Why do people object to genetic modification?

[geauxtohell]

Why do people object to genetic modification?

I don't think anyone would object to your genetic modification. In fact, I imagine that many would stand on a long line to contribute.



Anne Marie

I certainly don't want anyone to get cancer!

 

[geauxtohell]

If you took out the grass, and the beauty, you are right, that would look exactly like Afghanistan.

 

[AllieBaba]

That's just one hill...

[/IMG][/IMG]

 

[AllieBaba]

Ok, that's weird, I don't remember typing "there's only one hill"...

but whatever...

 

[AllieBaba]

[/IMG]

 

[geauxtohell]

You are right, there isn't a whole ton of data available, and I would imagine setting up a study for this hypothesis would be quite difficult.

That said, I found this juicy tidbit from the CDC...

A third possible reason that antibiotic resistance is a food safety problem is that the food supply may be a source of antibiotic-resistant genes. Harmless bacteria present in food-producing animals could be resistant, and humans could acquire these bacteria when they eat meat products from these animals. Once ingested, resistant genes from these bacteria could be transferred to bacteria that cause disease. Quantifying the extent to which this contributes to a food safety problem is difficult.

Not the exact mechanism that I was suggesting, but this has the same dangerous long-term effect. Even they say it is very challenging to test such a hypothesis.

It just seems like a stretch to me, especially considering the resiliance of the GNRs in the G.I. Tract. Most animal antibiotics aren't terribly sophisticated and are versions of penicillins and the Gram Negs are famous for their B-lactamases. On top of the fact that there probably isn't enough antibiotic being delivered to the site to degrade much of the flora. Most G.I. superinfections in humans come about as a result of serious IV antibiotics that occur during a hospital stay. We all have C. dif in our guts, but in small numbers. It doesn't become a problem until we open up a niche for it to take over and start dropping their toxins. I know you work in the field, so apologies if I am telling you anything you already know.

That being said, I am a big believer in the CDC, and if they acknowledge it could be a problem, then it's something we should look into.

My perspective is this: I grew up on a small farm and we vaccinated and used antibiotics. However, we used antibiotics when the animals were sick (i.e. had pneumonia). I was surprised to find out that for beef to be labeled as "organic" it can not be given steroids (makes sense) or antibiotics. That means animals aren't being treated when they are sick. That just seems cruel to me. I wonder how many people who buy "organic" beef realize that they are buying from operations where cattle are allowed to die of pneumonia rather than giving them a shot?

 

[geauxtohell]

Frankly, I don't see why people freak out about antibiotic use in animals. You aren't going to absorb another animal's antibiotics through your GI tract.

My personal objections to the over-use of antibiotics is fear of fueling the evolution of new, more virulent strains that we can't kill, much like appears to have happened with MRSA

That I certainly agree with. Feed lots and corporate farms prophylactically use antibiotics and create superbugs.

The idea behind prophylatic antibiotics is to keep the animals from getting sick so they don't lose any weight. The real problem is that they pack them in like sardines.

I hope the FDA/CDC adress this issue.

I also hope that MRSA never becomes resistant to vancomycin (though this has been documented a few times).

 

[editec]

I don't think (most) people really object to the good things that gentic modification can bring us, I think they fear the bad things that it can (and probably will knowing mankind) bring with it.

Plus therer's that whole fear of us unknowlingly modifying out of existence what appears to be a bad genetic trait from the human genome -- one that we assume has no value (and probably doesn't most of the time) -- but which might have benefits that as yet we cannot see.

You get my point here?

Science is well known for thinking it gets it, only to discover (think DDT for example) that they got only PART of the story.

 

[Immanuel]

I don't think (most) people really object to the good things that gentic modification can bring us, I think they fear the bad things that it can (and probably will knowing mankind) bring with it.

Plus therer's that whole fear of us unknowlingly modifying out of existence what appears to be a bad genetic trait from the human genome -- one that we assume has no value (and probably doesn't most of the time) -- but which might have benefits that as yet we cannot see.

You get my point here?

Science is well known for thinking it gets it, only to discover (think DDT for example) that they got only PART of the story.

That is exactly what I was trying to say earlier. It is not the process itself that I have a problem with. It is what mankind will do with it once we have it. Would it lead to the next, "Atom Bomb"? Would we end up with a new class of warfare/WMD's known as genetic warfare?

Immie

 

[geauxtohell]

The comfort zone is way to shallow to get any where with some of these people, once they get uncomfortable everything I say is blashpemy ans unfathomable.

I don't know you, I just object to people perpetuating bad science. Case in point saying an unstable macromolecule (like DNA from food) could cross our own cell walls, travel through the cytoplasm without any cellular tag/homing device like RNA has), cross into the nucleus, hijack our bodies own RNA transcription devices, transcribe it's own RNA, and send that RNA to our own ribosomes to make proteins...... Is wildly absurd and illustrates that you don't know what you are talking about.

That means your fears aren't grounded in a rational logic.

You aren't being blasphemous, you are just wrong.

We all know that fat is created by the body when toxicity is high, it's the natural protection mechinism for it to do so. We also know that your body never sleeps and a constant running engine. We know that the more you eat the faster you age. It's a simple wear and tear concept. We also know that the average person over eats. So how will genetic modification change that if the problem we are facing in the food crisis?

? What toxins? If your body is being poisoned by real toxins (like cyanide), making fat is it's last concern. Your bodies natural response is to speed up it's BMR and try to cycle out the toxicity (though "toxins" is a broad catagory and not all of them elicit that response). Our body makes fat when it has an over abundance of nutrition and it is an evolutionary response to store future fuel for the lean times.

We live in a day and age where there are no lean times, so people get fat. It's not the food, it's the lifestyle.

 

[geauxtohell]

Like I said, remove all the pretty stuff, and it looks exactly like Afghanistan!

 

[HUGGY]

I don't think (most) people really object to the good things that gentic modification can bring us, I think they fear the bad things that it can (and probably will knowing mankind) bring with it.

Plus therer's that whole fear of us unknowlingly modifying out of existence what appears to be a bad genetic trait from the human genome -- one that we assume has no value (and probably doesn't most of the time) -- but which might have benefits that as yet we cannot see.

You get my point here?

Science is well known for thinking it gets it, only to discover (think DDT for example) that they got only PART of the story.

Science didn't get DDT? Are you really that stupid? How about the people that sold the chemicals and those that applied the chemicals to the crops and fields didn't get it. Or maybe they "got it" and didn't give a shit about the consequences.

Why do you blame the science?

 

[geauxtohell]

That is exactly what I was trying to say earlier. It is not the process itself that I have a problem with. It is what mankind will do with it once we have it. Would it lead to the next, "Atom Bomb"? Would we end up with a new class of warfare/WMD's known as genetic warfare?

Immie

That's a larger issue that is common to all scientific advances (not just food). Short of stopping all research and scientific endeavors right now, it will always be an issue.

 

[geauxtohell]

Afghanistan.

 

[JBeukema]

The comfort zone is way to shallow to get any where with some of these people, once they get uncomfortable everything I say is blashpemy ans unfathomable.

I don't know you, I just object to people perpetuating bad science. Case in point saying an unstable macromolecule (like DNA from food) could cross our own cell walls, travel through the cytoplasm without any cellular tag/homing device like RNA has), cross into the nucleus, hijack our bodies own RNA transcription devices, transcribe it's own RNA, and send that RNA to our own ribosomes to make proteins...... Is wildly absurd and illustrates that you don't know what you are talking about.

That means your fears aren't grounded in a rational logic.

You aren't being blasphemous, you are just stupid.
.

*edited for accuracy

 

[Immanuel]

That is exactly what I was trying to say earlier. It is not the process itself that I have a problem with. It is what mankind will do with it once we have it. Would it lead to the next, "Atom Bomb"? Would we end up with a new class of warfare/WMD's known as genetic warfare?

Immie

That's a larger issue that is common to all scientific advances (not just food). Short of stopping all research and scientific endeavors right now, it will always be an issue.

I completely agree.

Even though I "object", if you could call my stance an objection, I would not state that the research should be halted. I object to stem cell research using fetal stem cells because I think that the harvesting of humans will follow. That doesn't mean I think that all stem cell research should stop.

In this case, it is not the research that is the issue, rather the potential useage of the results that cause most people to struggle with the idea.

And I fully admit to not knowing a whole hell of a lot about Genetics, but having a library's worth of knowledge on the subject was not a prerequisite to joining the discussion. The OP asked why do people object. I answered why I "object".

I also thank JB for bringing up the subject. These kind of threads can get quite informative.

Immie

 

[amiam*]

Why do people object to a science that could make our species hiv-resistant, remove genetic defects, improve out overall health, increase life expectancy...

Because they belive in natural selection.

 

[Uknow_me72]

The policy of the world leaders, its easier to ask for forgiveness then it is for permission.

@ geauxtohell.

Look at the long term effect of the current food cycle we are currently in. Do you notice the amount of unhealthy people. Keep in mind that the food cycle we are currently in started decades ago and look at where it ended up.

How many drugs have the FDA deemed safe to put on the market and later you see informmecials of class action lawsuits?

Lack of testing and lack of long term results because they just skip the lines and it ends with people dying.

I'm just weary because the same song and dance is being played here as all the other times.

 

[eagleseven]

It just seems like a stretch to me, especially considering the resiliance of the GNRs in the G.I. Tract. Most animal antibiotics aren't terribly sophisticated and are versions of penicillins and the Gram Negs are famous for their B-lactamases. On top of the fact that there probably isn't enough antibiotic being delivered to the site to degrade much of the flora. Most G.I. superinfections in humans come about as a result of serious IV antibiotics that occur during a hospital stay. We all have C. dif in our guts, but in small numbers. It doesn't become a problem until we open up a niche for it to take over and start dropping their toxins. I know you work in the field, so apologies if I am telling you anything you already know.

You are pretty much right. A patient receives a far larger dose of the latest antibiotics through an IV or even via the oral route than you'd receive from food.

I still have a quarter-sized scar on my leg from a MRSA infection I picked up fro the hospital I work at. I'm lucky the combination of three antibiotics I took worked.

We both agree that preventative use of antibiotics on livestock is a bad, bad idea.

That being said, I am a big believer in the CDC, and if they acknowledge it could be a problem, then it's something we should look into.

My perspective is this: I grew up on a small farm and we vaccinated and used antibiotics. However, we used antibiotics when the animals were sick (i.e. had pneumonia). I was surprised to find out that for beef to be labeled as "organic" it can not be given steroids (makes sense) or antibiotics. That means animals aren't being treated when they are sick. That just seems cruel to me. I wonder how many people who buy "organic" beef realize that they are buying from operations where cattle are allowed to die of pneumonia rather than giving them a shot?

It is a funny world we live in, isn't it? Everything is black-and-white, like the "organic" label. I generally avoid organic foods because I'm still a lowly lab tech, not making serious money, and often "organic" food is grown on factory-farms regardless.

Antibiotics definitely have a place, but they are no panacea. Soon, however, we will begin using bacteriophages in lieu of antibiotics, because the bacteria have a much harder time dealing with viral attacks. Further, the bacteriophages evolve faster than the bacteria, and so resistance is unlikely to develop. But there is also the minute risk of the bacteriophage evolving to target our cells...unlikely, but possible.

 

[eagleseven]

I don't think (most) people really object to the good things that gentic modification can bring us, I think they fear the bad things that it can (and probably will knowing mankind) bring with it.

Plus therer's that whole fear of us unknowlingly modifying out of existence what appears to be a bad genetic trait from the human genome -- one that we assume has no value (and probably doesn't most of the time) -- but which might have benefits that as yet we cannot see.

You get my point here?

Science is well known for thinking it gets it, only to discover (think DDT for example) that they got only PART of the story.

Science didn't get DDT? Are you really that stupid? How about the people that sold the chemicals and those that applied the chemicals to the crops and fields didn't get it. Or maybe they "got it" and didn't give a shit about the consequences.

Why do you blame the science?

Actually, they (accurately) believed the benefits of reducing the spread of Malaria in Africa outweighed the long-term risks.

DDT use in Malaria-free regions? Not so smart...