General Discussion

mike_c

(37,051 posts)

29. aside from an obvious anti-science bias...

Sat Apr 25, 2015, 12:36 AM

Apr 2015

...I mean, genetic engineering is bad because it employs "A gene “gun”, a bacterial “truck” or a chemical or electrical treatment...;" have I got that right? Seriously? So aside from the obvious anti-science bias, what is wrong with creating "synthetic life forms?" Electricity?

People act like genes are somehow sacred things. They're not. Genes are nothing more than cellular information storage. The genome is a set of instructions for solving problems encountered by the ancestors of all living species. They're just INFORMATION. Information is universal-- genes are not unique properties of particular organisms any more than the Encyclopedia Britannica is a unique property of Englishmen. Anyone can read the encyclopedia and use the information it contains. Likewise, any organism can use the information amassed during the evolution of another organism. If they're the same species, they can exchange that information directly, or at least usually. If they're not the same species, at least among eukaryotes, genetic information exchange uses techniques that overcome reproductive isolation (like "electrical treatment&quot . But it's still just information exchange, and information is universal.

It is no more inherently dangerous to exchange information between taxa than it is to share your encyclopedia with someone who has a different version. It's still just information exchange. That is ALL that genetic engineering is. Genetic engineering is nothing more than exchanging paragraphs or articles of information between the evolutionary encyclopedias of different taxa.

Full disclosure: I am not Neil DeGrass Tyson, but I am a professional biologist and an academic scientist. I don't pretend to be an expert on everything, but I'm pretty confident I understand genetic engineering better than the OP. I've also been discussing this issue long enough to know that I'm wasting my breath-- the anti-GMO movement utterly disdains actual science, and will not listen.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

97 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Genetic engineering (GMO) is NOT an extension of conventional plant breeding. [View all] pnwmom Apr 2015 OP

That's Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson, anonymous DU poster who poses as an expert on everything. beam me up scottie Apr 2015 #1

He's not a medical doctor, if that's what you're implying. "The good doctor" is pnwmom Apr 2015 #4

What is your area of expertise? beam me up scottie Apr 2015 #7

Jury results Cartoonist Apr 2015 #17

LMAO! beam me up scottie Apr 2015 #18

He's not a physician. 840high Apr 2015 #21

And? beam me up scottie Apr 2015 #23

This message was self-deleted by its author 840high Apr 2015 #22

it is, actually Scootaloo Apr 2015 #2

In nature, a plant can't breed with an insect, no matter how many generations are involved. pnwmom Apr 2015 #3

Such gene transfer does happen however, via bacteria and viruses Scootaloo Apr 2015 #5

I want all genetically engineered food products to be labeled. And since you have no problem pnwmom Apr 2015 #6

The problem is, that includes every domesticated plant and animal Scootaloo Apr 2015 #8

No , it doesn't. Genetic engineering is NOT the same as conventional breeding, pnwmom Apr 2015 #9

Conventional breeding is a form of genetic manipulation, pwnmom Scootaloo Apr 2015 #10

I wish I could give this post a rec KitSileya Apr 2015 #53

Sure, because power plants are EXACTLY like modifying genes Major Nikon Apr 2015 #14

That kind of vaguery and conflation isn't the way labelling laws are written. They are clear: GreatGazoo Apr 2015 #71

Same here Jim Beard Apr 2015 #19

Wouldn't really work, Round-up is used for more then just GMO foods. Lancero Apr 2015 #20

Are you implying that GMO is not used for Roundup resistance? immoderate Apr 2015 #34

I'm saying that roundup doesn't always equal GMO. Lancero Apr 2015 #37

How is it relevant, except that some GMO's 'lock in' using glyphosate? immoderate Apr 2015 #45

Read it, and you'll know. Lancero Apr 2015 #47

But some GMOs MUST use glyphosate. immoderate Apr 2015 #51

Yes LeftInTX Apr 2015 #56

Where do you come up with this nonsense? Major Nikon Apr 2015 #70

Why would someone use glyphosate resistant plants, and then no glyphosate? immoderate Apr 2015 #72

"But some GMOs MUST use glyphosate" Major Nikon Apr 2015 #73

It is a bit different. Can you handle it? immoderate Apr 2015 #74

I'm sure the irony is totally lost on you Major Nikon Apr 2015 #75

So, why use glyphosate resistant plants, without the glyphosate? immoderate Apr 2015 #76

I need to know more information before I can answer that question with the precision you demand Major Nikon Apr 2015 #77

So gimmee a hypothetical, a logical circumstance that would fulfill your objection. immoderate Apr 2015 #80

OK, hypothetically you can name one GMO that supports your assertion Major Nikon Apr 2015 #81

yes bit not actually the real problem I am afraid booley Apr 2015 #89

There are other herbicides besides Round-Up LeftInTX Apr 2015 #55

Except in this case the glyphosate isn't being used specifically as a herbicide. Lancero Apr 2015 #64

This is Monsanto's argument. Have you read what a Whistle Blower who worked sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #67

2000? That seems very out of date. LeftyMom Apr 2015 #11

Yes, the biotechnology has advanced. But it's still biotechnology and not the same pnwmom Apr 2015 #12

Other than a misinformed stab at a naturalisric fallacy, why would that matter? LeftyMom Apr 2015 #13

I'm not saying it's always a bad thing. Just that it's not the same as conventional cross-breeding pnwmom Apr 2015 #16

The EU still has some of the strongest regulations on GMO food, although Monsanto might appalachiablue Apr 2015 #61

Yeah it's like corporations are people. Same thing. immoderate Apr 2015 #36

I sure the hell don't. Why would I want a bunch of hornworms that have become-- eridani Apr 2015 #58

You are right, pnwmom RobertEarl Apr 2015 #15

Thank you SoLeftIAmRight Apr 2015 #24

im a biology major... youceyec Apr 2015 #25

Dr. Tyson never said what the op claims. beam me up scottie Apr 2015 #26

Yes he does. And you should know, since you were the one who quoted him: pnwmom Apr 2015 #28

You're still being disingenuous. beam me up scottie Apr 2015 #30

How can you deny that he says over 80% of food is GMO. pnwmom Apr 2015 #32

You need a new straw man. beam me up scottie Apr 2015 #35

Right. I knew you couldn't answer. But just keep pretending. n/t pnwmom Apr 2015 #39

Thank you Pee Wee Herman. beam me up scottie Apr 2015 #42

Waste of time with that one, I cornered her on the exact same garbage babble Rex Apr 2015 #86

It appears to me that he equates selective breeding with genetic engineering. immoderate Apr 2015 #43

No he's not. He's pointing out the problem with labeling everything that's GMO. beam me up scottie Apr 2015 #46

We have found some things to disagree about... immoderate Apr 2015 #50

I'm not even sure we disagree. beam me up scottie Apr 2015 #57

Only if one pretends context doesn't matter Major Nikon Apr 2015 #49

What context makes things that are different, the same? immoderate Apr 2015 #52

If this is so hard for you to understand.... Major Nikon Apr 2015 #69

In general I don't think people should be getting their science from science entertainers like Tyson Chathamization Apr 2015 #62

He is pretty much saying that when he says that labelling GMOs is meaningless because almost all Chathamization Apr 2015 #63

Thank you for your input, youceyec. And welcome to DU! n/t pnwmom Apr 2015 #27

with all due respect.... mike_c Apr 2015 #48

If you say so, but if that's true you might want to consider asking for a refund Major Nikon Apr 2015 #78

aside from an obvious anti-science bias... mike_c Apr 2015 #29

That's your opinion. pnwmom Apr 2015 #31

no, it's not my opinion at all.... mike_c Apr 2015 #38

It is your OPINION that the article results from anti-science bias. pnwmom Apr 2015 #41

no, the anti-GMO movement is rabidly and implacably anti-science.... mike_c Apr 2015 #44

Molecular biologists tend to side with the GMO supporters. immoderate Apr 2015 #54

that's not my experience at all.... mike_c Apr 2015 #68

Well, a Scientist who worked for 30 on GMOs has become a Whistle Blower and sabrina 1 Apr 2015 #85

Since he understands the science it trumps yours. beam me up scottie Apr 2015 #40

You need to specify that you're not a Monsanto shill. beam me up scottie Apr 2015 #33

I see. Scientists who favor GMO labelling are anti-scientific. eridani Apr 2015 #59

OK, I will.... mike_c Apr 2015 #65

Scientists can't comment reliably on anything unless they can have access to results eridani Apr 2015 #82

you have no idea what you're talking about.... mike_c Apr 2015 #83

Hey--is Scientific American scientific enough for you? eridani Apr 2015 #84

no, Scientific American is a popular magazine marketed to non-scientists.... mike_c Apr 2015 #90

So genetic engineering that attempts to keep modified organisms OUT of the environment-- eridani Apr 2015 #91

It's bad because it's "playing god" Major Nikon Apr 2015 #79

I think it's a moot point. RedCappedBandit Apr 2015 #60

YAY!!! +1000000. Exactly. And all the Monsanto shills will try to convince us otherwise. Zorra Apr 2015 #66

LOL! All three of them! Rex Apr 2015 #87

How long would it take to breed a glow in the dark cat? booley Apr 2015 #88

Yes, it is. You are pushing pure ignorance here. HuckleB Jun 2015 #92

No, I'm "pushing" the standard, well- accepted definition of genetic engineering. pnwmom Jun 2015 #93

And your reference is wikipedia, not actual scientists. HuckleB Jun 2015 #94

You should correct that Wikipedia article, and the Consumers Union article, pnwmom Jun 2015 #95

Nice confession. HuckleB Jun 2015 #96

Your link is to a long article that does nothing to address the point. pnwmom Jun 2015 #97