Genetic manipulation

Supermarine Blues · Post by **Supermarine Blues** » Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:00 pm

Donald wrote:
Supermarine Blues wrote:Unless one starts chopping & changing lumps of pea pod or drosophila DNA, one is unlikely to figure out quite how the switching system functions. It's (ebenda) more complex that it was assumed. So start chopping!
ibidim > ebenda.

Apart from that I have no idea what you're on about. What is this switching system?

bris, merc, you don't need to know anything to have an opinion. For instance, you can't buy genetically modified livestock, but you can buy meat raised on genetically modified crop. I'm sure you can have an opinion on that?

How changing base sequences changes characteristics.

It was supposed that changing one amino base would change something (like computer code) but it's clearly far more complex than that. There appears NOT to be a gene for an Indian nose or your father's hair or your mother's eyes or whatever! Pretty obvious if you think about it in detail like that. Swapping some appears to do nothing, but somehow all of that redundant stuff must do something.

That's why mapping the human genome has (so far!) proved a bit of a CWOT; we don't know exactly how it codes.

So you've gotta start buggering about, then switch to computer modelling one it's better understood because of the zillions of perms & combs.

Post by **Donald** » Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:23 pm

Interesting take on things

Even changing one nucleotide base (I think you're meant to be referring to neither an NB or amino acid) can make a difference. 1 base being wrong in 2.9 billion pairs and you have sickle cell anaemia. Looking at it that way it isn't complex, just a lot of large numbers.

As for not having genes for certain stuff... I don't know where you got that idea from. Every gene you have comes from your parents. I don't understand how you can make a claim that there isn't a gene for it. If there weren't genes for certain things, so using your example 'an Indian nose', there wouldn't be one. Fair enough you may have a mutation that causes a difference, but this is then passed on and as such becomes the new gene.

Supermarine Blues · Post by **Supermarine Blues** » Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:00 pm

I meant not a single gene, or even an identifiable group of genes for a particular characteristic; so far several different genes seem to affect one area and others appear not to have any effect. Obviously characteristics without genetic bases would suggest Lamarckism or Deism or some other total tosh!

That's the point though; we can understand how the amino bases replicate and how foreign DNA will change an emptied zygote, but there's clearly a lot more to it even to specialise cells, let alone get down to my silly examples. It's why sequencing it is so difficult, if the precise mechanism behind it isn't fully understood beyond the fairly early stages of cell development.

Yes, certain genes being missing or mis-copied have been associated with certain diseases/illnesses and gene therapy being based upon it has had some success. It's how we've identified some basic sequences.

Also 'comparative DNA' has allowed us pretty much conclusively to "prove" evolution. But that hasn't (so far!) allowed us to "make" a basic creature (or hadn't last time I looked at this!). The systems seem far too involved.

So I suspect that will pretty much be the first step - build your own bug. And since it is all probably fairly logical, I don't have any problem with scientists doing so.

Supermarine Blues · Post by **Supermarine Blues** » Sun Mar 03, 2013 8:02 pm

And of the same note; I think GM crops have had rather a bad press, too!

cantaffordannsx · Post by **cantaffordannsx** » Sun Mar 03, 2013 9:35 pm

Supermarine Blues wrote:And of the same note; I think GM crops have had rather a bad press, too!

You're right.

Genetic manipulation is a tool. For and against arguments are themselves fundamentally flawed, it is the application of the technology that is important. The same technology is used in life support machine that is in a missile guidance. People just attack what they do not understand.

We have made massive (genuinely massive) leaps in our understanding due to the use of genetic manipulation that would have been impossible without it.

The GM crop debate will never escape the dramatic over emotive posturing. You have to keep the science and the philosophy sepeate inho, if you merge the two too much you get way too much opinion posing as fact. Don't allow the fact that it is an extremely complex system to be uased as 'there WILL be unforseen consquences' type argument, usually as a stepping stone to 'they don't really knwo what they're doing' type assertions. The reverse is actually true. Even field trials result from years of experimentation.

There are loads of economic issues and human induced poverty & misery but this does not mean that GM technology could bring massive benfits for all and it is naive and I would go as far as saying it is arrogant to speak on behalf of third world farmers. Let them make their own minds up, many see the witholding of this technology as a western conspiracy.
Also, if you consider the nature of the reporting - if you could genuinely prove that there was an issue with GM you would be world famous. Yet the technology is safely in use over millions of hectares and has been for a long long time. Unfortunately the media makes a very healthy living out of an anti science agenda. [the latest one trying to assert that glyphosate resistant potatoes and glyphosate induced tumours was laughable - but managed to get published in a major journal as they knew that if they didn't it would fuel the consipracy theorists & non-transparency rhetoric.]

So it is clear. I spent 5 years working for Syngenta on GM potatoes/wheat and am a biotechnologist, so you can read that as 'well you would say that' if you like.

Post by **Donald** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:01 am

^ I will probably be PMing you at some point in the coming months.

cantaffordannsx wrote:The GM crop debate will never escape the dramatic over emotive posturing. You have to keep the science and the philosophy sepeate inho, if you merge the two too much you get way too much opinion posing as fact.

While I agree with this, valid points can still be raised I think. People should still be able to have an opinion on it, but as you say only so long as it isn't stated as fact. There are a lot of people in my particular class that are vegan/vegetarian and anti-anything to do with animals other than worshipping and caring for them as if they are the last of their species, the very opinion-stated-as-fact attitude that they hold bores me to tears.

cantaffordannsx wrote:Unfortunately the media makes a very healthy living out of an anti science agenda. [the latest one trying to assert that glyphosate resistant potatoes and glyphosate induced tumours was laughable - but managed to get published in a major journal as they knew that if they didn't it would fuel the consipracy theorists & non-transparency rhetoric.]

If this journal is online and fully viewable do you have a link to it? I have found some glyphosate related stuff (NCBI) but can only see the abstract and don't feel like paying $30 to find out I'm looking at the wrong thing.

Post by **Merlin** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:16 am

Well it seems you have a glut of biotechnology help for GM crops

I am an analyst of the GM crop industry and have an honours degree in biotechnology.

@Cantaffordannsx it's a small world

I havent (officially) met with anyone from Syngneta in the UK but I have been to Syngeta at North Carolina a few times.

Post by **Donald** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 11:24 am

Yeah definitely

The technology side of it as well I will definitely need a bit of help on.

I think we're supposed to be visiting a lab at some point also, unlikely but maybe I'll see one of you.

Post by **Lude-dude** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:37 pm

this is all way over my head..

but is it feasible that the americans are already some way ahead on this due to black projects.

such as actually testing on humans etc.. splicing animals n stuff

or am I watching too many movies

Post by **Donald** » Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:44 pm

Why is it that people assume it's always the Americans with these underground experiments. AFAIK splicing stuff has already happened. Pretty sure I read of a human ear being grown on the back of a mouse. EDIT: My mistake, was just an ear shape attached, not a human ear on a genetically engineered mouse.

Also the gene(s) for hair/scales/feathers has been drokked around with. Featherless chickens have been developed for use in battery environments. Cuts down on waste and aids in keeping temperatures down in cramped spaces.