 Originally Posted by khh
I'll have a crack. What are the real dangers of genetic engineering, and what are the most common misconceptions?
Perhaps the largest danger is "genetic pollution," wherein a gene not normally found in nature rapidly hybridizes with other species of plant, sometimes for the better, but usually for the worst. For example, a type of herbicide-resistant plant may cross with a weed, and lead to a new breed of weeds immune to that certain herbicide. The other major problem would be unintended consequences. Say a new form of potatoes is grown to be resistant to a particular type of microbe, and so the microbial population diminishes. Well, say these microbes are vital for cloud formation. Now that fewer of these exist, there are less clouds, and havoc ensues. Not the best examples, but you get the idea. I guess if you really wanted to go all-out extreme, it would be possible to reverse-engineer a new strain of smallpox from a bit of common ebola, which is rather scary, but quite unlikely to happen.
As for common misconceptions, you hear all the time about "frankentaters" and "fishy tomatoes" and the like, often depicted with cartoons like this:

Such claims and pictures promote entirely the wrong idea. While it is true that some tomatoes contain genes from a flounder, the fear mongers have us believe, at some level, that fish flesh is actually being produced within the tomato, which is simply untrue.
 Originally Posted by Odd_Nonposter
Is Monsanto out to get us all, or are they just money-hogging capitalists?
I'm very pro-GE, but don't like those who are trying to extort farmers by taking advantage of the patent system.
I haven't done much digging into the economic side of things, but I would guess they're greedy bastards more than anything else. I agree, it is ridiculous how they abuse the patent system, and something about that must be changed in the near future.
|
|
Bookmarks