/sci/ - Science & Math

p-please respond...

Op I took an organic vegetable production course at my university (plant science major). The professor has studied this field and told us that it does not harm you in any way such as this. But I must point out he is a lobbyist for Monsanto....

Well the article seems to say that eating crops alters gene expression. So you better stop eating food.

>>5560786
>But I must point out he is a lobbyist for Monsanto....
And here's your sign.

>>5560786
Do you think Monsanto would go as far as to influence what's being taught in universities?

>>5560701
OP if I drink organic milk my gene expression will be different than if I eat a rice crispy treat

stop buying into things

GMO is the future - yes you need to test it and they do - deal with it.

>>5560915

I took a molecular biology class once where the professor did a lecture on GMOs (bt toxin in plants and etc..) and how they're completely safe.

So.. probably, yes. Saying GMOs are dangerous is probably not a good way to advance your career in the current climate.

>>5560805

But, has this aspect of GMOs been tested? Maybe eating something where it's genes are altered could negatively affect the organism that eats it. We don't know unless data is collected. Doesn't seem too farfetched of an idea though, does it?

>>5560933
look i answered your question
>>5560926

The article is professional trolling
What else do you expect? A sector evolved out of capitalism that kills its clients. Get real.

>>5560940

You're being incredibly defensive. Why do GMOs get you all riled up? It's a legitimate /sci/ topic.

I also had a professor abroad who did a study where they put wild type wheat and GMO wheat in a mouse cage, and the mice didn't even nibble the GMO stuff. So, from that, we can infer that there could be other unexpected differences between the wild type and the mutant strain.

I'm not saying GMOs are bad; I'm saying every new technology has the possibility to cause unexpected results.

>>5560940

Nobody is implying GMOs kill the people who ingest them. Also, are you implying that there are absolutely no negative consequences to capitalism? Your response is strange.

>>5560955
I am defensive because people have delusional misconceptions about it and are up in arms about it. Im not talking about protest. I am talking about mailbombs and nails in kids ice cream type of up in arms. Its disgusting and embarrassing.

>and the mice didn't even nibble
you are the reason biology is a soft science
kill yourself

>>5560962
I am not implying that
You are implying you are a communist by jumping to that conclusion

Also >>5560955 and >>5560962
is obvious samefag

>>5560955

>the mice didn't even nibble the GMO stuff. So, from that, we can infer that there could be other unexpected differences

honestly can't stop laughing at your ignorance
please get smarter
please

>>5560988

>you people etc..

You're in error; I don't oppose or support the technology. I'm just curious what study (if any) has been done on exogenous plant RNA in organisms fed a GMO diet. Seems like an important facet of quality control. And what's this about nails in ice cream?

Also:

>biology
>soft science

Nigger what are you smoking.

>>5560988
>>5561002

The GMO defense force is in full swing. Would you like to offer criticism of my argument instead of spouting ad-hominems?

>>5561003
if you keep saying stuff like
>the mice didn't even nibble the GMO stuff. So, from that, we can infer that there could be other unexpected differences
biology magically turns into a soft science

nails in ice cream is a figure of speech, but you know what I am talking about

>>5561026

>magically

If you've ever set foot in a mol. bio or genetics lab you wouldn't be saying that bio is a soft science. What about penicillin, or vaccines? Or any number of valuable technologies that have sprung from the field?

And your rhetoric is extreme. You're up in arms about this topic, for some odd reason. What is that reason?

>>5561026

Also, if mice have a preference for wild type wheat, that's an important finding. What exactly is it that makes them prefer it? What do you think?

>>5561014
sure: RNA and digestion. Google it.

You have some reading to do. If you do not like that talk to a professor - even the ones who are not lobbyists will agree that any danger or poterntial danger GMO posses is blown way out of proportion. The industry and the is not accurately portrayed. The media uses buzzwords like viral promoter to misguide people. Goodnight.

>>5561037
Judging by what you are saying I have worked in one longer than you have been in school.

I told you the reason. >>5560988

10/10
talking bad about GMO always rustles my jimmies

>>5561052

Seems like you're the one that has reading to do. I'm curious about what the difference is in the mutant strain that makes it unappetative to mice?

>>5561045
it is more than likely a poor study
there are papers that say the opposite but you are to biased to listen to them

Do you live in Europe?

>>5560701
everything effects gene expression. Man is a massively complex machine, the great majority of his cogs are forged in RNA and amino acids. Just about everything that a man is and does is a give and take on the expression of genes.

>>5561069
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestion#DNA_and_RNA_digestion

here Wikipedia seems like more on your level

>>5561062

>Judging by what you are saying I have worked in one longer than you have been in school.

What exactly did I say that makes you think that? Of course, it's not actually what you think; it's just more extreme rhetoric and an attempt to paint yourself as someone with authority.

If you were a scientist, you certainly wouldn't be saying what you're saying.

>>5561071

>biased

I'm not biased at all. It was a study conducted by my prof, and he's a smart guy. Maybe other papers have different results but I'm not sure how methods/etc.. would differ.

>>5561082

But it's actually been shown that plant rna is floating around in mice who eat plants. Not all RNA is chopped up by enzymes.

>>5561045
Considering domesticated wheat and GMO wheat have a lot more in common than wild wheat and domesticated wheat, it's possible those mice would also avoid domesticated wheat. Sounds like a pretty flawed experiment to me if they didn't take this into account.

So basically, instead of us just breeding rice to eat, the rice is actually breeding us to propagate it's genes. This is indeed an interesting twist on reality!

>>5561093

Not at all. Plant micro RNA aren't viruses.

>>5561086
and then it crosses membranes through magic?

go, live in fear of the big scary corporation because one on ten million cells has a bad consequence for about 10 seconds - and that is assuming the particular RNA would create a bad consequence

this conversation is getting boring again
sorry if you are personally insulted
I can be grumpy when tired

>>5561091

Wild type does not mean wheat growing in the wild; it means the strain that isn't genetically modified (i.e. not the mutant strain).

It's a bit of a misnomer in this case.

>>5561114

It crosses membranes because the micro RNA are in vesicles and fuse with the membranes of cells, dumping their contents into the cell.

Basic stuff, man.

>>5561114

>one in ten million cells

You do realize all it takes is a single cell to cause a drastic response in the organism? Lets say the pituitary was affected; it secrets hormones which cause changes all over the body.

>>5561114

Consider cancer; it starts from a single cell.

Single cells matter, bromo.

>>5561114

Disinfo tactic number 25. Shameful.

>>5560701

This is so stupid..

Clapping your hands will affect expression. Squeezing a pimple.

>>5561101

>tfw when you'll never work in a lab with 9 of your siblings

>>5561159

Why can't you fluoride\gmo mouth breethers just stay and expose your conspiracy in /pol/

You're not going to convert any /sci/entists because most people here require facts before drawing a conclusion. You draw up a conclusion then look for facts to support that conclusion.

>>5561323

you don't know what your talking about

>>5561333
Meh, troll. 2/10.

>>5560805

We may have evolved to anticipate these influences, or been selected for that as a species.

Our current model of inheritance and gene expression is an enormous simplification of the intricacies and complexities involved in transcribing DNA and translating it into proteins.

It is very difficult to formulate precise models of gene expression from the point of transcribing DNA into RNA to the point where the resulting protein is transported to where it is used by your body tissue; there is no standardized process for all genes as it is in a human factory. There are many intricacies involved such that the mechanics by which two genes are expressed may be very different.

The fact is, biology requires simplified models and making many assumptions, same as physics and chemistry.
What you learn about genetics and heredity in university bio class is very much a simplified general model, not a precise and consistent biological system.

I am certain there is much about our genetics we will be surprised.

all we need to do to settle this once and for all is wait a full generation or two after the introduction of the first engineered crops intended for human consumption, if nothing comes up it's probably fine

I took a class on GMOs back in uni. While it's relatively healthy for human consumption, they still have a lot of problems associated with them like horizontal gene transfer with microbes in the soil? We don't know how that would pan out...

>>5560915
It's like you don't even know who Monsanto is. They don't give a fuck

>>5561318
You have 9 siblings?

I count only 6 Zhangs in there, 4 Wangs, and 2 Lis

>>5561101
Look at all those asian names. This paper has to be legit

>>5561159
tactic number 25 does not mention sleep
strange

>>5561125
related

>>5561128
>>5561135
they would have caught this

>work with artificial carcinogens on everyday basis
>see people panicking about GMO

>>5560701

Wait. RNA is not membrane soluble so if it's circulating around in blood how can it go into liver cells to block transcripts? Further, if the miRNA isn't capped, which it clearly isn't if it's just a fragment of RNA, then why isn't it broken down by RNAase even if it gets through a membrane channel?

I'm not really liking this article, needs more info.