This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Genetically Engineered Food aka Franken-Fish

2

Comments

  • Or go the open-source route and just kill Monsanto.
    Just like how Linux killed Microsoft and UNIX...oh wait.
  • pigs made entirely of bacon.
    My Opinion: GIMME MUTANT SUPERSALMON IN MAH MOUF!!
    Whoever does this first deserves the Nobel prize. All of them.
    I love you guys so freaking much right now.
  • Just like how Linux killed Microsoft and UNIX...oh wait.
    Well, OK, Monsanto could also re-tool their business model and instead just sell enzyme solutions. It still solves the Monsanto problem.
  • My only issue with the Terminator is mainly that it prevents farmers from getting seed back for the next harvest, but this shouldn't be a problem in fish.
    This is a problem in the 3rd world, especially. You are dependent on a 3rd party, from which you buy seeds every season.

    I will be happy when there is vat meat. No kill steak! Hooray!
  • I will be happy when there is vat meat. No kill steak! Hooray!
    Personally, I'm looking forward to swimming in bacon. :)
  • edited September 2010
    Open Source Bio. Just release the metabolic pathways that have been altered and a list of now-essential enzymes or amino acids.

    This is avery good idea.
    You should do this for your inevitable Ph.D. project. Get in on some plant biotech research and try to make a better soybean.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • You should do this for your inevitable Ph.D. project. Get in on some plant biotech research and try to make a better soybean.
    You know what? I'm seriously considering it. Manipulation of metabolic pathways in plants ties quite neatly into my interest in plant proteomics, especially my interest in manipulating them to make/do neat things.
  • You know what? I'm seriously considering it. Manipulation of metabolic pathways in plants ties quite neatly into my interest in plant proteomics, especially my interest in manipulating them to make/do neat things.
    Here, have a soybean genetics research database.
  • edited September 2010
    Bookmarked.

    The soybean is like the Lego of GMO-able plants. It's great.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • Bookmarked.

    The soybean is like the Lego of GMO-able plants. It's great.
    Biology is pretty fucking awesome in general.

    Just remember to give me props when you're a gazillionaire.
  • edited September 2010
    Biology is pretty fucking awesome in general.
    It totally is. The only downside of the soybean idea is that for an MD/PhD, I'll probably need something more applicable medically. Also, my interests really lie with engineering microbes, like volvox and various bacteria and fungi.

    You know what we could do? Write some synthetic yeasts and try to make our own superbeer. You and me, Pete.
    Just remember to give me props when you're a gazillionaire.
    No doubt.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on

  • You know what we could do? Write some synthetic yeasts and try to make our own superbeer. You and me, Pete.
    We need to meet in person. Talk a bunch. Share beer and science ideas.
  • The farmed salmon problem was a surprisingly large topic on Boston Legal. Alan Shore actually yelled at a waiter about it once. I love that show.

  • You know what we could do? Write some synthetic yeasts and try to make our own superbeer. You and me, Pete.
    We need to meet in person. Talk a bunch. Share beer and science ideas.
    I agree. Every summer bears the possibility that I'll be traveling out to the east coast, which usually entails a trip through New York. We can make stuff happen.

  • You know what we could do? Write some synthetic yeasts and try to make our own superbeer. You and me, Pete.
    We need to meet in person. Talk a bunch. Share beer and science ideas.
    I agree. Every summer bears the possibility that I'll be traveling out to the east coast, which usually entails a trip through New York. We can make stuff happen.
    Bring back some of his beer.
  • So, as long as they can be effectively contained to a farm, it should be OK. It'll just require careful population management techniques.
    Have you seen Jurassic Park?
  • Anyone who doesn't like frankenfood can tell it to Norman Borlaug's ghost.
  • Cool thing GMO soy does: Sterilizes things that eat it after 3 generations. Children of Men was a documentary from the future.

    And as i understand it, farmed salmon are a major vector for salmon lice to infect wild populations.
  • edited April 2011
    Cool thing GMO soy does: Sterilizes things that eat it after 3 generations. Children of Men was a documentary from the future.
    lolwut. Source?

    Nevermind, found it. It's from a year-old study. Also, I can't find any recent follow-ups. Critical thinking leads me to believe that this isn't right. GMO soy couldn't sterilize a human. There's no means for germline transposition of any of its DNA, which means it's likely a result of chemicals on the crops. However, humans are far bigger and have longer life cycles than mice. It would take vastly greater amounts of such toxins to exhibit the same effects in us. Also, were it the case that it WAS GMOs, we'd have already started to see a large spike in infant mortality, which would be widely reported.

    Think critically.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • edited April 2011
    Cool thing GMO soy does: Sterilizes things that eat it after 3 generations. Children of Men was a documentary from the future.
    lolwut. Source?
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/genetically-modified-soy_b_544575.html

    huffpo, I know. But still.
    Post edited by Special A on
  • edited April 2011
    It's from a year-old study. Also, I can't find any recent follow-ups. Critical thinking leads me to believe that this isn't right. GMO soy couldn't sterilize a human. There's no means for germline transposition of any of its DNA, which means it's likely a result of chemicals on the crops. However, humans are far bigger and have longer life cycles than mice. It would take vastly greater amounts of such toxins to exhibit the same effects in us. Also, were it the case that it WAS GMOs, we'd have already started to see a large spike in infant mortality, which would be widely reported.

    I highly doubt that this research is valid.

    EDIT: I reposted that because you last post started a new page for me.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • It's from a year-old study. Also, I can't find any recent follow-ups. Critical thinking leads me to believe that this isn't right. GMO soy couldn't sterilize a human. There's no means for germline transposition of any of its DNA, which means it's likely a result of chemicals on the crops. However, humans are far bigger and have longer life cycles than mice. It would take vastly greater amounts of such toxins to exhibit the same effects in us. Also, were it the case that it WAS GMOs, we'd have already started to see a large spike in infant mortality, which would be widely reported.

    I highly doubt that this research is valid.
    Critical thinking leads me to believe you didn't read the whole article.
  • Yea, I would need to see the actual study.. Since this report is based on a study that has not been released....at least at time of the article on it.
  • Yea, I would need to see the actual study.. Since this report is based on a study that has not been released....at least at time of the article on it.
    You're the one in the reproductive science job! DO the study.
  • edited April 2011
    I did read the whole article. However, the experiment was poorly-designed (fields growing GMOs are regularly hosed with atrazine, known to lower sperm count and wreak havoc with fertility) and these details were unaccounted for. The author ("The world's leading consumer advocate promoting healthier non-GMO choices") is biased. Additionally, having studied the mechanisms by which GMOs work, I can tell you that there is virtually no way that the enzyme responsible for Roundup Readiness (a modified version of an enzyme all plants have) could possibly induce sterility. The plant would have to produce a mutagen which would likely kill it, as well.

    The problem isn't the crops. It's the shit we soak them in. It's time to find better pesticides and herbicides. If the study is valid, that is.
    Yea, I would need to see the actual study.. Since this report is based on a study that has not been released....at least at time of the article on it.
    You're the one in the reproductive science job! DO the study.
    Burden of proof.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • edited April 2011
    Well don't jump on Special A yet, I've seen many cases of drugs and chemicals that have caused issues with the F1 generation causing them to be give birth to defective F2 Generations.
    here's no means for germline transposition of any of its DNA, which means it's likely a result of chemicals on the crops.
    It's not a matter of screwing up the genes as it is a matter of screwing up the processes while the F1 generation is forming while the P Generation is pregnant with the F1 Generation. The F1 Generation then has reproductive development issues which causes the F2 generation to be radically lower.

    I can't really talk about specific cases because well you know..
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • I can't find the actual study. It's not on Pubmed, and it's not on the internet at large.

    I believe nothing until I read it.
  • edited April 2011
    Well don't jump on Special A yet, I've seen many cases of drugs and chemicals that have caused issues with the F1 generation causing them to be give birth to defective F2 Generations.
    here's no means for germline transposition of any of its DNA, which means it's likely a result of chemicals on the crops.
    It's not a matter of screwing up the genes as it is a matter of screwing up the processes while the F1 generation is forming while the P Generation is pregnant with the F1 Generation. The F1 Generation then has reproductive development issues which causes the F2 generation to be radically lower.
    Right. But what I'm saying is that the GMO modification is the addition of a different synthetase to bypass glyphosate's action on the plant's metabolism. I don't believe such an addition could be harmful, especially because the synthetase in question is only mildly modified from the standard synthetase in wild-type soya.

    Now, the chemicals ON GMO soy could definitely be causing this. Glyphosate is generally regarded as completely safe, but it was being aerially sprayed in Colombia (and illegally in Ecuador) to kill drug crops, and caused horrific lesions as well as infertility and other effects.

    There are problems with the GMO industry, but the genetics of the plants aren't the worst part (except for Terminator).

    EDIT: I'm with Pete, though. It might as well be a wonderful fabrication to get this scientist funding. For all we know, that's exactly what it is.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • edited April 2011
    Burden of proof.
    One of those, are you. Well I linked as far into it as I'm going to. I'm not getting a bio PHD and conducting years of research to make better blanket statements as an excuse for a movie reference in flamewar forums.
    Post edited by Rym on
  • Burden of proof.
    One of those, are you. Well I linked as far into it as I'm going to. I'm not getting a bio PHD and conducting years of research to make better blanket statements as an excuse for a movie reference in flamewar forums.
    Girly-man. Sie sind eine girly-man.
Sign In or Register to comment.