It "might"? Don't you think you need a better reason that a possibility? When you drive a car, you MIGHT get hit by another car. You go out, you MIGHT get robbed. You eat food, you MIGHT get food poisoning. You sit an airplane, it MIGHT crash. Build a nuclear reactor, it MIGHT explode. Now tell me, what are the probability rates for each of this versus the probability DNA/RNA swapping?


Have you forgot how you learnt how most things worked when you were a kid? That's right, you toyed and tinkered with it. You can't possibly learn anything without first experimenting (toying) with it.

Long term consequences for any scientific endeavour is difficult. We're a relatively young species on this planet, and our "advance" history doesn't even span more than 2000 years. We don't have the kind of data which we can use to predict effects, we haven't been around long enough.

To TS,

U are asking the wrong question

It's not a "FOR" or "AGAINST" thingy

The matter involve a lot of other stuffs in it --- like when will the technology be used, for what purpose, are we aware (and prepared) for the consequences, and so on

I sincerely hope that you can re-shape your question

Thank you

One thing is for sure, without these genetic engineered crops, we would not able to sustain ourselves on the pure strain of paddy, or any other animal and plant products.

Genetic engineered products might have side effect, and certain environment issues are unavoidable. However, to keep on insisting on old school way has no help whatsoever. Organic crops or traditional way of agriculture cannot feed the whole world, and sometimes due to the crop nature, the requirement for mass production could cause severe negative environmental impacts. For an example, the traditional way of manage paddy field requires heavy irrigation. Due to the dams resulted from the intensive irrigation program, the water level of the Chao Phraya is greatly affected by dry season due to the mass evaporation. Water quality is severely affected by the accumulation of toxic waste resulted from the huge plantation. Sadly, the mass cultivation are also held responsible for severe methane emissions. Needless to say, the decreased biodiversity of the area(due to deforestation, water depth of river basin and etc) is also one of the major concerns.

How could we possibly deal with the water shortage, drastic climate change, pest, fungi, paddy diseases without genetically modified crops? Scientists had successfully cross breed different species of rice by making use of the small genome of Asian rice Oryza sativa. Certain new rice types such as Golden rice which contain beta-carotene(precursor to vitamin A) could even solve the vitamin A intake deficiency in poor countries. There are a few of examples here :



Tissue culture helped big companies to maintain high quality and yield (Oil palm and rubber nurseries). On the aquaculture part, thanks to the effort of scientists we could enjoy cheap red tilapia(originated from cross between a mutant reddish-orange female Mozambique tilapia and a normal male Nile tilapia done by Taiwanese) for RM5-6 per kg. The potential of this industry is just immense, as you can see the outcomes of such genetically modified products already benefited the whole population on earth in spite of we are still at the infant stage of genetic engineering.

For those who wary of the cancerous genetic modified product, they have to understand that a genetically modified product has to pass through several protocols and the selection is extremely cautious. Studies on these modified products are tedious and may take years to a few decades to complete. The society is always alerted, flaws such as a single cancer promoting factor in a modified plant can be found out and announced to the public by various organizations such as Greenpeace or our very own Consumer Associations of Penang. Gene therapy could even take longer period to be implemented into routine clinical use.

*First long post in lowyat.net, correct me if I was wrong*

cool. this taken from my writings about GM food a year ago.

"In my opinion, a person can look at it in 2 perspectives. U need not necessarily choose a stand, but it is important to understand the implications that come with both standpoints.

The 1st is the scientific, or rather practical view of things. With the recent global food shortage in certain regions around the world, escalating food prices have driven many families to a dead end. War zones, which have limited food supply needs an efficient food transportation system to feed armies. GM food, which are modified to be tougher and longer lasting, also providing certain perks have been seen as a viable solution. With these, foods can be transported to deeper regions in the world either as supplies or as aid. Thus far, with no reported substantial claims about negative effects of the consumption of GM food, the research in this field is seen as a win-win situation for all. From a practical point of view anyway.

The other way which u could look at it is from the ethical point of view. GM foods have been tempered with genetically, with genes studied and modified to produce desirable qualities. Creationists around the world have been opposing research into this field due to the very nature of it being against the laws of nature. (pun intended) Furthermore, there has also been questionable emphasis placed on the safety of the products produced, with not much data gathered on the effects of long-term consumption.

in my opinion, both sides of the argument are very plausible. This could go either way and is still generating controversies as i write."

In your opinion, both sides of the argument is possible. But in reality, the latter is completely ridiculous and impossible. First of all the "law of nature" is a fallacious fantasy crafted by delusional people who believe this world is being destroyed by 'evil' doings of mankind and many people buy these ideas cause they are simply ignorant towards basic science. They'd rather rattle like empty bottles than to spend some time in the library reading books.

What is so unnatural about "genetic engineering"? Even if you don't believe in dinosaurs and evolution, scientist has seen with their own eyes that genetic changes occurs very frequently in almost every organism. Sexual reproduction, viruses, pollination, spontaneous errors during genetic replication are all common example of how genetic structure and sequence keep changing. If you believe in evolution, then for us to have come to the kind of biodiversity (alot alot of different kind of living things) that we have today means there has been a great deal of genetic changes so far. If I were to stand in front of you and ask you "Do we look the same?" you'd definitely answer "No". The reason why we all look different is because in sexual reproduction, the genetic makeup are always altered abit. Yes, as a whole, my DNA is very very similar to yours, but that slight difference makes you look different.

People always retort, "Yea that's how it happens naturally but GE is when people play around with genes in labs". Hmm lets examine this problem. If a farmer were to take seed and plants it all over him farm and later harvest them, would you say that is something unnatural? Would you say that his crops is not natural since he planted them instead of plucking them from the forest? Obviously no! It doesn't matter if it is the wind, or the birds, or any other animal or humans who carry these seeds from one place to the other and let them sprout and grow. It is the same with genes, instead of having the mix themselves up in the cells of living things, we not have the tool small enough to see and move them around? We humans are part of the system, part of nature too. Whatever we do, be it plant fruits, rear cows, build houses, hunt whales destroy the ozone or end the world with a bunch of nukes, it's all natural. Nature doesn't always work to preserve what there is now, it's constantly changing. A volcanic eruption can kill many things but also give life to other, so as a flood or hurricane. You think hunting whales till they become extict is unnatural? Actually among animals themselves, competition and hunting drives many species to extinction it's just that we don't realize it because we can't be keeping track of every single unique DNA there is in the world and see which one goes extinct. Don't twist my words either, I am not saying everything that humans do is right or wrong good or bad, that is a totally different question. All I am saying is that we and whatever we do is part of nature.

Another fallacy is that genetic engineering is is harmful to health because it is 'unnatural". If you eat poisonous mushroom you'll die even though it's "natural". Even the bird shit that falls on your car is "natural", though I'll bet you'll get diarrhea from eating it. Just because it's something that exist already doesn't mean it is safe for health. GM food is very safe because they are just altering how it grows and what it produces. They can make it grow faster, bigger, contain more of a certain nutrient and so on. It's not some random mad scientist experiment. They identify exactly what gene causes what decide what gene they wanna put into the plant or animal. Just because your chicken got fatter or your carrot has more vitamin A doesn't mean it's gonna turn poisonous whether in the short run or long run.

There seems to be a gross misunderstanding here about GM. Please, let me explain. And please, read all the way to the end of this post, it get juicier as we approach the end!

Firstly, there's this misconception that there isn't enough food for the world population and that's why we need GM plants because it makes more food. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (UN FAO) has determined that we make more food in the world today than the world needs and that we can meet the demands of future needs without the use of GM crops. The reason people go hungry is because the produce is being poorly distributed worldwide, consumable food is being used on things like Biofuel while people die of hunger and many others.

For more information of the facts and international reports on food security, go here:
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/ca...orld-facts-vers

Here's a quick glimpse into the rosy world of GE agriculture:


The other misconception in this thread is about what GE is all about. I'm going to limit my discussion here on GE foods and agriculture only. I'm not going to even talk about designer babies, petroleum eating fungus, glowing cats and all other forms of GE organisms.

So really, what is GE agriculture? Is it all about making plants produce more vitamins? Is it about making plants live on less water?

Well the answer is, as usual, both yes and no. Yes, genetic engineering can make plants produce nutrients it naturally could not. Yes, genetic engineering can make plants grow using less resources while making more food.

But no, that's not all there is to it. And this is where things get real bad. I'm talking so bad that it's just downright evil.

Genetically modified plants are not like other plants. Most people think that GM plants is all about taking specific genes from some plants to boost the ability of another plant or editing the genetics of one plant to make it produce more food, more nutrients and use less resources like water and fertiliser.

Well, there's actually more to it than just that. Genetically modified plants are also made by adding those plants with genes from certain animals and bacteria. Fish genes in corn? While we're there let's also stick some spider genes in potatoes.

Modern genetically modified plants are made genetically resistant to certain powerful herbicides made by the same company that makes the GM plants in the first place. This means you can plant your entire farm with GM plants, then just spray the entire place with herbicide from the same company that sold you the GM seeds. All other plants like grass, weed and others will die except the GM plants. Convenient yes?

But wait, because you did that, the soil of your farm and the groundwater in your farm has now been polluted with that powerful herbicide. So now, you can't plant any other plants on your farm except the plants made by that GM plant company for the next few years! Talk about customer lock-in! Sounds a bit like iPod and iTunes now doesn't it? It is... it's just far more serious.

Why not use some other herbicide instead? Because those might not work with your GM plant and might end up killing the plants that you planted using expensive GM seeds from the GM plant company.

Aww poor thing. Can't you afford to buy more of those expensive GM seeds for the next round of farming? How about saving seeds from the previous harvest for re-plantation? Opps! Wait! You can't do that! Go and re-read your contract with you GM plant company! You have given permission, through the contract, for the GM company to do random spot-checks on your farm and all your facilities to make sure you're not reusing the seeds for re-plantation. And yes, they can audit you and then sue you all the way from the court to bankruptcy.

Oh and one more thing too, normally after a harvest, farmers plant plants like peanuts or other specific plants that suck in nitrogen from the air and lock it inside the ground. This is important as the restoration of nitrogen allows the next batch of plants to have a fertile land to grow in. But you can do this any more. Oh no, because you used that herbicide that your GM plant company gave you, now you cant even restore the fertility of your land. So what do you do? Buy fertiliser of course! And guess what? The same company that sold you the GM plants, the same company that sold you the herbicide also sells fertiliser! How cool is that! Kill 3 birds with one stone? I don't think so.

Oh do you also have problems with insects in your farm? Don't worry, the GM plants have been genetically modified to emit toxins that kill insects and other pests! You're free! So what about the effects on humans who consume these toxin emitting plants? Oh don't worry, they'll be fine. Studies have been inconclusive so far, so we assume it's safe until someone proves otherwise.

You must understand that all GM organisms are patented globally and are considered intellectual property. So who owns the intellectual property of GM organisms? Who are the guys who sell the GM plants, the herbicide and the fertiliser? 90% of the patents are owned by Monsanto Corporation while the he other 10% is among others owned by Syngenta AG, Bayer AG and DuPont Corporation.

Try YouTube for "Monsanto" and see what kind of a company we're talking about here. These are the same evil masterminds people who plan to "feed the world".

But the farmers have a choice right? I mean if they don't want to get screwed by companies like Monsanto, they can just stick with the tried and true method?

To answer that, let me tell you a story. This is a true story. It's a story of an illegal war, a story of invasion, a story of fallen dictators and a story of the imposition of a new order at gunpoint. This is the story of Iraq.

During the invasion of Iraq in Operation Iraqi Freedom, almost all of the farmland in Iraq was destroyed. Iraq's seedbank (most governments store agricultural seeds for food emergencies) was bombed and hence there's no more seed in Iraq to resume farming after the invasion. Once the invasion was complete and the coalition took control of Iraq, the countries established a new government led by the United States, called the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) which was eventually led by a guy named Lewis Paul Bremer III (Bremer for short).

So now we have a hungry nation that desperately needs seeds for farming. Don't worry! America will save them all! And so the US brought in Monsanto and gang to provide the seed needs of Iraq. So now, almost all Iraqi farms are GM farms! Cool eh? Look how GM is "effectively feeding the world"! GM is great! Wohooo!!1

While he was boss, Bremer authorised a series of 100 orders called Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 1 all the way to 100. The full list of orders is available here: http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/i...tml#Regulations

From that list, look at Order 39, Order 17, Order 57, Order 77 and finally Order 81.
(Heads Up: Those links on that page is PDF files)

Coalition Provisional Authority Order No. 81 - Patent, Industrial Desgin, Undisclosed Information, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety Law

In those orders you would find that all Iraqi public businesses are automatically transferred to foreign hands and how it has been made illegal for farmers to save seeds. It's also illegal for farmers to try and cross breed the GM plants with others, also illegal for farmers to plant a mix of GM and non-GM plants.



If you have a non-GM farm and somehow your field gets contaminated by GM plants, you can get yourself sued.

And oh guess what? The CPA Orders also cannot be reversed by any democratically elected Iraqi government for the next 40 years! That's 2043 mind you! Now this is serious lock in! I'm sure Steve Jobs wishes he could get in on this!

This is what GM is all about. It's always all about the money. You want to feed the world? You want to end hunger? You must spend your time thinking of ways to improve logistics, you think of ways to have more equal distribution of food and you think about how to prevent greed.

More information on GM and GM-related issues:
1. Greenpeace Genetic Modification page (lots of info)
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/ca...tic-engineering

2. Blog from an Argentinian girl about the destruction GM causes in her hometown
http://weblog.greenpeace.org/ge/archives/001374.html

3. An Iraqi guy's views on Paul Bremer's 100 orders (CPA Orders @ Bremer Orders)
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=42948

4. More on why Iraqi farmers and people are suffering
http://www.alternet.org/world/62273/

5. More on Iraq seed issue
http://hubpages.com/hub/Seeds-ofChangeDemo...Farming-Methods

6. How the Coalition Provisional Authority has completely taken over Iraq's economy
http://www.ifg.org/news/IraqHandOver.html

7. Complete list of CPA Orders
http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/i...tml#Regulations

8. YouTube video explaining the problem of GM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H9WZGKQeYg

This post has been edited by DeniseLau: Oct 27 2009, 03:59 PM

If only genetic engineering is well understood enough to be applied in medical field, introducing a viral vector and able to target the mutation site with high efficacy would save lifes btw, IMHO GM foods are needed by those poor countries in large amounts as they're richer in nutritions and imagine the world without GE, the silk prices will hike up like hell. GE FTW!

Mutations can be good or bad. Such as mutation to the CCR5 gene protects some gay community fellas from being infected by HIV

This post has been edited by Jr.Koh: Oct 21 2009, 12:23 AM

Put plant genes into brain, allows external control of the brain, source here :

Algae and Light Help Injured Mice Walk Again

That's only an experimental and the results on mice alone cannot be extrapolated to humans you have to work up to the food chain mate!

I'm with it for those who really use recombinant DNA technology to improve human life but I'm definitely against those global elites who use it to enslave everyone.

Making new viruses has been one of the process involving this technology.

lol i dont know what u have been reading.

1. how on earth do u equate farming (and propagation for that matter) to be on the same level as genetic engineering? im not sure if u know the difference between cross breeding and genetic engineering. cross breeding has been practised for centuries where farmers commonly cross breed crops to get a crop of superior quality. certain 'genetically modified' products have foreign DNA incorporated. the question about it being 'natural' is whether the product will come to be eventually without our guiding hands. the question is about creation, not destruction.



2. if you eat a poisonous mushroom u die. therefore u dont eat poisonous mushrooms. simple logic. but if u dont know if a mushroom is poisonous, u practise caution and test if it's safe to eat. just because the mushroom beside it is safe to eat doesnt mean this one is. im not sure where u got that from but GM foods are not deemed harmful because they are artificial. the main concern of food techies is that it is unproven to be safe when taken in the long run and that cannot be refuted.


p.s: reading further from your wall of text, i assume that you are also pro-cloning, and u also support the notion of creating a half man-half horse creature (centaur). i mean, with the mental ability of humans and a body of a horse, they could be created as the future generation to replace us. with a lower body of a horse, mankind could reduce the need for modern transportation and also reduce congestion and carbon emissions. i see it as win-win situation. oh even better yet, how about humans with the body of a horse AND wings that could fly? that way we could reduce the usage of cars AND planes. how great is that!

This post has been edited by b3ta: Oct 24 2009, 07:43 PM

Lol...well, well...

I learned genetic engineering, so? I had cloned quite a number of bacteria.

Am I potential enough to become a bioterrorist? LOL...

What's next? Ban Genetic Engineering?

For food, there are plant/crops improvement program which does not require GE at all.

For medical sciences, most of the drug for human consumption or usage had more or less involved with genetic engineering. The antibiotics you take, the vaccine, BOTOX and placenta for your face...etc.

If we claim that we can't do something which is never "occur" in nature, Don't take pills when you sick because pills are not available in nature. Even if the ingredient does, it does not available for such a high concentration in nature.

Genetic engineered mosquitoes had been release in malaysia in dengue endermic region to help to reduce dengue infection. So, now what? After all, all living organism whether G. engineered or organic share the same amino acids and DNA nucleotides which is in "nature".

What so unnature about?





-biotech & medical researcher-