[extropy-chat] World map of human ES cell and nuclear transferpolicies.

[Dirk Bruere]

On 12/6/05, The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Brett wrote:
>
> > > Most GM is aimed at reducing the cost of producing
> > it to the manufacturer
> > > rather than conferring advantages to the consumer
> > that the consumer
> > > wants.
>
> Ok, I will concede that most of the early GM
> agriculture was aimed at reducing the production costs
> to the manufacturers but wouldn't that translate into
> lower prices for the consumer? Isn't it a win/win
> situation? What about pest-resistant crops that reduce


Only if the possible benefits outweight the possible risks very
significantly.
At present anyone in Britain can buy enough cheap food out of their spare
cash to eat themselves to death.
So what if they can get it 5% cheaper?
On the risk end of things, we have gene transfers to other crops and plants
plus new allergies.


the amount of toxic pesticides used on the crops? Is


Or how about making the plants resistant to those pesticides so more can be
used? That has happened too.

that not beneficial for the consumer? And finally what


No. Again, we have a skewed balance of benefits/risks.

about the nutraceutical crops that they are coming out
> with like "golden rice" that has beta carotene genes?


The only problem that I have seing addressed, and which is a real problem,
is GE rice with Vitamin A  to alleviate  the deciciency in the diets of poor
people in the Third World. Personally though, I don't need it.

Would Brits feel the same about GM livestock? Like
> chicken eggs with omega-3 fatty acids and cows that
> make milk with human insulin in it?


If  there is *no* downside whatsoever, and it does not in any way harm the
animal , then 'perhaps'.
But it's just a solution looking for a problem IMO.

--- Dirk Bruere <dirk.bruere at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Or, even more cynically, they want to patent what is
> > currently several
> > millenia out of patent.
>
> Well most of the early patents in biotech were
> completely ludicrous. This is mostly due to the lack
> of knowledge by the lawyers that filed and judged the
> patent than anything else. Most biotech consists of
> taking genes that been around for millions of years
> out of one organism and putting it into another
> organism that has been around for millions of years.
> So where do you draw the line? Think about how some


I do not think any naturally occurring gene should be patentable.

cancer patient feels when some company files a patent
> on a mutated form of a gene that the company "lifted"
> from one of his own cancer cells. Most scientists
> don't think that the patent system is all that
> sensible in regards to biotech. But if others are
> getting rich by exploiting these loopholes then there
> is a strong incentive to do likewise.
>
> True. I have 'played the system' - but I won't support it just because of
that.

Dirk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20051206/bea17e06/attachment.html>