/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1859374
What exactly is wrong with it? "I don't know what can happen so lets not try it", seems a little backwards.

>>1859401
It's unethical and disgusting.

>>1859406
You are everything that is wrong with this world.

We already force feed life stalk chemicals that make them grow to abnormal levels, so why not try something that doesn't involve eating chemicals that cause outrageous growth in humans.

It's a new field.

Would you have stopped making guns in their first years because they had a tendency to blow your hand off if improperly cleaned?

We need to work with it to get better at it.

stopping the research and outlawing production isn't the answer, but tight restrictions and setting levels of quality is fine. Just loosen up the restrictions later when we have a good idea what we are doing.

protip: fish you think is fresh probably isn't, and fish that came from anything other than a fish farm is probably poisonous in large amounts.

>>1859416
Except in that case WE KNOW they aren't going to up and start producing venom because we put a 1 where a 0 should be.

>>1859444

I'm a biochemistry major.

You don't know what you are talking about.

But I will refute your points to educate others who share your mistaken opinions.

>>1859433
except we wont have any idea what we're doing until a few decades after we did it, we won't know the long term effects until it's too late to do anything about them.

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/10/genetically-engineered-protatoes-boost-yield-nutrition.a
rs

Putting genes in potatoes to produce more protein and become more efficient I approve of. Putting genes in crops to prevent them from producing seed for the next season, make them produce pesticides in every bite, and then patent trolling I do not approve of. Fucking Monsanto.

Eventually? Yay.

Right now? Meh. We have work to do.

Yay

So what if it fails and people die? I don't see any big deal with that. It's little risk with a large potential reward.

>>1859465
>So what if it fails and people die?

There will be no reward, the moment "superAIDSpoliocancerflu caused by genetically engineered salmon" hits the headlines, you can kiss all research funding goodbye .

>>1859454
WOAH WOAH WOAH HOLD ON! You're telling me if they switch a couple nucleobases they could make a venomous cow? OMFG DO WANT!

>>1859454
You didn't refute any point he made.

>>1859476
You can't just make a new virus by putting in the wrong data. Well you can but it's absurdly unlikely. Genes are constantly shuffling around on every living thing on the planet. If every time there was a change there was a less than negligible chance of creating superAIDSpoliocancerflu there'd be nothing but viruses.

>>1859458

Apparently there are also cases of plants and weeds nearby those fields gaining pesticide production properties.

As a student with some genetics background I don't see how thats possible without cross species pollination, but it's something to look into.

Maybe plants have a gene shuffling function that's gone unnoticed till now since this is a new technology. Maybe they incorporate DNA pieces from pollen that lands on them from other plants and jam it into their own seeds.

It's interesting. Needs a study done.

>>1859476

And what's wrong with superAIDSpoliocancerflu? It would weed out the weak. Humans could use some natural selection.

>>1859406
LMAO.....up sir, are the true joker

>>1859488

>>1859500

0/10 or just a dumb ass environmentalistfag

>>1859490
>And what's wrong with superAIDSpoliocancerflu?

Research would end if it could be unquestionably linked to genetically engineered food since the media would definitely have have a field day turning it into a shitstorm which would probably succeed in making it illegal.

>>1859484
>>1859477

No, I said he didn't know what he was talking about.

Biological venoms are usually small proteins, occasionally chemicals, which are useful to other animals because of their ability to stuff it somewhere in their bodies where it's not causing harm.

poisons require specialized body systems which grab the toxin and shuttle it to it's required location.

A single nucleotide polymorphism will not make a poison cow.

a terrible prion disease maybe, but that would kill the cow before it could be eaten, likely. But it's extremely unlikely, as we are usually taking preexisting genes and relocating them to new organisms.

IE: It's just as likely that two animals having sex would create the horrible poison/disease in their child. Unless we specifically design a cow to secrete poison in it's milk.

>>1859508
He was saying that if it caused deaths for whatever reason, even if they only numbered in the dozens, that it would be severely detrimental to any future advancement in that field, and he's right.

You can be Darwinist all you want, but if you can't be a realist and acknowledge the simple fact that the public is easily manipulated by the media and that the law makers willingly pander and please idiots for votes, then what good are you?

>>1859530
Truth, people are still paranoid about nuclear energy

WE AM PLAY GODS!!!

>>1859530

Saying bio engineering can cause a super virus and kill many, ruining it's funding is like saying mercury gets mixed up in place of the corn syrup in Coke and millions die.

It's highly unlikely and pointless to discuss.

It's unnatural and I don't like it, that said I have no problem with it so long as all food that's made from it is clearly labelled.

>>1859556

Nothing you consume is natural.

>>1859554

exactly this

well, except for the fact mercury doesn't self-replicate, but it's the same principle, It won't get there unless somebody puts it there.

And even that would be retardedly difficult.

>>1859554
>can cause a super virus

I seriously doubt he meant it would, what with:
>superAIDSpoliocancerflu
seems like it's more of a "whatever the fuck" than a specific thing.

Certainly wouldn't want to try a modification on a protein and cause a prion disorder.

shits like a grey goo scenario, except the grey goo is your brain and nervous system.

>>1859406
>subjective bullshit

WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT!! So I take an animals genetic material into my own genetic material whenever I eat something?

Yay

There's no risk unless the guy doing it wants to kill people.

>>1859594
In the most base terms yes.

Your microfauna in your intestine can absorb naked DNA from time to time, but it's unlikely. Your body degrades proteins and incorporates their material for your own uses.

>>1859601

yes. like every science.

>>1859581
>ethics
>subjective

>>1859618

How is it unethical?

Directed breeding is just as unethical. This is just thousands of times more efficient.

>>1859618

>Using ethics in a rational discussion

>>1859633
>disregarding ethics on a subject of public interest

> inb4 "playing god, waaaaaaaaah"

>>1859653

don't make this into a greentext thread.

Why is this unethical?

>>1859653

>Implying the public interest is the public interest when propaganda is involved

>>1859626
>How is it unethical?

You're deciding what a lifeform will be like, selective breeding is just improving the chances that your guess will be right.

Outright deciding how and what a lifeform will be is unethical.

>>1859406

LIEberal douchbag retard confirmed

>I think it's still unsafe
>implying you know jack shit about biology

>>1859670
>public interest

I don't think that means what you think it means

>>1859673
I thought LIEberals were for this.

OP here, I'm not really seeing any explanations regarding why the people that are in favor of this are in favor of it.

>>1859669

If it were human, yes.

since it's an animal, no, not really. Then the use of hormones or enriched feed would be unethical.

Selective breeding could produce the same changes as genetic engineering. It would just take thousands of years.

I fail to see how this is unethical. Can you link me to a philosophical argument which states changing existing animals is wrong? Especially when farmers strive to do it nearly daily?

>>1859705
they just want to piss off the guys that are against it, that enough?

>>1859716
No, I'd like to hear actual reasons, not just disproving peoples fears. That isn't enough, why should we do it?

>>1859691

Eh, i see more libertarians in favor of things like this than actual liberals

>>1859705

Yes, some aspects should be put on hold, particularly pesticide use in plants as has been shown to spread to surrounding plants.

No, we should not shut down all aspects of it in the food sector, as it has the potential to save thousands of people starving. IE golden rice.

Vitamin enriched and larger than normal plants and animals should pose no problems, as those are fairly harmless aspects.

Wild new modifications should be looked at with a critical eye.

I'm against it, but not for the reasons people would think.

>>1859734

reasons being?

>>1859374
>I think it's still unsafe and should be put on hold for commercial use until we know what the long term effects (50+years) are.
Translation:
>fuck starving people, I'm scared and that's what matters.

>>1859737
I don't think we should fuel population growth more than we already are.

>>1859748
Semi-reasonable argument, I'm impressed

>>1859374
>the company’s process alters its salmon to produce a growth hormone year-round, and not just part of the year.
>not just part of the year

IT'S ALREADY IN THE SALMON YOU EAT YOU FUCKING IDIOTS!!

>>1859748

Well... yeah, but if your us then you have to have something to give to the bleeding hearts, otherwise it's all FRANKENMEAT and FISHTOMATO and our funding gets cut.

It's harder to cut funding if you go "hey, we stopped those guys in turkmenisafrichinastan from eating each other, plus they can grow crops now, cause we made our plants capable of growing in their shitty desert."

I would love to make me some hideous half dinosaur/half buffalo crossbreeds I could ride across the prairies, but until the technology gets out of hot water with the retards I can't do that.

>>1859374

Fuck that fish on the left looks like a smug asshole.

I bet he drives an electric car.

>>1859764
Holy shit, did anyone actually read the article? *skims through thread*, nope, just this guy I guess, and yeah, I'm a little angry now too.

>>1859764
but not in those amounts

>>1859769

I'm the guy explaining why shit wouldn't go down.

I didn't read it cause it would be either sensational BS, or not matter in convincing people.

>>1859772

Once you drain the blood and cook the meat you would be unlikely to find the growth hormone in the fish itself at any levels which would wreck you.

it's certainly no worse than beef.

Just pass a law requiring gene modded fish to be eaten atleast 1 a week by the company's CEO.

>>1859772
.......How does the hormone magically stay in the muscle tissue after you've cleaned it? HOW? Hell, suppose for a second you ate a teenage salmon that was swimming in the stuff, would it now suddenly be magically fine and wholesome and dandy? It won't do jack shit unless you eat salmon every fucking day at every fucking meal and even then you would still have to explain why you're eating raw, untreated, unclean salmon.

>Opponents fear that the GM fish may mix with wild salmon, ruining that population.

how would that ruin the population? (not to mention, what the fuck does 'ruining' a population mean?)

Even if the fish weren't sterile, their offspring shouldn't be affected by increased growth hormone in the parent. The article says they're "genetically engineered," but i'm assuming the genes aren't actually involved (and it's just added growth hormone).

>>1859816

It's likely encoded to produce more growth hormone.

but those fish would die off in a few generations. If additional growth hormone output was a survival benefit than they would have it already. Likely the young would be extra large, and more likely to be taste targets.

>>1859816
>genes aren't actually involved

They are, see:
>>1859764

The GH occurs naturally anyways, what they did is keep the "on-off" switch from turning off.

>>1859827
>If additional growth hormone output was a survival benefit than they would have it already

Not necessarily, there's tons of things that benefit survival that aren't incorporated by many species.

Example: poisonous bears that shoot acid.

>>1859846
>poisonous bears that shoot acid

CHECK-AND-MATE evolutionfags

But in all seriousness you're kinda right, and that would also be bad-fucking-ass

..........It's a GH that occurs naturally in the fish, you eat it anyways, so why is this a problem? Disregarding that altogether and saying, "Oh well it isn't in those amounts!!", isn't valid because you would need to explain why it is you don't clean your fish before eating it, and if you do you would then have to explain how the hormone magically survived all that (in substantial amounts mind you) and still got on your plate. Now as far as, "it can harm the local population if it escapes!!" BS, well, how exactly? Salmon that have shorter lives won't reproduce as readily as normal salmon since salmon mating cycles are already in place, if one matures and then dies much faster then how would it find a mate when all potential mates are far away from spawining pools going about their business and NOT sexing. Anyone that is honestly promoting this as a bad idea is just ignorant, or a fear mongering politician pandering to the ignorant for support and power.


Srsly, fuck this shit.

>>1859880
And the equally sad and infuriating part is that I'm studying Mechanical engineering, and I still got this.

You have to be a special kind of stupid to be alarmed by that news.

There's nothing wrong with genetically engineered food. It's not like it's toxic or radioactive.

Bananas as consumers know them are essentially genetically engineered.

You realize that all food has been modified ever since we started farming it. Everything from crops to livestock has been altered since we started domesticating and harvesting it, respectively.

Given that modification is being done using methods never seen before, if the process causes health risks then naturally the process would be stopped. Everything else is just a moral argument or an opinion why you disagree with that.

>opponents of the plan like Dale Kelley with the Alaska Trollers Association refer to AquaBounty’s process as producing "Frankenfish."
>“Mary Shelley envisioned this massive being that was made up of bits and parts, right? And this fish would basically be that,” Kelley said

tl;dr, sensationalist bullshit

Seriously. It's a fucking growth hormone that isn't even "artificial" - it's naturally found in the salmon!

Actually man I think you are.