/sci/ - Science & Math

Well, i'd personally like to see more testing on them. You know, make sure they don't give us turbocancer or whatever.

However, anyone who is just questioning to them is drowned out by fullretard americans who think that foods are better because they're organic

ethiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiics...booooo


also, dumbasses that think it's frankenfood (but love Doritos), etc. Just read Greenpeace's blogs about it.

Because people choose to believe whatever they see on tv instead of researching things themselves.

That leads to the plot of Dead Rising.

Nah, just kidding. I don't know, OP. We've been genetically engineering plants and animals since the dawn of agriculture, but doing it with precision is somehow UNNATURAL AND DANGEROUS. It's silly.

>>2062806
I'll admit that my countrymen perpetuate the whole "organic food" thing, but Yurop does have a pretty big anti-GMO lobby.

I think there should be a high level of caution, but I think it could work also. There could be many repercussions on it, for example if you genetically modified a cow to grow faster, its metabolism would speed up, meaning you need higher grazing area.. So cattle would be farmed in places like the amazon even more, leading to deforestation, leading to an increase in global warming.

>>2062817
>implying the amazon somehow combats global warming

Ethicsfags have also convinced themselves of the argument that they haven't been around for enough time to determine proper side-effects.

Like in twenty years, we'll all have mutant ears. Fucking idiots.

>>2062828
Amazon RAINFORESTS = Shitload of trees
Trees sequester CO2. Worse still, burning down large numbers of trees releases a lot of CO2.

>>2062839
Precisely, thank you, fellow anon.

I'm not against GM products being tested, I'm just wary.

>>2062817
That would have the same end result as just having more cows...

When I see animals tortured before they're slaughtered, I don't give a fuck. WE EAT THEM AND SHIT THEM OUT, THAT'S EVEN WORSE

>>2062796

soy beans...Genetically engineered. Patents.

>>2062848
Rate of growth is not the same as sustainable breeding.

This anon is of the opinion that GMO's aren't us playing God, it's us playing nature. Seed saving should be completely legal (and it really isn't, and discouraged when it is). Seed saving is the process by which nature shows us which genes and traits are most beneficial.

The problem with GMO is the patent placed on the crop/animal. With that patent, it gives enormous power to prosecute anyone who's crops/livestock just look like they might be from your particular GMO. And when the companies that have the GMO have billions of dollars, and the local farmers are struggling to make ends meet, even false allegations can cause the law abiding local farmers to go out of business due to legal expenses.

tl;dr. Health-wise, if you can prove that cloned/gmo food is consistently healthy for me, I'll eat it. My problem is with the legal/business practices of the corporations that have GMO patents.

Forgot cows. Think bigger.
Just grow beef in giant nutrient vats.

>>2062866
And this is fine. It's perfectly okay to have moral or ethical objections to some of the implications of GMO.
It's when people try to dress those objections up as science that things get dicey.

Yeast steaks anyone? Huh? Huh?

Changing the protein and sugar, fuck, even chitin contents would be as simple as putting a team on it with a decent budget.

>>2062913

that will have to feed china when they breed themselves to the limit of their resources haha

As long as contact with weeds capable of cross pollinating with the GMO are monitored there is less room for disaster.

i'm actually okay with genetic modification but i don't support the legal aspect of patenting genes we don't need monsanto making people reliant on their specific product

TAEK OVER OF THE MODIFIED ORCHIDS AWWWWAHHHHH!!H!H!!!H!HH!

>>2062913
If they can make them anywhere near as delicious as real steaks, sure.
Fuck, I miss Future. He used to talk about this stuff on /v/ and /r9k/ all the time.

>>2062935


Pic related. It's the end.

ITT: niggers who haven't taken a genetic engineering course in their life

Genetically modifying multicellular organisms results in you NOT KNOWING what general characteristics the organism will exhibit. If you change a colour of a rat, you could be changing the composition of it's skin, hair follicles, etc. etc.

Furthermore, by changing it, you can trigger manifestations if this multicellular organism is allowed to breed, thus fucking up an entire ecosystem.

SEE MOTHERFUCKING MONSANTO. THERE IS A LOT OF SHIT AGAINST IT NOT BECAUSE OF ETHICAL REASONS, BUT BECAUSE IT FUCKS UP NATURE, ECONOMY (monopolies, totally destroying other agriculture). THEIR PRODUCTS ARE PATENTED AND IF THEY PROCREATE, THOSE OFFSPRING ARE ALSO APART OF THEIR PATENT. In other words, you get a fuckload of problems.

>>2062959

IN ADDITION, take the cow milk for example. You basically KILL the cows to hurry their production, and get nasty byproducts in the milk. THE ORGANISMS CAN SECRETE OTHER CHEMICALS BESIDES their normal, non-modified counterparts. These chemicals are typically KNOWN to cause allergic reactions in people. Not only can it cause allergic reactions, I'm pretty sure it can cause other very serious problems for anyone who consumes it.

>>2062971

Since I have some background in genetic engineering, I found that the most reliable thing is using E. Coli and producing things like insulin in batch reactors. 100% okay with this because you know EXACTLY what byproducts you will produce.

If I do pursue my education after my bachelor's, I'm definitely going into biotechnology and probably get assassinated by Monsanto, but I don't give a fuck.

>>2062959

The fuck are you on about?

All you would need to do to GM a rat to get a different color is knockout the genes coding for its wild coloring, isolate a gene coding for a new pigment from another animal, get it into a cloning vector, and deliver that cloning vector into your mouse zygote instead. If it's unsuccessful the worst thing that could go wrong is your mouse dies because from the new gene inserting itself into a bad location.
Other scenario: the pigment is expressed and you get a newly colored rat OR improperly expressed and the resulting rat would be default white/albino.

Seriously wtf do you think would happen? Superrat? No.

>>2063001
>doesn't know a gene can be responsible for more than one thing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81rp%C3%A1d_Pusztai

>>2062796
Because people are idiots, and they live in their nice little comfortable life. Go ask an african starving child whether he prefers his food to be genetically engineered or not and see what happens. Feeding the world is fucking hard already, and these idiots are crying about the outrage of food that isn't organic and pure and the way god intended. Fuck people. FUCK THEM. Go cry some more.

>>2063001

Perhaps the rat example was bad, I don't know specifics on it.

Take the instance the gene is inserted in a bad location and the rat manages to survive somehow or the albino instance, and assume it's fertile. This situation exists in GM crops. They reproduce and create more offspring carrying mutated genes.

>>2063018

You are loads of fucking stupid beyond any words ideas I cannot describe.

>>2063007

>thinks that because some genes are pleiotropic all genes must be pleiotropic
>Doesnt realize we've already made genetically different colored rats that have yet to take over the worlds

>>2063030
Care to refute my argument instead of just throwing shit at me? Ad hominem ain't cool, brah.

>>2062796
Well, just look at the current state of pig farming, these pigs which have been created cannot survive winter, are terribly vulnerable to disease, and don't reproduce naturally. This requires intensive farming techniques, which cause increased environmental damage. But broader than that, as we choose ideal traits and select only them we decrease biodiversity, look at the banana famine of the 20th century. Not to mention that genetics are really complicated and there is limited oversight on corporations to ensure proper testing before deployment.

Now I'm not saying its a bad thing, in itself, its a sign of progress and helps to feed an increasingly urbanized population with less space. But we can't just dismiss the problems out of hubris and charge forward yelling "SCIENCE CAN DO NO WRONG". Look at the case of DDT, where for a long time it was thought to be a super chemical with no significant environmental damage, only much later did we find out that it caused ecological problems.

I only advise caution not, stagnation.

People worry they might become reliant on magnets, instead of meat the way god intended.

>>2063066

>>2062959
>>2062971
>>2063019

Also: there is enough food in the world. However, it is not cost-effective to send food to Africa.

Furthermore, earth is overpopulated. Furthermore, if Africa stopped producing children in order to maintain a stable population, starvation would not occur. Furthermore, you're implying they would want Monsanto to fucking monopolize them and take all the money they make.

SEE FUCKING MONSANTO AND INDIA FOR EXAMPLE. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oju86YIOOLI

Etc.

bumping to prevent death.

>>2063117
That doesn't make GM food bad. Sure, we should be careful. But it's not wrong. It can save the fucking world. Stop crying.

>>2063151
I was really enjoying quite a few conversations on here too. Sad to say, but I suspect they'll all have premature deaths at this rate.

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/060828_surrogate_rats.html

>Take the instance the gene is inserted in a bad location and the rat manages to survive somehow or the albino instance, and assume it's fertile. This situation exists in GM crops. They reproduce and create more offspring carrying mutated genes.

Well if its in a bad location its going to interfere with normal cellular processes, or knockout some other gene and this will negatively impact the fitness of the rat. So the rat will be outcompeted by its wild types. No biggie.

GM crops are a different story because they can tolerate higher levels of genetic changes, such as polyploidy... which is awesome.
What do you think is going to go wrong, anyways? The extraction of wanted genes is very accurate and often the genes are extracted from cultured bacteria such as E. Coli, where, if there are incidences of pleiotropy, it will generally be recognized first there. But really GM crops have already been made and nothing unexpected is happening. Golden rice made more beta carotene than normal rice; it didn't become poisonous, or carcinogenic, just made more beta carotene... it was even tested on humans with no adverse health effects.

>>2063160

Does anyone know what the fuck is happening? Are we being raided by /b/?

>>2063163

Save the world from what? Starvation is trivial. Overpopulation is the issue. Get the fuck out, moralfag.

>>2063164
Why not code in a terminal fault? Such as an inability to survive without a certain solution in the diet.

mfw people complain about gm food but then eat domesticated animals or seedless fruit
it's the same basic idea

>>2063177
yep

>>2063163
The world doesn't really need saving yet, and it could also endanger the world by leading to famine if it backfires spectacularly.

>>2063164

Okay, I don't really give a shit about rats, perhaps I was wrong about it being pleiotropic.

Anyway, there ARE instances that crossbreeding between wilds. This causes problems. You cannot predict the outcomes.

>>2063188
Yeah cause that worked so well but Jurassic Park, but seriously if there are enough of them inherent population variation, unless they are very well controlled could cause adaptability, especially if they manage to reproduce with wild strains.

>>2063185
No it isn't. The earth is FAR from overpopulated. GM food along with other technologies can make the world habitable by a lot more people than today. You can't stop overpopulation. It WILL happen. Sucks, but this is how we deal with it.

>>2063217
Ah, I was thinking along the lines of entirely infertile organisms; which of course brings in it's own complications. And then there's genetic drift to take into account as well.

>>2063192

My fucking face when this person hasn't taken a biology course in their entire life.

DIRECTIONAL SELECTION IS NOT GENETIC ENGINEERING NIGGER

>>2063188

You could, if you wanted to..
Why not?
I don't see the need, though.

>>2063227

Okay, that's nice, now make a thread about it. I've written goddamn reports on this issue. I've studied Gaia theory, laws of thermodynamics as they relate to ecosystems, fucking material efficiency, sustainability, industrial ecology, IPAT, etc. I don't care about your moralfag shit.

Fuck starvation. Get out of this thread.

>Ah, I was thinking along the lines of entirely infertile organisms; which of course brings in it's own complications. And then there's genetic drift to take into account as well.

Well that's actually one of the big things going on with GM crops right now; intellectual ownership. Many GM crops are being modified also to be infertile not out of concern for their seeds spreading to the wild, but because the developers want the farmers growing them to have to purchase new seeds following every harvest.
Unethical, in my opinion, since it brings a lot of shit down on the farmers

>>2063227
no one said anything about engineering genes, just modifying genetics, which necessarily occurs during selection.

>>2063249
>moralfag shit
The fuck? No really, what? That's insulting.

>>2063255
True. But perhaps as a side effect, there will be benefits.

Selective breeding is not genetic engineering, they are different.

I can see why genetically engineered food would bother more knowledgeable people though. We are jumping the gun, and we are even just recently realized that a single gene can have a myriad of interconnected purposes. It's not as simple as "this gene for blue, this gene for green". We could seriously fuck some stuff up if we aren't careful.

>>2063249
Sir did you just say gaia theory? please hang your head in shame and walk away.

>>2063234
i have a degree in biology dumbass
i didn't say it was the exact same thing
it's still a modification of the genome
ANY change you do is gm

>>2063275
Obviously they're not the same thing; though they are remarkably similar.

Well, let's consider that I have a degree in biochemical engineering. One upped, nigger. Stick to your memorization and avoid discussing ideas.

>>2063318
engineers don't know shit about biology

Bah...Peeps are just having ethical issues with GM foods imo...
GM cattle have human DNA in them these days to help produce antibodies and drugs for us...they are bigger and produce better than the mice we have grown.
apparently no one wants to risk eating a burger that MIGHT be 0.01% human soul....*shrugs*

Don't tell anyone they already share 97% of their DNA with cattle...it might frighten their "inner fish".

>>2062870
beef? I would have figured growing human meat in vats...it's far better for us and conveniently balanced in all the nutrients and chemical what nots we need...

plus...it would be perfect for all those ethics freaks...no animals of any kind need be harmed ever again

>>2063330

Well, I'm glad we're not discussing counting blue-footed boobies and their mating seasons. Instead, we're talking about GENETIC ENGINEERING.

>>2063334
We're not quite at the meat-mushroom stage yet though.

>>2062817
>implying you ANYTHING at all about GMO animals

they would not give a cow a gene that increased its metabolism, that is stupid as fuck and you made me rage so hard I want to kill you.


yes I mad....

FUCK, scientific illiteracy is killing my field of study.

actual tears forming in my eyes out of the rage I am feeling. I cannot express how much I hate you.

>>2063362

Hey brah, I'm with you. It feels like my hair is falling out.

>>2062959
>haven't taken a genetic engineering course in their life

boy, you sure know what you are talking about.

(sarcasm)

>>2063374

>implying I don't: I fucked up an example

>>2063369
>>2063369

I have been working towards a career at Monsanto since I was fucking 9.

I just want to kill people who say things they have heard they hippie friends saying fucking retarded things with absolute conviction and decide to repeat it as fact.

every other post in this thread says some other terrible misconception.

what you fucking idiots don't seem to understand: we don't take a big part of any animal, we take ONE protein-coding gene and splice it into the germ line.

if you think ONE protein produced by a plant that was already produced by a different plant will make it grow a mouth, or turn purple and take over the world you need to get the fuck off 4chan and read a book. if an animal could become too powerful from the addition from a trait from a different animal why aren't the source animals already ruining the ecosystem? one final point, every bad thing you EVER heard from a person or newspaper or news show was bullshit hype.

IAMSOMAD.jpg

>>2063392

Monsanto is king of the faggots. You wouldn't deny that the plants crossbreed, and that those plants are also patented though, would you? Also, can you provide me some information as to why reproduction wouldn't cause anomalies, faggot?

>>2063407
yes, they are patented, and yes they can cause complications in breeding but the fact that millions of years of evolution decided that corn with BT in it wasn't more selected towards than tiny little kernels that aren't fit for human consumption just goes to show that our meddling in the genes will not make anything that could dominate in nature. we are nowhere near as good as natural selection for making actual survivable viable animals or plants but we can make food which is the opposite of a benefit in nature.

not as mad as before, I cooled off when I saw the troll face

>>2063436

Explain IGF-1, and allergic reactions, nigger

>>2063349
fuck u dude im in molecular biology, i actually do this shit you just measure the kinetic energy of the chemical interactions, fucking lame
if you don't think breeding can alter the genome in ways as bad as genetic modification can you're a fucktard

when done right gm food could help us