|
Authored by: mcinsand on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 12:46 PM EDT |
Just a nitpick. GM is transplanting a gene from one organism to another, which
doesn't quite fit into the way I read the phrase 'splicing genes together.' The
sentence came across to me as if it referred to splicing two genes to make a new
one. 'Genetic insertion,' as in inserting a gene into a DNA strand, might be
more technically accurate.
The genes that are being spliced into DNA strands are not new; they have been
around since long before we had the ability to use stone tools, much less the
ability to create such a messed-up patent system. These genes are, in effect,
software. Granted, DNA is in base 4 with a 3-bit byte, but it's still software.
And the genes Monsanto is moving around certainly predate their patent filing.
If we are going to allow patents like this, I could see patenting new technology
for transplanting genes, but not a gene that has already been in existence for
eons.
As for the safety issues, even though a genetic modification puts the change
right where it is needed, organisms reproduce. We might, for example, have a
plant generate its own pesticide, and that could eliminate the need to spray or
dust. However, nature makes some real nasties, so we need care and scrutiny
when moving genes around. I wouldn't give a second thought to eating corn that
is glyphosphate resistant through GM (one of Monsanto's current pushes), but I
would avoid any crop GM'd to synthesize its own pesticide. At least, I would
avoid anything with a transplanted toxin gene without knowing that the toxin and
organism had not undergone years of intense, thorough, and intensely through
study.
I don't think that the organisms should be patentable, though. For one, this is
software, even if the digital mechansim is organic. For another thing, the
software is its own prior art, if the concept of prior art is to have any
validity. Once more, though, this is an organism, and it is purchased as such.
Fully-functional organisms reproduce, and plant seeds are not fixed to one
location. Especially on a farm, where tens of thousands of plants are grown at
one location, seeds can migrate. Let's say a handful of seed left on one truck
finds its way into the stock at another farm. Can Monsanto then sue without
even having to prove intent?
As for the scrutiny, I fear that our agricultural apparatus is using the
pesticide model, which isn't really applicable. Transplanting special compound
synthesis genes does need the same type of screening as for a pesticide, albeit
with attention to the added concern that the organism can reproduce. If a
synthetic turns out to be unacceptable, we can just stop production, but
nonsterile organisms are a different matter. Plants no doubt have potential to
make many medicinal compounds that we can't but I think (HOPE) that such plants
would only be growin with stringent barriers between the growth area and the
environment at large. A professor once made medicine very clear when he noted
that medicine is fundamentally about toxicology, particularly with attention to
poisoning an organism rather than the host.
For GM crops like those Monsanto is developing, a different oversight mode is
required. Drought resistance is a great idea, particularly for drought-prone
regions, but only as long as the cure doesn't become a worse problem. Potential
environmental impact assessment has to take into account how the organism could
affect the ecological balance. Drought-resistance to make a crop grow a normal
farm type crop under adverse conditions is good, unless the crop becomes so
hearty that it takes over to destroy the local ecology.
Sorry for the overlong ramble, but this topic does tend to have me thinking a
lot. As with many new technologies, the potential to do good definitely comes
with a potential to do harm.
Regards,
mc[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|