from nature, which as we all know is magic and can never be understood by mankind. Now then, the audacity displayed in this thread has me so flustered I need to go realign my chakras.
-
The thought process for me goes with the splicing genes in, let's say you have some disease which kills a crop. And someone puts in something to make that crop resist that disease. So the thought goes it can't have naturally occured or the disease resistent strain would have flourished naturally and spread all on it's own. So where did they get the new strain from and is it safe? I just don't know. And I'm going to be eating it. At school, I remember learning about food production techniques over the years in history class. No one teaches anyone this stuff in school though I'm sure. Maybe people just need educating. If the scientific community puts it's stamp of approval on it, I'm sure that will be good enough for me.
The something you put in the crop is usually from the same crop type, or a closely-related crop type. Every so often it comes from a different organism, but that's not as common.
Most disease-resistant strains aren't produced through molecular techniques but rather through selection experiments. Basically, you grow a crop, expose it to the pathogen you want to breed resistance to, and wait to see what lives. You take the surviving plants (there will always be some that have innate resistance due to genetic diversity; no disease on Earth is 100% lethal to its target organisms), breed them, and expose the new plants to the same disease. Take the survivors, breed them, re-select. After several generations (depends on the ploidy of the plant) you'll have a seed stock in which virtually all (but not quite all - natural diversity) specimens have the resistance you're looking for. If all you want to do is grow plants of that type with resistance, you're done after this step - just keep using the same seed stock. Re-selection may be necessary every few generations.
This is how we breed disease or herbicide resistant plants. Once we have a 'pure' stock for that genotype, you can then set about sequencing it to determine what gene conveys that resistance (I just described a process that can take months or years in one sentence; this is NOT easy). When the gene is identified you then have to figure out how that gene is regulated (switched on or off). Finally, you sequence the entire coding region you're interested in.
Once you have that sequence, we then have several ways to get it into another organism (or different strain of the same crop). Electrical shock tends to work sporadically, viral insertion is better. But first you need copies of the original gene - sequencing only tells you what the gene is made up of, it doesn't let you make copies. So you take the cells from the original disease-resistant strain, break them up to release the DNA, and then apply a technique called polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to select and amplify the particular sequence you want (probably a few times at several thousand dolllars a shot over several days) to amplify that sequence. Then you either insert it into a viral vector (again, weeks of work in one phrase) or try electrical shock on the plant germ cells to get the gene into the new plant. Once it's there, you then have to grow the plant up and re-expose it to the disease to see if it worked. If it didn't, back up until you figure out where you screwed up along the way. If it did, breed the new plants and conduct selection until you have a 'pure' stock again.
All molecular techniques do is take a gene sequence from one organism and put it into another - often of the same species, just a different strain, sometimes of a different species. It's tedious, detailed work that can be frustrating as hell but the beauty is that one you have that gene sequenced and know which PCR primers to use, it can then be done on a mass scale much more quickly than producing an entire pure strain from wild stock.
This same type of selection/isolation/extraction/amplification/insertion/selection procedure is the basis of pretty much all modern genetics. It's how we identify disease-resistance genes, antibiotic-resistance genes, chemical-resistance genes, genes that convey resistance to cold/heat, and many other things. It's used constantly in research as well, and a similar process was responsible for restoring the immune systems of SCIDs patients.
I mentioned that all of the genes we use to convey resistances occur naturally (which is true), so you're probably wondering why all the plants haven't evolved to have that resistance. The answer is selection pressure. Where there is high selection pressure (e.g. the place gets the same lethal disease every season), the local strain will probably have a high-proportion of disease-resistance. This can become permanent in the population, but it usually doesn't. The reason is that resistant strains often have drawbacks (increased resource requirements compared to non-resistant plants, for example) compared to non-resistant plants. The lower the selection pressure, the lower the proportion of a population that will be resistant to that selection pressure.
Bacterial antibiotic resistance is probably the publicly most well-known example of this phenomenon. There is currently a bit of a crisis in health care when it comes to a nasty bacterium called Staphylococcus aureus. "MRSA" may be an acronym you've heard that stands for methycilin-resistant S.A. There are now very high proportions of MRSA in health care settings around the world. The reason is because of over-use of methycilin. This antibiotic was for a very long while the best treatment against stubborn Staph aureus infections, and it was heavily used. Now, ordinarily antibiotics work by killing the vast majority of a pathogen, including some of the lesser-resistant individuals. There will always be a small number of completely resistant individual bacteria left, but they typically are incapable of causing further infection because they are either out-competed by natural flora (bacteria that live in and on us) and die, or the population of natural flora prevents them from growing to levels that cause disease. This is why broad-spectrum antibiotics can be ugly - if you kill off the natural flora, you make it easier for pathogens to come back. Anyway, over-use of methycilin without patients completing their course of medication and in isolated areas (health care settings) has resulted in the proportions of MRSA compared to regular Staph aureus in those areas skyrocketing. There are now some hospitals where virtually the entire Staph aureus population is MRSA. That's really scary, because there is only one other antibiotic that can treat MRSA (vancomycin), and we are now seeing the development of VRSA populations. These individuals have always existed, but when you apply selection pressure (antibiotic), you eliminate individuals susceptible to it and the surviving population reproduces to replace it, thereby increasing the proportion of the resistant population.
TL;DR: Resistance genes are all naturally-occurring. We can influence the frequency of the occurrence by applying selection pressure. This allows us to isolate a population that all carries resistance. If we want to spend the time and money, you can then isolate what gene is responsible and consider transferring it to another strain or species. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't, and most of that depends on how closely related the species/strains are and how complicated the resistance mechanism is. When it comes to chemical/antibiotic/pesticide resistance, it's usually only a couple genes (sometimes one). When it comes to disease-resistance, it's usually several genes working in concert, which makes the whole process much more difficult.
-
Please do GMO work on Cavendish bananas and make me happy for decades to come.
-
just be glad your not all eating soylent green.
frankly i like my people in steak form.
-
Occupy Food
:wakka: :wakka: :wakka: :wakka: :wakka:
All your food belong to me! :)
-
try me!
OM NOM NOM
-
MP, excellent posts. :) In my younger years I was considering going into genetics, it's such a fascinating subject.
What kinds of things do you think we'll be seeing out of genetic engineering in the next 10 or 20 years?
-
/me doesn't want Japan to do any major breakthroughs in human genetics.
The catgirls would be fine (and adorable as long as they didn't have Uncanny Valley anime faces) but then the Japanese would inevitably end up creating someone or something with tentacle genitalia and that's just going too far. :nono:
-
MP, excellent posts. :) In my younger years I was considering going into genetics, it's such a fascinating subject.
What kinds of things do you think we'll be seeing out of genetic engineering in the next 10 or 20 years?
It's nigh-impossible to predict advances in biotechnology. I'm hoping we see risk-free gene therapy in that time period, but I really do not know.
-
The catgirls would be fine (and adorable as long as they didn't have Uncanny Valley anime faces) but then the Japanese would inevitably end up creating someone or something with tentacle genitalia and that's just going too far. :nono:
Don't give them, or Alessia, ideas.
-
After reading more of that original website Alex posted, and following links to a highly-quoted source, one "dr." Natasha somethingorother, and reading how Dr. Natasha proposes to treat/cure autism (among many other diseases/syndromes/medical conditions) by treating gut bacteria to resolve a syndrome she calls Gut and Psychology Syndrome (GAPS)...
...I have decided I am going to genetically-modify bovines (bulls and cows) to eat people who believe all of this bull**** and can't be bothered to learn about actual science versus bull****. Because it'll be ironic if said people who believe bull**** end up as a constituent component of it. Y'know, because science is evil and therefore I can do this.
BRB, evil genius at work. Don't mind the cows milling through the cities, I don't imagine more than a handful of people who read HLP are in any danger from my GMO cows.
-
Science has advanced to the point where many people see it as magic, and now they can't differentiate between the two. People buying into ****ty hollywood representations of the "mad scientist" hasn't helped either. So now comes the time when major advances in medicine and food production will be held back, because people aren't willing to learn about things they don't understand, and won't trust that crazy scientist who said it works.
-
Science has advanced to the point where many people see it as magic, and now they can't differentiate between the two. People buying into ****ty hollywood representations of the "mad scientist" hasn't helped either. So now comes the time when major advances in medicine and food production will be held back, because people aren't willing to learn about things they don't understand, and won't trust that crazy scientist who said it works.
Society is perverted in the people who receive adulation and attention. Just imagine if scientists and inventors and educators and life savers were the celebrities. And that was where all the big money was channeled, along with the mob's attention so they'd learn something.
-
they would be harder to control.
-
... major advances in medicine and food production will be held back, because people aren't willing to learn about things they don't understand, and won't trust that crazy scientist who said it works.
they would be harder to control.
This and this. The powers that be only provide enough of an education so that people can be good workers. They want enough genuinely smart and knowledgeable people around that we can maintain a technological edge, but not enough to actually affect things politically (or effect for that matter). So yeah, part of it is people just not being willing to learn stuff, but another part of it is people being encouraged to not learn stuff. I mean come on, you don't want to be some kind of NERD do you?
On the other hand, the internet is turning out to be a much bigger deal than I think most people expected it to be. Information can be spread and grassroots movements organized like never before, and now the ruling class are absolutely ****ting themselves after seeing stuff like Arab Spring.
-
That, and science in general and scientists aren't really the kind of things that are entertaining enough that you forget how ****ty the rest of your life is.
-
I think Bill Nye would like a word with you. (http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-colbert.gif)
-
Oh come on. I understand WHY it is as it is. It just pisses me off sometimes. Like if I have something that makes my life a lot easier and I don't even know the person's name who did that for me. Then you see some talentless bimbo who's raking in the millions just because she was born with a pleasant voice and a pair of large tits and that's literally all she has going for her.
I'll also clarify I have no problem with sports stars because of the effort and dedication you have to put in to be at the top and it also comes with many transferable skills.
As for nerds, I wish instead of the word "nerd" we had a word for making fun of stupid people instead that was looked down on as much as the word "nerd" is.
-
I think Bill Nye would like a word with you. (http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-colbert.gif)
Never heard of this guy. I might check him out.
-
The concept of making fun of people who enjoy learning things always struck me as very strange.
-
The concept of making fun of people who enjoy learning things always struck me as very strange.
I can only put it down to insecurity and jealousy. I wouldn't know since intelligence is a quality I admire. Though I'm sure that was obvious by now.
-
I think Bill Nye would like a word with you. (http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-colbert.gif)
Never heard of this guy. I might check him out.
a wannabe mr wizzard in my book.
yes, im that old.
-
I think Bill Nye would like a word with you. (http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-colbert.gif)
Hate the pretensious bastard. Really hard. Dunno exactly why.
-
I don't hate him, but I never really cared for him either. Carl Sagan was my idol. <3
-
I think Bill Nye would like a word with you. (http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-colbert.gif)
Hate the pretensious bastard. Really hard. Dunno exactly why.
Yeah, I mean trying to get children interested in science? **** that guy, seriously.
-
I think Bill Nye would like a word with you. (http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-colbert.gif)
Hate the pretensious bastard. Really hard. Dunno exactly why.
You should watch what you say. Bill Nye is one tough customer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fkc5r2lFZs).
-
what's a guy who destroyed a planet with science have to do with cereal?
-
http://xkcd.com/1147/
Today's XKCD is relevent to this topic.
-
I think Bill Nye would like a word with you. (http://i.somethingawful.com/forumsystem/emoticons/emot-colbert.gif)
Hate the pretensious bastard. Really hard. Dunno exactly why.
Yeah, I mean trying to get children interested in science? **** that guy, seriously.
Nuthin to do with that.