HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » FDA Quietly Pushes Throug...

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:24 PM

FDA Quietly Pushes Through Genetically Modified Salmon over Christmas Break

Source: Nation of Change

FDA Quietly Pushes Through Genetically Modified Salmon over Christmas Break
Published: Thursday 27 December 2012
“These fish of course threaten the very genetic integrity of the food chain when considering the fact that they will ultimately be unleashed into waters with other salmon and likely even the ocean at large.”

While you were likely resting or enjoying time with friends and family over the Christmas break, the United States Food and Drug Administration was hard at work ramming through genetically modified salmon towards the final acceptance process. Despite the frankenfish actually being blocked by Congress last year over serious health and environmental concerns, the FDA is making a massive push to release the genetically modified salmon into the world as the FDA-backed biotech giant and creator of the fish AquaAdvantage screams for profits.

These fish of course threaten the very genetic integrity of the food chain when considering the fact that they will ultimately be unleashed into waters with other salmon and likely even the ocean at large. The AquaAdvantage genetically modified salmon have been engineered through genetic manipulation to grow double the size and weight of the average salmon. Hitting 24 inches instead of 13 and weighing in at 6.6 pounds instead of 2.8, the GM fish contains both a gene from another salmon known as the Pacific Chinook as well as an eel-like fish.

Read more: http://www.nationofchange.org/fda-quietly-pushes-through-genetically-modified-salmon-over-christmas-break-1356625080



Just an FYI. Obama needs to fire Mr. (Monstanto executive) Taylor from the FDA and clean
up this mess imho. He HAS to know this shit is going on

111 replies, 12935 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 111 replies Author Time Post
Reply FDA Quietly Pushes Through Genetically Modified Salmon over Christmas Break (Original post)
99th_Monkey Dec 2012 OP
FiveGoodMen Dec 2012 #1
Coyotl Dec 2012 #4
FiveGoodMen Dec 2012 #5
byeya Dec 2012 #10
jerseyjack Dec 2012 #35
byeya Dec 2012 #97
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #7
Coyotl Dec 2012 #11
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #18
robinlynne Dec 2012 #22
bvar22 Dec 2012 #32
TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #49
cui bono Dec 2012 #101
lunasun Dec 2012 #19
glinda Dec 2012 #70
Sunlei Dec 2012 #85
glinda Dec 2012 #87
Sunlei Dec 2012 #90
glinda Dec 2012 #110
pscot Dec 2012 #2
Voice for Peace Dec 2012 #6
rhett o rick Dec 2012 #8
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #12
KT2000 Dec 2012 #15
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #25
Alamuti Lotus Dec 2012 #106
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #108
pscot Dec 2012 #16
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #21
KT2000 Dec 2012 #31
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #38
KT2000 Dec 2012 #56
NickB79 Dec 2012 #64
KT2000 Dec 2012 #72
NickB79 Dec 2012 #78
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #89
NickB79 Dec 2012 #92
byeya Dec 2012 #98
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #65
Texano78704 Dec 2012 #74
KT2000 Dec 2012 #77
LanternWaste Dec 2012 #95
KT2000 Dec 2012 #75
byeya Dec 2012 #99
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #107
LTX Dec 2012 #94
KT2000 Dec 2012 #100
NickB79 Dec 2012 #45
KT2000 Dec 2012 #57
AlecBGreen Dec 2012 #102
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #104
Berlum Dec 2012 #82
bloomington-lib Dec 2012 #3
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #27
bloomington-lib Dec 2012 #50
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #63
TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #55
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #62
TheMadMonk Dec 2012 #71
lunasun Dec 2012 #28
hopemountain Dec 2012 #9
SoapBox Dec 2012 #13
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #67
randr Dec 2012 #14
KT2000 Dec 2012 #17
cal04 Dec 2012 #23
classykaren Dec 2012 #24
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #80
montanacowboy Dec 2012 #20
azurnoir Dec 2012 #26
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #29
Chemisse Dec 2012 #36
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #41
Chemisse Dec 2012 #43
NickB79 Dec 2012 #48
azurnoir Dec 2012 #53
Le Taz Hot Dec 2012 #61
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #68
azurnoir Dec 2012 #52
classykaren Dec 2012 #30
sulphurdunn Dec 2012 #33
Blue_In_AK Dec 2012 #40
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #46
Berlum Dec 2012 #34
Chemisse Dec 2012 #37
Blue_In_AK Dec 2012 #39
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #42
Blue_In_AK Dec 2012 #47
NickB79 Dec 2012 #51
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #69
AlecBGreen Dec 2012 #103
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #105
reACTIONary Dec 2012 #66
blaze Dec 2012 #58
lunasun Dec 2012 #44
Hotler Dec 2012 #59
Blue_In_AK Dec 2012 #60
littlemissmartypants Dec 2012 #54
DeSwiss Dec 2012 #73
Blue_In_AK Dec 2012 #79
Tarheel_Dem Dec 2012 #76
99th_Monkey Dec 2012 #111
Fire Walk With Me Dec 2012 #81
MrYikes Dec 2012 #83
Sunlei Dec 2012 #84
B-ONE Lancer Dec 2012 #86
backtoblue Dec 2012 #88
LisaL Dec 2012 #91
dmosh42 Dec 2012 #93
Evasporque Dec 2012 #96
undeterred Dec 2012 #109

Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:35 PM

1. "He HAS to know this shit is going on"

Yes.

And what can we conclude from that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:40 PM

4. Not really. He has big fish to fry.

Never assume the head of the largest organization in the known universe knows everything going on!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:42 PM

5. On this one issue, sure.

But on the many ways that the government is working on behalf of the 1% and against the health, safety, and well-being of the rest of us?

He knows.

He's not on our side.

Else he wouldn't be working so hard to take away our safety net.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #5)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:14 PM

10. He knows and perhaps is even actively pushing it. Big $$$ you know. Integrity of the food chainr

 

be damned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to byeya (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:39 PM

35. Watch your mouth Sonny,

 

I you had said those things about St. Obama during election time, you would have been ridiculed or banned or something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jerseyjack (Reply #35)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:18 PM

97. Yes. There would have been sharp intakes of breath; and the arched eyebrows of censure. I might even

 

have been made to wear itchy clothing.
Thanks for the warning!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:07 PM

7. So you are saying "The buck stops over there"?

He knew who he appointed and I bet he fully knows what he is doing. Pres Obama has a staff that tells him what's going on. They even tell him that the progressives arent happy with our Monsanto-FDA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #7)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:24 PM

11. Precisely, not every decision crosses Obama's desk. D'oh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #11)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:47 PM

18. He is responsible. He has staff to keep him informed. He appointed Mr. Monsanto for a reason and

apparently not to watch out for our health.

Are you in favor of allowing the development of genetically modified salmon? I am not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:54 PM

22. he did choose the monsanto lawyer. he knows who he put in charge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:18 PM

32. Micheal Taylor is not the first Monsanto Lobbyist he had appointed to run a regulatory agency.

Google: "Tom Vilsack & Monsanto"
President Obama appointed Vilsack to head up the Dept of Agriculture.

If those were the only two, I could believe that it was just a run of mistakes,
but , sadly, the above ARE the pattern for this administration,
not the exceptions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #4)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:03 PM

49. On specific issues perhaps. On the general tone...

 

...of what the government is doing (has done time and time and time again) for big business at the expense of the general populace, he knows what's going on.

HE IS IN IT UP TO HIS FUCKING NECK. Or he's even more clueless than The Chimp, just more erudite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 05:12 PM

101. He appointed a Monsanto CEO to head the FDA.

Not only does he have to know this sort of thing is happening, he must want it to happen.

Why else would he appoint someone with that history?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:49 PM

19. knowing does not mean he or his family will eat it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:46 PM

70. I have wondered if he is kept isolated from a lot of things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glinda (Reply #70)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:56 AM

85. President Obama reformed FDA, it had not been changed for 70 years.

here's the link http://www.fda.gov/

Here is the FDA search on GM salmon and the public release of info.

http://google2.fda.gov/search?q=salmon&client=FDAgov&site=FDAgov&lr=&proxystylesheet=FDAgov&output=xml_no_dtd&getfields=*


You are probably right about Obama not knowing everything going on in all our Federal Gov and I hope the Leadership there is not taking advantage of thin oversight.

However, Obamas New changes requires computering everything. With the Bush admin. they still used paper maps and written files.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #85)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:24 AM

87. The second Bush made substantial cuts in the number of inspectors and other areas.

The FDA has epic fail and selling out in my opinion. Just look at how they do nothing about the dog jerky treats that remain in stores that are killing pets. I think the FDA needs to be overhauled and replaced with experts that are not on the dole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glinda (Reply #87)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:01 AM

90. yes the rule that allow pet poison to remain on store shelves, is because of lobbyist control

The Chinese would not even allow an inspection in the factory that produces pet treats. Someone should do a dna test on the 'meat' in those treats. One can only imagine what that stuff is that needs to be soaked in kidney damaging chemicals to kill the bacteria & stench.

I don't feed anything made in china to my animals. I've even lost trust in usa produced pet foods and watch the recalls carefully.

I lost one of my rottweilers years ago to acute renal failure. She was the only dog in my house that ate 2 cans of Iams dog food a day added to her dry food. She was very healthy, young high energy and went downhill in a week. 2 years later they had that big Iams recall and pet poison issue make the news.

These days pet food ingredient quality has taken a nose-dive. Not many slaughter scraps of quality left to feed to pets, they put those scraps into pink slime and hot dogs The words 'meat and bonemeal' make me shiver.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sunlei (Reply #90)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:05 PM

110. Combination lobbyists and lack of inspections.

I had ten pets that ate poisoned pet foods. Four suffered damage. Cost was about 10 thou over five years dealing with kidney and cancers. So tell me about it.
I subscribe to Truth About Petfood and the downloaded list about ingredients. ANY added vitamins in pet foods are all from China also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:35 PM

2. this is remarkably dumb

Wild salmon populations are already under enormous stress as a result of loss of spawning habitat and deteriorating ocean conditions. Corrupting the gene pool could have disastrous consequences. What the fuck is wrong with these people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 05:58 PM

6. they think they are god, and have an irresistible urge to keep doing the things that make money

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:08 PM

8. They are willing to kill the goose and the rest of us, for a buck. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:26 PM

12. This is remarkably smart...

...wild salmon populations are under enormous stress, we don't need to be doing more to deplete the wild population. These farm raised salmon will enhance our food supply, at less expense, and help relieve the pressure on the wild stock.

Salmon is one of my favorites - Can't wait to enjoy the new breed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reACTIONary (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:40 PM

15. farm raised salmon are often sick

they share their illnesses, espeically lice, with the wild salmon thereby further reducing the wild population. The salmon farms near my house raise fish that has to have tumors removed before they are sold. They taste like cheap beef - not salmon.

I hope your post was a joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KT2000 (Reply #15)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:03 PM

25. Nope. No joke...

All agriculture detrimentally affects the surrounding environment - None the less, we have to eat. As of 2007, salmon aquaculture produced approximately 69% of world salmon output, and over 80% of Atlantic salmon. Most of the salmon the world eats comes from aquaculture and actually tastes just fine. I know, its my favorite fish.

By cultivating salmon faster and more efficiently either the cost will go down and volume will increase resulting in less stress on other species and natural fisheries, or the volume will stay the same with the number of farming operations decreasing. Either way, its a net improvement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reACTIONary (Reply #25)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:17 PM

106. all this sounds like a stilted selection of talking points from a carefully prepared ad campaign

 

I hope somebody is paying you well..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Alamuti Lotus (Reply #106)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 07:38 PM

108. I take exception...

.. a "stilted selection" !?!!? "talking points" !?!?? My comments are PRIMO... well worth the six figure income I pull down hanging around on DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reACTIONary (Reply #12)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:41 PM

16. Penned salmon escape all the time

They pollute the surrounding waters and spread disease and parasites to the wild fish populations. You are aware of the high concentrations of dioxins found in farmed salmon and steelhead? Bon apetite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #16)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 06:52 PM

21. AquAdvantage will be cultivating...

... only sterile females at inland farms. "Escapees" can't reproduce, either natively or by interbreeding with wild stocks, because they are all triploid, with three sets of chromosomes. They plan to provide farmers with eggs rather than fish.

All agriculture detrimentally affects the surrounding environment and all food, even naturally occurring food, contains toxins. What are you going to do, stop eating?

Sorry, I consider this progress and I happy that our investment in genetic research is paying off so well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reACTIONary (Reply #21)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:17 PM

31. tell me -

have they figured out a way to predict the folding of proteins in genetically modified plants and animals? No, they have not. That may be a big surprsie yet to come.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KT2000 (Reply #31)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:45 PM

38. All plants and animals are genetically modified...

... and all domesticated agricultural plants and animals have been DELIBERATELY genetically modified through selective breading. This has been going on for millenia without any understanding of protein folding whatsoever at all. Nothing bad has happened. On the contrary, without the use of deliberate genetic modification, humanity would probably have died out long ago.

As an example, many farmed varieties of salmon already have twice the growth rate of wild salmon due to selective breading... that is, deliberate genetic modification.

The AquAdvantage salmon uses a growth hormone regulating gene from a Pacific Chinook salmon and a promoter gene from an ocean pout. In other words, these are genetic elements found in nature and introduced into a related fish - like cross breading.

I don't think we have anything to worry about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reACTIONary (Reply #38)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:18 PM

56. selective breeding is not GE

GE can create new proteins that have never existed before. (ever heard of prion diseases?) You should take a look at some of the animals they have created that were huge, misshapen, and in extreme pain. Do you really trust Monsanto to thoroughly test and tell you the truth when they never have? Have you read any of the few health studies in animals that ate GM foods? You would find there has been damage to vital organs.

You should really read up on this (Institute for Responsible Technology)
How is genetic engineering done?

Because living organisms have natural barriers to protect themselves against the introduction of DNA from a different species, genetic engineers must force the DNA from one organism into another. Their methods include:

•Using viruses or bacteria to "infect" animal or plant cells with the new DNA.
•Coating DNA onto tiny metal pellets, and firing it with a special gun into the cells.
•Injecting the new DNA into fertilized eggs with a very fine needle.
•Using electric shocks to create holes in the membrane covering sperm, and then forcing the new DNA into the sperm through these holes.

But haven't growers been grafting trees, breeding animals, and hybridizing seeds for years?

Genetic engineering is completely different from traditional breeding and carries unique risks.

In traditional breeding it is possible to mate a pig with another pig to get a new variety, but is not possible to mate a pig with a potato or a mouse. Even when species that may seem to be closely related do succeed in breeding, the offspring are usually infertile—a horse, for example, can mate with a donkey, but the offspring (a mule) is sterile.

With genetic engineering, scientists can breach species barriers set up by nature. For example, they have spliced fish genes into tomatoes. The results are plants (or animals) with traits that would be virtually impossible to obtain with natural processes, such as crossbreeding or grafting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KT2000 (Reply #56)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:08 PM

64. I'd suggest you take a basic college biology class

And ask the professor to explain the term "horizontal/lateral gene transfer".

For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer#Eukaryotes

"Sequence comparisons suggest recent horizontal transfer of many genes among diverse species including across the boundaries of phylogenetic "domains". Thus determining the phylogenetic history of a species can not be done conclusively by determining evolutionary trees for single genes".

Analysis of DNA sequences suggests that horizontal gene transfer has also occurred within eukaryotes from the chloroplast and mitochondrial genomes to the nuclear genome. As stated in the endosymbiotic theory, chloroplasts and mitochondria probably originated as bacterial endosymbionts of a progenitor to the eukaryotic cell.
Horizontal transfer of genes from bacteria to some fungi, especially the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae, has been well documented.
There is also recent evidence that the adzuki bean beetle has somehow acquired genetic material from its (non-beneficial) endosymbiont Wolbachia. New examples have recently been reported demonstrating that Wolbachia bacteria represent an important potential source of genetic material in arthropods and filarial nematodes.
There is also evidence for horizontal transfer of mitochondrial genes to parasites of the Rafflesiaceae plant family from their hosts (also plants), from chloroplasts of a not-yet-identified plant to the mitochondria of the bean Phaseolus, and from a heterokont alga to its predator, the sea slug Elysia chlorotica.
Striga hermonthica, a eudicot, has undergone a horizontal gene transfer from Sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) to its nuclear genome. The gene is of unknown functionality.
Researchers at the University of Arizona have found that the genome of pea aphids (Acyrthosiphon pisum) contains multiple genes that were horizontally transferred from fungi. Plants, fungi, and microorganisms can synthesize carotenoids, but torulene made by pea aphids is the only carotenoid known to be synthesized by an organism in the animal kingdom.
It was recently suggested that the malaria causing pathogen Plasmodium vivax has horizontally acquired from humans genetic material that might help facilitate its long stay in the body.
A 2012 paper proposes a novel bacteriophage-mediated mechanism of horizontal gene transfer between prokaryotes and eukaryotes. The authors show the widespread presence of nuclear localization signals in bacteriophage terminal proteins (TP), which prime DNA replication and become covalently linked to the viral genome. Taking into account the known role of virus and bacteriophages in HGT in bacteria, the authors propose that TP-containing genomes could be a vehicle of inter-kingdom genetic information transference all throughout evolution.


and

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100430155856.htm

"Since these bugs frequently feed on humans, it is conceivable that bugs and humans may have exchanged DNA through the mechanism we uncovered. Detecting recent transfers to humans would require examining people that have been exposed to the bugs for thousands of years, such as native South American populations," Feschotte said.


What were you saying about unnaturally breaching species boundaries?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #64)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:54 AM

72. Injecting the DNA

using specialized guns etc is unnatural.

DNA researchers are now saying that the more they learn about DNA, the more they realize they do not know. As your quote indicates, the genetic changes that have occured naturally do not always bode well for humans. This is nothing more than experimentation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KT2000 (Reply #72)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:04 AM

78. The most common DNA transmission route is via plasmids

Snippets of DNA packaged with enzymes that will cut open the host DNA strand to insert the new DNA sequence.

This method was developed by (wait for it)......scientists observing naturally occurring plasmids doing the exact same thing in bacteria. This is how bacteria develop antibiotic resistance so rapidly; they can share genes amongst different species.

Genetic shotguns (the method you referenced) aren't commonly used because of their inability to target specific gene sequences.

Are you now down to quibbling about the methods by which we replicate naturally occurring phenomena? I'd point out that artificially inseminating cattle is also unnatural, as is collecting and storing pollen from plants halfway around the planet in order to produce new hybrid crops that never would have existed otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #78)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 10:49 AM

89. +100 Thanks for your posts. Informative and factual. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reACTIONary (Reply #89)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:34 AM

92. Gotta get some use out of this biochem degree :-) NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #64)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:25 PM

98. Intentionally adding genetic material from another organism is not selective breeding as it's been

 

known through the centuries.

Until and unless GE in cases where the result is to be loosed into the environment is proved safe and compatible with
the ecosystem is needs to be banned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KT2000 (Reply #56)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 11:10 PM

65. You are right, selective breeding is not gentic engineering...

...but it is close enough that it provides a useful analogy and indication of the possible range of effects. Genetic engineering is far more specific and limited than natural mutations and variations, however, so the results are more controllable and less likely to be detrimental.

In this case the two genes are from two other other fish and have a very specific result - an increase in the duration of growth hormone production. This is not a "new protean" that has never existed before. It is a naturally occurring process that enhances a naturally occurring substance that is already part of the fish's bio-chemical make up.

As far as "breaching species barriers" that have been "set up by nature" I would invite you to read Darwin's Origin of Species to get a good understanding of what little meaning the conception of a species actually has and how few are the barriers to variation and recombination there are in nature.

Basically, humans have been breaching the "barriers set up by nature" for the whole of our existence, and this ability has been about the only thing that has allowed our survival. It's in our nature.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reACTIONary (Reply #65)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:09 AM

74. Thanks

for your responses on this topic. It is amazing how some suddenly throw science out the window on this issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Texano78704 (Reply #74)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:12 AM

77. better make sure

people are not mistaking corporate PR for science.
The science does not support the commercial, untested, unregulated use of this technology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Texano78704 (Reply #74)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 01:01 PM

95. Not so much throwing it out a window as much as simple concern with unintended consequences...

"how some suddenly throw science out the window on this issue..."

Not so much throwing it out your proverbial window as much as may be merely concern with unintended consequences.

E.g., Robert Oppenheimer symbolized for many the folly of scientists thinking they could control how others would use their research, and has also been seen as symbolizing the dilemmas involving the moral responsibility of the scientist in the nuclear world (from Thorpes wonderful book on scientific ethics and responsibilities, 'Disciplining Experts: Scientific Authority and Liberal Democracy in the Oppenheimer Case'

However, I do understand that we often trivialize and minimize those with opinions different that our own for a better sense of self-validation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink