# Tweaking the gene pool



## EDs Fly Meat (Apr 29, 2004)

Hello Dendroboarders,
Every once in a while I have to throw out a topic for discussion because I love the reponses. So here is a new one for us all to chew on.

I keep other amphibians than Dendrobates, Mantellas and Phyllobates, and a few months ago, I picked up some Axolotls. A great animal to work with for sure. Really fun. While doing some additional research I came across an interesting tidbit. The university of (well lets leave them out of this) can make an axolotl do this:








Which in itself is pretty neat. No doubt some people learned something valuable from this. But it is only a matter of time before these guys make it to the pet trade. Anyone have any neon red zebra fish for instance? I know why they use axies for this process. They are fast, regenerative, the albinos are near glass see through, and they make about 1 Gazillion babies per clutch. 

But here's the rub, just because an animal works this way should it be this way? And if if so would you then object to glowing green P. terriblis? Why or why not? I am not favoring one side or another. Most of you know already how I feel about hybrids and designer dart frogs (hint hint BAD JUJU). But I love a good argument too. So fire away, and no flames please everyone's opinion is welcome whether I agree with it or not.

p.s. Northwest Frog Fest and Midwest Frog Fest info, vendor packets, invitations, coming soon to you!


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2006)

I've always hated some one trying to make a buck by doing stuff like this. It reminds me of when the painted tetras came out years ago... The took a simple looking tetra, that wouldn't have much of a consumer demand, painted a neon stripe on both sides and charged 10x as much for it. 

Besides, if you really want to find one of those without it being man made for the pet trade, you can search around the nuclear power plants. It may have a few extra toes or eyes though. :wink:


----------



## Grassypeak (Jun 14, 2005)

It looks like what they did was to take a fluorescent pigmentation gene from a coral and incorporate it into the axolotl. Releasing this kind of stuff into the hobby bugs me because it demonstrates a complete lack of responsibility and control over the gene. Once it is out in the hobby it can go anywhere. It is much worse with plants but I still don’t think it should be done with animals. The scientists and corporations that do this don’t know what the future ramifications will be. Let’s hypothetically say that a gene is incorporated into a corn plant to make that plant produce a protein which deters insects. Now let’s say that this ge corn produces the new protein, but due to some unforeseen factor this protein inhibits some biological pathway in humans, and causes disease after a long period of time. Unfortunately growers of ge vegetables are sloppy about controlling sex and the gene “gets out”. It makes its way into many different types of corn over the years, before anyone figures out that it translates into a slow acting human toxin. Now the gene is out there. It becomes difficult to identify because each individual plant has to be tested for the rogue protein. Things like this can happen. We are arrogant creatures, to think that we can manipulate the genetic code without controlling the manipulations that we make.


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

This is far too simple a poll - captive breeding IS "gene tweaking;" we discuss it all the time - the ramifications of removing the frogs from wild natural selection will likely, over time, be far reaching.

I think genetic engineering purely for novelty's sake is a dangerous thing to do, but keep in mind: basically every crop and livestock animal we eat today, as well as most "common" pet species, have been "gene tweaked" for decades, centuries, or millenia. There's no such thing as "wild corn," "wild carrots" etc, at least, not in the sense that we know them. Cows, horses, pigs ... even they are quite distinct in life history and disposition from their wild ancestors. 

So is it, then, bad to try and modify current crops or animals for a certain, targeted end? What about introducing a gene into rice that increases the amount of beta carotene in each grain, such that millions of people suffering from vitamin A deficiencies are remedied (I believe this has been done, I don't know the results)?

What about genetically modifying bacteria so that they produce human growth hormone or insulin (both currently done, that's where we get insulin for diabetics)? I'm in favor of that, and in continued research into bacteria-produced antivirals and antibiotics. The genetic engineering of bacterial plasmids produces a multitude of chemicals to cure, treat, and prevent disease, and promises to do more in the future.

All of this is "gene-tweaking." So I can't say yes or no either way. But to get back to the root of the question - I don't think it's our place to go tweaking for tweaking's sake, "for the goof," as it were. Besides being a potential waste of money and time, there are legitamite threats to wild populations and, (unlikely in my opinion, but possible) threats to humans. There seems little chance that making a glow-in-the-dark axolotl or terribilis will help humankind or the species, and the risks outweight the potential "benefits." 

Plus, my own personal bias is that we should try and keep dart frog colors and species distinct and as "natural" as we can, so of course that's the light in which I view the hobby. I'm not in it to make "new living art," but rather (and this may be a pipe dream, but I don't care) to play a small part in preserving (and enjoying) something wonderful that has already evolved.


----------



## zaroba (Apr 8, 2006)

it all depends on how genes are modified.
thier are many good sides to it, like the rice example.
but thiers also many wasteful and possibly harmful stuff.


must take into account how the tweaking is done:
selective breeding may be gene tweaking, but it isen't causing pain to animals or anything. its just putting two animals together and letting em breed.
manually altering the genes via science (like to make the glow in the dark lizard) can cause pain to animals and possibly kill many of them before getting it right.

then you must think about what is being tweaked:
a plant has no sense of existance and suffers no pain. little harm will come of altering it manually or from selective reproduction. plus the outcomes can benifit people (imagine 100 pound tomatoes and 10 foot tall corn cobs )
animals can sense pain, think, and have fear. thus thiers the possibility of killing and hurting several animals before getting the alteration right in manual alteration.



on a side note...a glow in the dark lizard is pretty neat looking


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

I have to take issue with a couple of points here-

first, inserting genes is usually done to zygotes, ova, or other peri-fertilization stages, so it is unlikely to be a painful process for any involved organism (I suppose some of the traits could cause complications, however). Nevertheless, I still agree with you that random modification without an expected beneficial outcome is at best meaningless and at worst tragic.

Plants may not react to stimuli on timescales recognizable to human beings, but they clearly "feel pain" in the sense that they change their growth and behavior (within the limitations of their physiology) just as do many "lower" animals. Plants that "respond" to pruning are really reacting to injury - changing their growth patterns. Similarly, the fact that sap flows to the site of a wound in a plant shows clearly that they are "aware of their existence" just as much as are most animals. I'm not arguing for people to stop pruning or anything, but rather pointing out that we have a VERY self-centered view of life, and it's quite wrong to say that animals can "sense pain, think, and have fear" just because their reactions to stimuli are, ostensibly, identifiable, and at the same time deny any such stimulus-response behavior to other forms of life. Do plants "suffer?" I doubt it, at least, probably not in the same sense as do we, but then, I doubt most animals suffer as humans do, as well.

This is getting off-topic, but true "self awareness" is, I think, very rare among living organisms (probably shared by only a handful of vertebrates), but we cannot use anthropomorphic principles to evaluate the impacts of our activities on other life forms.

Down with intentional random alterations to wild genotypes.


----------



## c'est ma (Sep 11, 2004)

You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Once we had the technology for genetic engineering, using it was inevitable. As with most science, it can be used to either good or bad ends, and ethical oversight is the key.

As far as selective breeding goes, we tend to accept what we grew up with or are used to. Hardly anyone grows wild roses or keeps wild-type guppies. Although we know that certain traits of dog breeds cause breathing problems, the need for Caesarian deliveries, etc., there's no wild clamor to stop breeding them. Someone sent me this link, which is supposed to be funny--when I looked at it, I started thinking of what a disservice we've done these animals, breeding them to be toothless so that they can't keep their tongues in their mouths, for instance:

http://www.sonoma-marinfair.org/uglydogvote.shtml

There's something a tad hypocritical about stressing the importance of genetic purity while at the same time coveting the most brilliantly colored individuals of any given morph...

That said, I tend to prefer wild-type frogs, species orchids, etc. But if a "sport" appears in someone's captives' genepool--albinism, etc.--I see no problem in linebreeding to propagate it for those who are interested. All our frogs are pretty far removed from natural selective pressures anyway. Sounds like there will always be enough purists around should the world ever depend on us to repopulate its anuran habitats...

--Diane


----------



## George B (Apr 2, 2005)

*transgenic fish*

Actually one of the reason they created these and the zebra fish is pretty cool. They use the fish to detect environmental contaminants. It has a lot of advantages, its cheap, easy to read, and there are no toxic reagents to throw away. They use green fluorescent protein (GFP) of jellyfish _(Aequorea victoria)_ to do this. I don't really see a good hobby application to this. George


----------



## elmoisfive (Dec 31, 2004)

The axolotl in question is a germline GFP transgenic animal, where the gene for the green fluorescent protein (GFP) of the jellyfish _Aequorea victoria_ has been transfected at the single cell stage. Such transfections can result in the creation of a germline transgenic animal demonstrating strong GFP expression in multiple tissues - a so-called 'mosaic animal'. Such animals are invaluable for use in cell tracking experiments in live animals - axolotyls being of particular utility due to tissue plasticity in the context of remodeling, regeneration and engraftment.

You may wish to read the following article as it sheds light on the methodology used to create this animal and the rationale for doing so…

http://bigapple.uky.edu/~axolotl/article.pdf

While such experiments likely appear bizarre to many, they are merely a tool used to drive scientific understanding. The image of the gene modified plant/animal is a powerful one and fear of the unknown has been used by many to justify restrictions on research. The reality is that mankind has been manipulating genes in animals and plants for thousands of years - current technology increases the speed and diversity of such experiments yet somehow selective breeding is viewed as ‘natural’ as opposed to genetic engineering that is viewed as unnatural and therefore dangerous.

I do not advocate unregulated and thoughtless research but I accept that manipulation of genes and whole organisms for research and commercialization use underpins much of the life sciences today and has been used to benefit hundreds of millions of humans across the globe as it pertains to healthcare and billions if one factors in agriculture.

Having said that, I acknowledge that this technology, like many others has both constructive and destructive uses and left unchecked could have very negative consequences.

Bill


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2006)

Ehh, I like the idea. With the whole thing about using it for food, if we don't alter the plants they have very little fruit. I have tried growing wild raspberries, and trust me, you get basically nothing. There would not be enough food to supply everyone so price would be much higher. I see nothing wrong with just trying it for research either, if you don't expand your horizons and try new things you wont get any progress. That is like saying that back when fire was first used as a tool it shouldn't have been. Alot of good that would have done us. The only thing I see any major flaws in is making them available too be pets. If these kinds of things become common pets, then there will be less captive breeders preserving real species like the poison dart frog. Then again, most of us have dogs, and unless you have a wolf, they are not natural species either.


----------



## littlefrog (Sep 13, 2005)

I don't think GFP animals will be a big draw in the pet trade. If I recall correctly, they only fluoresce under the right wavelengths of light. It isn't like they glow in the dark like fireflies. 

I think a little genetic manipulation is an excellent thing. If used wisely, of course. Imagine a cow that uses its food twice as efficiently. Less food, less waste, more tasty steaks (must buy steaks on way home, yum). That is the kind of thing that makes sense. Custom dart frogs are not an example of something that makes a lot of sense, in my opinion.


----------



## Ben_C (Jun 25, 2004)

I agree w/ littlefrog. GFP animals won't become big because most people don't have a 488 nm Laser sitting around that they could use to excite the GFP so that you could actually see the animal at the proper emission wavelength...
As for the original post....it's tough to answer as has been discussed in this thread due to the fact that artificial selection is currently going on in captivity and we are 'tweaking' the gene pool of these guys. Maybe we could clarify the post to ask "to what extent should we modify our organisms" or "at what point should we not do this" or something...
I don't know...
Interesting how the poll is turning out, though!
~B


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2006)

Someone said plant feel pain. I don't know about that, and I certianly don't think they are aware. MHO, is that plants and many lower animals are more or less biological machines that are programmed to survive. 
When and at what level they become aware is fuzzy and unknown, but I think we are all safe when it comes to plants. 

Gene tweaking can be good. I saw a show about how they found introns(sections of DNA that get spliced 'cut' out so they don't get used). These introns were reintroduced to plants (i think they were white pansies or something) and they got blue flowers! The implications were far more than a happier plant fancier, but extended to as far as curing some if not all genetic diseases. Please don't quote me on that, the show was a while ago and I don't remember the details.

So, this can be good, and bad. Why release glow in the dark axotle? I doubt they would survive in the wild. They would become fast food in nature. As for the pet trade, only yes if every pet owner where extremely trustful when it came to keeping them, and not releasing them.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2006)

I'm so glad to see some people around here actually know something about biology and don't just regurgitate psuedoscience crap they heard on the discovery channel. 

I'm far to lazy to give my 2 pennies because most of what I think has already been said but it is nice to have a thread with some real content from educated people.


----------



## Dendro Dave (Aug 2, 2005)

While i think you'll see more examples of animals like the glo fish introduced into the pet trade in the future (i have mixed feelings about this)...its unlikely many if any will be germ line like that ax. 

Releasing animals to joe blow engineered at the germline would be highly irresponisible and likely illegal. Although as i say this it occurs to me that i dont know for sure if the glow fish breed glowing off spring? i would think they wouldnt allow animals that do that to the public. Hard if not impossible to turn back germ line stuff expecially if it gets into the wild. I dont know if we'll ever reach a point where we could do that responsibly. 

Though i can see human applications that might eventually be allowed...maybe.


----------



## npaull (May 8, 2005)

> Someone said plant feel pain. I don't know about that, and I certianly don't think they are aware. MHO, is that plants and many lower animals are more or less biological machines that are programmed to survive.


Sorry, I wasn't clear on this. I don't think plants feel pain, but they are clearly aware of damage to themselves, and pain as we experience it is really nothing more than this. I don't think plants feel the way we do (not even close) but it is not as if they don't acknowledge and respond to physiological damage.

I happen to agree with you about plants and *most* animals being more or less biological machines. Basically, I was just making an observation on how we anthropomorphize - assuming organisms that behave like us have similar capacities for feeling and thought, and assuming those that don't, don't. That's an oversimplificaiton.


----------



## zaroba (Apr 8, 2006)

that is true. i never actually thought about the pruning example you gave. a plant will adjust its growth pattern depending on how its pruned which does exhibit a sense of damage.

along with other things like turning to face light when thinking about potted plants in a windowsill. they can detect the lightsource to one side and will adjust thier position to get the most light.


----------



## vet_boy77 (Feb 10, 2005)

Regarding the exotic gene pet trade, I think many of these exotic genes are difficult to maintain in animal, and even microbiol, lines. If I recall my dabblings with glow-in-the-dark mice, not only does it take work to get them to express the gene, and thus the traint, it takes a lot of work to maintain it in the genepool; and if it's not stable enough, it can be shut off after a time (my mice only expressed the gene as babies, not as adults- though we've come so far in glow-in-the-dark mouse technology since then). Arguably, it's unlikely these genes could transfer into a stable population without being shut off or bred out all together. 

For example, I personally find certain dog breeds to be freaks of nature (cough-cough...Pugs...). Dispite it's flaws, all those traints can easily be be bred out just by crossing back to more normal looking animals. 

2 more cents, viruses transfer genes quite readily, and totally naturally. Just look at influenza. 

John


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2006)

vet-boy is right, domestic animals and plants will revert back to wildtypes in a very short time if given the chance. Glow-in-the-dark anything probably won't last very long in nature. 

However, I have always love how natural selection can work sometimes, luminescent algae light up when shrimp are foraging on them, protecting them because the light allows cuttlefish to catch the shrimp.


----------



## josh raysin (Nov 28, 2005)

Awesome post Ed,
i did an argumentative paper on GFP fish a couple years ago. the pink ones are from a coral and the green ones ( not available in the US yet to my knowledge) is from a jelyfish. i think they (in japan) also have a blue one from a jellyfish too. not to mention there are GFP rabbits and at least 1 dog that has passed away. they glow quite brightly under full spectrum lights like the ones used for saltwater tanks. when i wrote my paper i went on the nay side but i personally dont see a huge problem with it. i just did it that way to expand my thought on it. from my research on the fish there wasnt too much worry about them breeing if released due to the fact that they 1, need cooler water and 2 would attract every predator in and around where it was released. i do believe they do breed true also. ill have to go did that paper up and se what else i can add. also in my bio class we inserted glowing gened into bacteria so it isnt that hard to do when it comes to simple organisms. ill be back to this one later josh


----------



## EDs Fly Meat (Apr 29, 2004)

While true mutants can revert back to wild type, If you design a gene to become expressed you can insert the gene numerous times in the genetic code. This will lead to more lethal genes, and you get nothing, but they do it with fruits. 

And I thought the glow in the dark was easier to create than not. I know you need a laser but also lights and certain forms of light will induce them too. Still the point was to design or not?
Dave


----------



## josh raysin (Nov 28, 2005)

this is a bunny designed by Eduardo Kac, he is the person that also designed the GFP dog.interestingly enough eduardo, as an artist, also looks at the reaction to his work as part of the work itself. 
here is a link to an interestig post against GFP animals. http://cseserv.engr.scu.edu/nquinn/ENGR019_299Fall2000/StudentWebSites/Evans/ethic.html
i think this is leading to ethical issues when these animals are used for the purpose of the pet trade.i think it should however be used responsibly to treat disease and furthur our knowledge as humans. i believe this was first done to track genes by inserting the GFP gene with another that you want expressed in order to easily see if the other gene was expressed. ill be back again later.....josh


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

npaull said:


> This is far too simple a poll - captive breeding IS "gene tweaking;" we discuss it all the time - the ramifications of removing the frogs from wild natural selection will likely, over time, be far reaching.
> 
> I think genetic engineering purely for novelty's sake is a dangerous thing to do, but keep in mind: basically every crop and livestock animal we eat today, as well as most "common" pet species, have been "gene tweaked" for decades, centuries, or millenia. There's no such thing as "wild corn," "wild carrots" etc, at least, not in the sense that we know them. Cows, horses, pigs ... even they are quite distinct in life history and disposition from their wild ancestors.
> 
> ...


A great motto is "don't fix what isn't allready broken"


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

agcarf said:


> vet-boy is right, domestic animals and plants will revert back to wildtypes in a very short time if given the chance. Glow-in-the-dark anything probably won't last very long in nature.
> 
> However, I have always love how natural selection can work sometimes, luminescent algae light up when shrimp are foraging on them, protecting them because the light allows cuttlefish to catch the shrimp.


Regarless, they all will carry that gene recessively if not physically themselves. IT will never be lost once aquired, only diffused through a reachable population local/extensive. Which gives potential to become IT again or something else later given attachement to a new even slightly similar genetic varriant. Evolution would be more than just ineresting. Luckily/hopefully most all freaks are sterile but if truly genetically manipulated plants are able, who's to say anything else is much different?


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

vet_boy77 said:


> Regarding the exotic gene pet trade, I think many of these exotic genes are difficult to maintain in animal, and even microbiol, lines. If I recall my dabblings with glow-in-the-dark mice, not only does it take work to get them to express the gene, and thus the traint, it takes a lot of work to maintain it in the genepool; and if it's not stable enough, it can be shut off after a time (my mice only expressed the gene as babies, not as adults- though we've come so far in glow-in-the-dark mouse technology since then). Arguably, it's unlikely these genes could transfer into a stable population without being shut off or bred out all together.
> 
> For example, I personally find certain dog breeds to be freaks of nature (cough-cough...Pugs...). Dispite it's flaws, all those traints can easily be be bred out just by crossing back to more normal looking animals.
> 
> ...


Anyone familiar with why, not to mention when, UV adapted glowing green eyes would be of such interest in a research project?


----------



## vet_boy77 (Feb 10, 2005)

I'm not totally certain mutated genes or artificially implated ones are a permanient fixture in a genetic line. Not only can foreign genes be turned off, other mechanisms can remove it partially or completely. Bacteria seem to be able to do this readily. Viruses are a good example of how a foreign gene can be planted into host DNA. Preservation mechanisms in the host cell recognize the gene or segment as foreign, and snip snip it's gone. From a research perspective, it can be very frustrating when your well nurtured, transgenic culture rejects your tinkering and goes back to a wild type. 
I imagine that this is even more true in vertebrates, especially since half of the genetic material from each parent is discarded by default.
John


----------



## stchupa (Apr 25, 2006)

We're talking frogs and some freakin weird & ungodly creatures, not (to mention) humans (your talking a monogamous relation, in which one parent controls dominance between both sets, time and time again). But in either case if allowed to procriate over time (many times) the chance of all genes carried through the parent to be passed to any offspring is beyond high. Not to mention the offspring will have more diversity and a better chance than the parent to pass. Yes half of both parent chromosomes are unpresent, but the same ones are not used time after time(diversity). Also if it happens to be mediated by an enviromental fluctuation (possibly intervention/recreation) both parents will carry(giving a much greater chance). The future of a gene is not snipped away but rather determined to the success of the species in which it is carried. Bacteria are converters. For most everything known on Earth, foreign is not implanted (non-artificially, with exception for the superficial) or absorbed as is naturally, only mostly if not fully converted.


----------



## scott r (Mar 2, 2008)

So if I got the kids some of these, would I be able to unplug the night lights?


----------



## xm41907 (Nov 26, 2007)

I don't recall the details, but Ihad a prof that was working on genetically altering mosquitoes so that they were resistant to malaria. Meaning that the malaria pathogen could not complete its life cycle inside those mosquitoes. The marker they had to see if the new gene was present was that the mosquitoes would have glow in the dark eyes. This allowed the researchers to easily separate the resistant vs non-resistant mosquitoes. It was quite awesome to be in the lab with the lights out and see all the glowing eyes. I haven't kept up with his particular research but I know others have been working on similar resistance. I wonder if they used a similar glow in the dark marker.


----------



## Tim Pechous (Sep 13, 2008)

I'm not gonna post my feelings one way or another because I honestly wouldn't know how I felt about it unless I already saw it done to darts. I do however find it funny that people are saying that gene manipulation doesn't have a place in the pet trade when we all feed with fruit flies that have been manipulated so that the can't use the wings they're born with.


----------



## m4dc4t (Jun 28, 2008)

npaull said:


> Plus, my own personal bias is that we should try and keep dart frog colors and species distinct and as "natural" as we can, so of course that's the light in which I view the hobby. I'm not in it to make "new living art," but rather (and this may be a pipe dream, but I don't care) to play a small part in preserving (and enjoying) something wonderful that has already evolved.


I almost fully agree with you, however I have a huge problem with the above statment. You state that it is for "Preservation of something that has already evolved." Correct me if I am wrong, but are not amphibians the fastest evolving complex life forms? That being said, they are no where near done evolving. Though I believe that these animals are no where near done evolving, I do believe that we already play a large enough role in their wild evolution and should just keep our grubby little hands out of their genes in the lab. I am sure there is a cute girl in a lab coat that could be enhanced.


----------



## dwdragon (Aug 14, 2008)

Ok after reading this I see alot of interesting things...

I'm not going to do quoting because I'd have to quote alot of posts but here are some of my thoughts on the subject and also on what has been said. The usual disclaimer that I am not your "normal" thinking person and therefore nothing in what I write should be taken offensively or personally. I myself look at it analytically.

First thing is someone said "once the genie is out of the bottle you can't put it back in". This is unfortunately is a statement that says "we don't need to take accountability for our actions, we just found the toy". So I guess this means that since I own a gun I should use it. I'd certainly have far fewer neighbors. This same saying could go for drugs and their recreational use "we didn't create LSD but since it's here we gotta use it!". Yeah ok enough on that statement. Just because the nuclear bomb was created does not mean we need to drop 10 of them and see the big boom.

I see alot of posts that talk about better fruiting vegitation and medicinal uses. I have what could possibly be considered a fairly morbid position on this and at best it's a way of looking at the big picture and I'm not talking about the effects on a 100 sq ft area over 6 months. If you look at today and you look at hundreds of years ago what do you see? Hundreds of years ago there were huge forests with all sorts of animals and plants that are now extinct and mankind did survive. Humans needed not to be in fear of extinction but they weren't covering the planet like an infestation either. Back then old age was 20 or 30 maybe 40 if you were an ancient wise one. Possibly in some more sophisticated places like China people might have gotten a bit older. However, nothing like todays insanity of living until 80 - 100+ years old!

What is a natural life span? Do we determine that by the technology in our medicine? All of our self centered tinkering because we do not want to die, starve, work hard or otherwise be uncomfortable is what is wrong with this planet. Otherwise it would just go through it's natural cycles some species would die off there would be extinctions.

So as far as genetic manipulation no I don't think we should even go there. However, unfortunately we have and until a massive chain of natural events wipes out 2/3 - 3/4 of the worlds population we will continue to do so. I'm not even so sure that the human race would learn at that point. Of course there always is the chance of a nuclear holocaust....

What is funny is that the same scientist who did their tinkering are now the ones realizing what the long term effect will be, yet they still tinker.

As for plants "feeling pain" I wouldn't put it that way but they are a living organism and I wouldn't go so far as to say they aren't semi-sentient. Just because they don't walk around or talk doesn't make them numb and open for our mutilations.


----------



## m4dc4t (Jun 28, 2008)

dwdragon said:


> First thing is someone said "once the genie is out of the bottle you can't put it back in". This is unfortunately is a statement that says "we don't need to take accountability for our actions, we just found the toy". So I guess this means that since I own a gun I should use it. I'd certainly have far fewer neighbors. This same saying could go for drugs and their recreational use "we didn't create LSD but since it's here we gotta use it!". Yeah ok enough on that statement. Just because the nuclear bomb was created does not mean we need to drop 10 of them and see the big boom.


The problem is that the Genie is already out of the bottle, and like you said he is not going back in! As far as the rest of the people that think that it would be good for medicinal purposes think about this. The black plague was easily controlled in Europe and the US once sanitary conditions were achieved. That was one of the "super bugs" that humans have fended off. Now we have things like medicine resistant staff. I know quite a bit about this little bug, because I have it. My doctors have told me that I will have it for the rest of my life. Basically any time I get a little minor scratch on my leg I have to clean it thoroughly and treat it as if it were a moldy rusted knife wound. These bugs were created by us, well indirectly. We always have to have a "CURE." We aim to destroy natural selection. If something dies due to a natural infection, that sucks, but it is a part of life.


----------



## dwdragon (Aug 14, 2008)

m4dc4t said:


> The problem is that the Genie is already out of the bottle, and like you said he is not going back in! As far as the rest of the people that think that it would be good for medicinal purposes think about this. The black plague was easily controlled in Europe and the US once sanitary conditions were achieved. That was one of the "super bugs" that humans have fended off. Now we have things like medicine resistant staff. I know quite a bit about this little bug, because I have it. My doctors have told me that I will have it for the rest of my life. Basically any time I get a little minor scratch on my leg I have to clean it thoroughly and treat it as if it were a moldy rusted knife wound. These bugs were created by us, well indirectly. We always have to have a "CURE." We aim to destroy natural selection. If something dies due to a natural infection, that sucks, but it is a part of life.


I agree that on a world scale you would not be able to convince enough scientists to study rather than experiment when it comes to DNA. However, I just don't like the statement that says there is no way not to mess with it. Because there is. It is individual choice be it driven by a company or otherwise as those companies are run by people. Therefore the statement relieving all accountability or responsibility is just proof of how degraded the human population in the world is. We wouldn't have alot of the problems stemming now from "good intentioned" projects if the people had actually thought through the consequences 100 years down the road. Sorry but I feel very strongly on this subject. If I do something good that in turn creates a negative side effect, just saying that I did good and am not responsible for the negative side effect is not ok. I have to take responsibility for both.

Basically the statement I responded to comes across saying that we have no choice. There are always choices just not ones people like to make and this is usually where they say there is no choice.


----------



## markbudde (Jan 4, 2008)

Much (most) of the biological research of the last 25 years would not be possible without the ability to insert genes into organisms. Just because you don't understand something is no reason to fear it. There is no way to know all of the possible consequences of an action, but steps are taken to minimize any foreseeable risk. Researchers generally treat all genetically modified organisms (GMO) as biohazardous waste, and thus autoclave/incinerate anything before it leaves the lab. So take a look back at the past quarter century of biological research and tell me you would rather not have that understanding. 

And aside from our increased understanding (and treatments stemming from it), realize that some treatments come directly from GMOs. Insulin, for treatment of diabetes, is harvested from genetically modified organisms. I am glad insulin is available to diabetics, and support the use of GMOs to provide it.


----------



## dwdragon (Aug 14, 2008)

markbudde said:


> Much (most) of the biological research of the last 25 years would not be possible without the ability to insert genes into organisms. Just because you don't understand something is no reason to fear it. There is no way to know all of the possible consequences of an action, but steps are taken to minimize any foreseeable risk. Researchers generally treat all genetically modified organisms (GMO) as biohazardous waste, and thus autoclave/incinerate anything before it leaves the lab. So take a look back at the past quarter century of biological research and tell me you would rather not have that understanding.
> 
> And aside from our increased understanding (and treatments stemming from it), realize that some treatments come directly from GMOs. Insulin, for treatment of diabetes, is harvested from genetically modified organisms. I am glad insulin is available to diabetics, and support the use of GMOs to provide it.


That's the problem I fully understand it and the "benefits" that come with it. However, with those benefits comes consequence. Consider overpopulation. People are having kids in their 40's and 50's (no this is not speculation I know people doing this). Without our medical advances these people would likely be dead and not bearing children. On this I am very non-biased when it comes to "who". My own father refused medical treatment for cancer. They could have extended his life another 5 - 7 years but why?


----------



## markbudde (Jan 4, 2008)

This is a discussion about the merits of genetically modified organisms and the potential consequences. While I believe better medicine is a good thing, a debate about the relative merits better medicine and an increased human population is for another thread. 

Looking back at my previous post, I should have related it to the pet industry.
The picture in the first post is of an axolotl expressing green fluorescent protein (GFP). This means that it wont glow like that unless you shine a blue light at it. To take that picture, the shined a blue light at it, captured monochromatic image by using a filter to remove everything but green light, and then used photoshop to turn the gray image green. So while it would look cool to shine a blue light at it and see a green axolotl, its not as cool as the pic shows.

I have no problem with this being released to the pet industry. Google GloFish to see some zebrafish with this gene that are available.
-mark


----------



## dwdragon (Aug 14, 2008)

Whenever you discuss genetically modifying anything it bring the picture of the entire world into play. 

Ok I'll apply it to animals then. How about genetically modified chickens. There is already evidence that an avian flu strand can be transmitted to humans even though it is very rare. If scientists try to genetically modify chickens to defend against 1 disease and accidentally open the door for the mutation into the avian flu that can be tranmitted and create a pandemic flu which is perfectly possible I still wouldn't consider that a good thing.

I'm sorry but when I consider anything I look at the picture on a whole and part of the arguments for allowing genetic manipulation were based on the benefits to humans in a medical sense.

I see no benefit what so ever to the planet as a whole by humans deciding they need to "play god" and no I'm not a religious person it's just a phrase that flows better than "playing mother nature" or "playing the all mighty" whatever you want to call it. Any benefit gained from manipulating genetics will in the end have just as strong of a negative effect if not more negative than the benefit gained. I would say prolonging the life of humans to the point of overpopulating the earth thru genetic manipulation of bacteria or animals fits into the conversation just fine. 

The problem with genetic manipulation is it is an experiment. No one can say for any certainty what the outcome of it will be in 20 - 100 years until we get there and at that point it's too late to say "oops".

EDIT: Here's another thought.... any animal genetically manipulated to glow in the dark. Say they were released into the wild even by accident and managed to survive long enough to breed passing on the gene. Then over the course of time their survival triggered a radical evolutionary change in the species causing them to create deadly toxins. Now you have an animal that previously was not harmful and now is changing the balance of nature until the predators realize they are not good to eat and depending on the secretion of the toxin could create other possible deaths. I believe someone mentioned to me that WC frogs once imported aren't as toxic as they were when they were first caught. They are detoxified to a certain extent because the close quarters of importing/quarantine would kill a large number of the frogs if not all because the toxins they secrete are even toxic to them.


----------



## cindre2000 (Dec 17, 2007)

Anyone try and breed Glofish? Just wondering, since they are copyrighted with a long list of what you can and cannot do with them...

As for the previous post:

Flu is really not that great of an example. Influenza mutates at such a rapid rate that human intervention is not needed for a pandemic. In fact, that flu shot that is given each year is actually a guess of what the doctors and scientist think the flu will be that year. The Influenza pandemic of 1918-1919, for example, could have wiped out much of the human population (as many as 25 million died the first 25 weeks). It was particularaly nasty because it targeted the normal 'healthy' age of 20-40. How did we get over it? It mutated into a less virulent strain.

As for the adaption of glo in the dark animals to become toxic; those animals usually need a source for their toxin, and then it has to be adapted into the whole population; which has to survive long enough to become a sustainable population in the wild. It is highly unlikely that somehow enough glofish (for example) are released into the wild, to form a breeding population, before being hunted to extinction, and then miraculously becoming toxic in less than a thousand years. It is far more likely that us humans introduce an already well adapted species into a non-native environment, where they become an invasive species that wipes out the previous ecosystem.


----------



## dwdragon (Aug 14, 2008)

cindre2000 said:


> Anyone try and breed Glofish? Just wondering, since they are copyrighted with a long list of what you can and cannot do with them...
> 
> As for the previous post:
> 
> Flu is really not that great of an example. Influenza mutates at such a rapid rate that human intervention is not needed for a pandemic. In fact, that flu shot that is given each year is actually a guess of what the doctors and scientist think the flu will be that year. The Influenza pandemic of 1918-1919, for example, could have wiped out much of the human population (as many as 25 million died the first 25 weeks). It was particularaly nasty because it targeted the normal 'healthy' age of 20-40. How did we get over it? It mutated into a less virulent strain.


I know about the pandemic flu of 1918 - 1919..... actually it was discussed that the only reason it didn't kill a large majority of the population of the world is because we didn't travel back then like we do now and it was mainly spread by military units.

However, does anyone know why Influenza mutates so quickly? What triggers it? Sometimes it mutates alot sometimes very little. I would not jump to the conclusion that because it is self mutating that it couldn't be triggered into a mutation via an outside influence.

As for flu shots you are correct. There are actually only a couple of DNA combinations out of thousands possible that can cause pandemic flu outbreaks. Same goes for allowing Avian Influenza to infect humans. There are only a couple of mutations that make this possible. So scientists agree that the likelyhood of things like this happening are rare. However, from everything I have read and the interviews I've seen almost every scientist agrees that even if it is rare it is guarenteed to happen. Because it's a cycle. Our interference with DNA manipulation in animals without fully understand how each strand connects to the next is simply a gamble.





> As for the adaption of glo in the dark animals to become toxic; those animals usually need a source for their toxin, and then it has to be adapted into the whole population; which has to survive long enough to become a sustainable population in the wild. It is highly unlikely that somehow enough glofish (for example) are released into the wild, to form a breeding population, before being hunted to extinction, and then miraculously becoming toxic in less than a thousand years. It is far more likely that us humans introduce an already well adapted species into a non-native environment, where they become an invasive species that wipes out the previous ecosystem.


The adaptation of a toxin was just 1 theory of possible forced mutations for survival. I believe history has shown that evolutionary mutations can be made in a very short time. There are 2 choices for an animal when faced with certain death, die or adapt. This may not be something easy for people to understand because we change very little and for the most part we do not see drastic swings in nature either. But they do happen every once in awhile. So drastic and very quick evolutionary mutations are not impossible. They are just rare. 

I don't know about you but I'd rather not try and pretend to understand how it all happens and connects down to each unit of DNA. That's pretty much what anyone is saying when they say that messing with DNA is ok and will not have negative results. They are pretending to know alot more than possible.

I know there can be negative results and the examples I have given may not seem correct to you just because they haven't actually happened yet but they are possible.


----------



## markbudde (Jan 4, 2008)

dwdragon said:


> There are actually only a couple of DNA combinations out of thousands possible that can cause pandemic flu outbreaks. Same goes for allowing Avian Influenza to infect humans. There are only a couple of mutations that make this possible. So scientists agree that the likelyhood of things like this happening are rare. However, from everything I have read and the interviews I've seen almost every scientist agrees that even if it is rare it is guarenteed to happen. Because it's a cycle. Our interference with DNA manipulation in animals without fully understand how each strand connects to the next is simply a gamble.


It's not true that nearly every scientist has this viewpoint. In fact, it is currently thought to be very unlikely that avian flu will become human to human transmissible. The newest research implies that the mutation that makes it so such a nasty virus necessarily makes human to human transmission uncommon. This has to do with different ways that flu infects birds versus humans. And scientists have gone through (using the approach that you so abhor) and made all of the mutations that would be predicted to cause human to human transmission possible, and all of these result in a weaker, not stronger virus. But I really think we should get back to pets.



dwdragon said:


> Say they were released into the wild even by accident and managed to survive long enough to breed passing on the gene. Then over the course of time their survival triggered a radical evolutionary change in the species causing them to create deadly toxins.


The situation described above has never happened, and inserting novel genes is not "playing god". Inserting a glow-gene from one organism to another doesn't cause any environmental problems, and the is no scenario I can imagine that would result in a nightmare. In the first example given, a single gene is introduced into a new animal (and has been introduced thousands of times into other animals, apparently with no disasters). Using the logic that any new gene increases the risk of a radical evolutionary change, then everytime a plant is hybridized to another species, we should be worried that it will trigger a radical evolutionary change and start creating deadly toxins. THIS DOES NOT HAPPEN. Genetic modification is just one more tool humans can use for benefit, like computers and plastic. I am no more worried about glowing fish becoming toxic than I am about my calculator becoming sentient and destroying the planet. It just isn't going to happen.

We know that keeping exotic animals has disrupted the ecosystem. It HAS hurt the ecosystem by overcollecting, by releasing non-native species and by spreading pathogens. We have not found an example where making an animal glow hurt the environment, or resulted in any of the scenarios listed above.With that, I would say that keeping animals is worse for the environment than genetically modifying them.


----------



## dwdragon (Aug 14, 2008)

I'm not going to do all the quoting cause it's just gonna be too long.

I'll say a couple of things and at that point everyone has their own ideas and opinions.

The first one is that "there is a first for everything" and I mean that in all seriousness. So just saying "it has never happened" does not mean it won't. The other part of this statement is that you cannot possibly in any intelligent manner say that you have knowledge of every individual animal on this planet that has ever been messed with by both sanctioned and non-sanctioned science experiments since the dawn of time. Therefore your statement that it has never happened is opinion and not fact. My statement that it is possible is fact. However, possible does not mean it will happen it only means it's possible. My stance is that there is no reason good enough to have to mess with an animals DNA and possibly have unforseen side effects. Having a "cool" glow in the dark animal just isn't good enough of a reason for me and neither is any kind of medical or other technilogical based advancement. Also saying that it had no adverse affect on a fish so it should work on an amphibian or bunny with no side effects is not a good comparison either.

The other part completely unrelated to DNA is that you mention it would become another tool just like a computer or plastic. Both of which right now are considered some of the worst environmental unfriendly "tools" we have. I just thought that was somewhat humorous. I use a computer and I even drive a car that doesn't mean I'm going to try and play innocent and say I know nothing of what it's doing. I guess you could say I'm on the hopeless end where I don't think anything I personally do will have any effect one way or the other.


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

Great thread, Ed. Jumping in - and not to single out Dwragon, rather this snip concisely represents much if not all the fear expressed throughout the discussion:



dwdragon said:


> just saying "it has never happened" does not mean it won't ... your statement that it has never happened is opinion and not fact. My statement that it is possible is fact ... Having a "cool" glow in the dark animal just isn't good enough of a reason for me and neither is any kind of medical or other technilogical based advancement.


No one has ever observed a pencil fall up when dropped, yet this doesn't prove all pencils fall down and not up - to make such a statement would require having observed all dropped pencils, past and future. The dominant and accepted position of contemporary scientific philosophers is that it's impossible for scientists to positively prove anything, one can only factually state that that a theory has not been disproved.

As has been noted previously, no harm has ever come from genetically modifying organisms. Compare this to the massive and widespread harm that's resulted from global trade. Where I have lived, such harm has come form the unintentional introduction of the gypsy moth, milfoil, zebra muscles and kudzu among others. I'm sure everybody's local papers periodically reports on the invasive species most problematic in their region.

I believe fears such as are described in this thread (generally, that we don't know what possible harm genetically modifying organisms may lead to) would be allayed if it was universally understood that science is primarily driven by by the desire to understand, and further for gained understandings to benefit mankind and our environment.

Besides, the most common way to genetically modify plants is surprisingly low-tech: You coat a Teflon bullet with one organism's DNA and fire it into another plant's tissue and grow clones of the (hopefully) genetically modified result via tissue culture.

Fear not, science is looking out for you and your frogs.


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

Tim Pechous said:


> I do however find it funny that people are saying that gene manipulation doesn't have a place in the pet trade when we all feed with fruit flies that have been manipulated so that the can't use the wings they're born with.


I've been asked questions that this would answer --- are the wingless/flightless FFs we use naturally occurring mutations or are the result of induced genetic modification? Can someone back up Tim?


----------



## thedude (Nov 28, 2007)

im not going to get way into this and type up a huge long thing but bottom line to me is that nature should stay NATURE. as in natural, the way things evolve. if people were responsible with their pets then i wouldnt have a problem with it, but unfortunetly a lot of people arent responsible. that is why we wind up with a lot of invasive species of plants and animals. such as the pythons in florida or the lion fish in the carribean. as long as that glowing axolotle stayed in that university i would have no problem with it, i doubt it will though. 

and about the flightless fruit flies, its different because as i said before we arent messing with nature. its not as if we destroyed the flying friut flies in the wild and released these wingless and flightless ones. its not as if the frogs are completely natural anymore anyway, true the genes are(which is great!) but they are sitting in a box filled with unfamiliar plants(most likely) and eating unfamiliar bugs. but none of that is a problem...because we are able to reverse that.


----------



## Sarkany (Mar 11, 2008)

shockingelk said:


> I've been asked questions that this would answer --- are the wingless/flightless FFs we use naturally occurring mutations or are the result of induced genetic modification? Can someone back up Tim?


Hmm, "genetic modification"... not in the sense that's being talked about here. These mutations were produced via exposure of the flies to a mutagen -I believe it was radiation. So no, the mutation didn't occur totally naturally, BUT the possibility to mutate in such a way was already there in the animal.
Anyway, this mutation appears to be disadvantageous for the fly and is also recessive. While an "escaped" () fly might bring this new mutation into nature's drosophila populations, the results would not be potentially desastrous, as a) mutation is disadvantageous (as opppsed to the DNS screwing around which we're doing right now, which, for an animal or plant, might be advantageous, and therein lays the danger) and would never assert itself in a population. The mutated gene might not vanish completely, as it is recessive, but would not show in the phenotypes of all animals that are heterozygous, homozygous animals would quickly be snatched up by predators or be significantly hindered in their search for food (in the case of the drosophila).
B) such a mutation might occur in nature also, and as such is bound to be a "little step" evolution-wise: No sudden complete immunity of a plant to diverse "pests" which could upset the balance of nature. 

The largest percentage of mutations is disadvantageous (or neutral). Only a very, very small percentage of mutations appear to be advantageous for an animal. Most negative mutations also appear to be recessive. However, even if a negative mutation were to be dominant, it would never "take over the population", but show only in a small percentage of animals: As it shows in the phenotype of an animal, a "negative" mutation reduces their "fitness", thus they will produce less offspring than an animal without the mutation. 

Anyway, introducing traits into an animal or plant that can have potentionally desastrous results for the environment should they be released into nature, when we don't even know what we're doing here - and can't, in fact, foresee what consequences our "playing around" with DNS may mean for nature - IMO, is not a good idea. All aspects of nature are much too interwoven for us to go upsetting them in any way and actually expect _good _results. 

And with upsetting I mean screwing around with - let's take a plant as an example. This plant is being cultured and we want better results, so we try to make this particular plant immune to a particular herbicide. Which the weeds, at this point, are not, and that is the point of the whole thing: Effectively remove the weeds from the fielt the plant is cultured in, but not harm the cultured plant at the same time. Therefore, we genetically modify this plant into being immune against the herbicide. Up to this point, everyone is happy: the plan was a success. Suddenly, however, the weeds are starting to show an immunity to the herbicide as well; it's found out that the immunity of the cultured plant has been genetically transferred (in a natural process) to the "wild" plants. Now, the cultured plant, as well as the "weed", is immune. 

This might not be an example of the "spectactularly desastrous" kind, but it is an example that actually happened. I think (mind you, I'm not sure) that it might have been in England. 

However, it does show that we can or do not foresee (or simply don't want to see) the consequences our actions could have: What if we were to make a kind of plant (or several ones) immune to all possible "pests"? This genetic modification would be _hugely_ advantageous to the plant, and, over time, these modified plants would make up the by far bigger part of the number of this same plant species. A chain reaction might be set into place that could upset nature a good deal. (Because what could happen if all these "pests" suddenly had no food source any longer, and therefore could not continue to be a food source for other animals, such as birds, any longer?)

Now this might all sound very pessimistic, but let's face it: we've got little idea what we're doing here, and what could happen were we to do something - something miniscule even - wrong. Of course no supporter of genetic modification would be all too willing to imagine the possible consequences: And imagine them all to clear they can't (and we can't), since nobody can in this case, until it has acutally happened. At which point it might be too late to reverse.

Yes, we might discover something good for humanity through genetically modifying other beings - I believe some animals were originally genetically modified for the sake of cancer research - and that is all well and good. I have no objections (save for the usual ethic ones, which very little people will listen to anyway when the gain is an advantage for humanity) if this happens for the sake of medical research (and _only_ medical research) as long as the process is strictly regulated and absolutely in no danger of releasing any genetically modified beings into nature. And if that can't be assured, the modification _must_ be a negative one for the being.
Naturally, this also means that I'm against genetic modification of animals/plants because we hope to achieve bigger (financial) gains through them. 

We may be good at erecting social structures that make sure the human species will thrive, and we, included in this process, may be good at erecting social mores, but in everything, _everything_ that doesn't directly pertain to the benefit of humanity, but actually to the one of nature, well, _nature knows best._

Overly cautious? Maybe. But we all know, the reckless ones always are the ones to die first. 

That said, making fish glow because some people might think they look "cool" is a total no-go IMO. But it does effectively show how much respect for life we have. 

(My, that was long indeed...)


----------



## shockingelk (May 14, 2008)

Sarkany said:


> And with upsetting I mean screwing around with - let's take a plant as an example. This plant is being cultured and we want better results, so we try to make this particular plant immune to a particular herbicide. Which the weeds, at this point, are not, and that is the point of the whole thing: Effectively remove the weeds from the fielt the plant is cultured in, but not harm the cultured plant at the same time. Therefore, we genetically modify this plant into being immune against the herbicide. Up to this point, everyone is happy: the plan was a success. Suddenly, however, the weeds are starting to show an immunity to the herbicide as well; it's found out that the immunity of the cultured plant has been genetically transferred (in a natural process) to the "wild" plants. Now, the cultured plant, as well as the "weed", is immune.


I believe you're referencing Monsanto's "RoundUp-Ready" crops here.

Not sure if I follow: when weeds become resistant to a particular herbicide its because of the selective pressure they're put under when exposed to the same herbicide year after year - in this case, RoundUp. The RoundUp-Ready crops have nothing to do with weeds becoming resistant.

Thanks for the info on the mutant FFs.


----------



## Sarkany (Mar 11, 2008)

"RoundUp-Ready"...? No, I don't think that's it. (In fact, I've never even heard of the name). I'm pretty sure it was also only here in Europe, not in America. It was an article that stated clearly that genetically modified cultured plants had _transferred_ the herbicide immunity to the weeds. It also said that this was the first case where this happened, or at least they were the first to admit it. 
(If anyone's interested I'll see whether I can find the link for the article again, although i've not much hope on that  I'm not even sure whether it was in English or German; as I tend to forget these things after a while.)


----------



## markbudde (Jan 4, 2008)

I'd just like to point out that the three scientists won the nobel prize last week for developing the technique for making animals glow.

The Associated Press: Scientists win Nobel for green jellyfish protein

-mark


----------



## bbrock (May 20, 2004)

Sarkany said:


> "RoundUp-Ready"...? No, I don't think that's it. (In fact, I've never even heard of the name). I'm pretty sure it was also only here in Europe, not in America. It was an article that stated clearly that genetically modified cultured plants had _transferred_ the herbicide immunity to the weeds. It also said that this was the first case where this happened, or at least they were the first to admit it.
> (If anyone's interested I'll see whether I can find the link for the article again, although i've not much hope on that  I'm not even sure whether it was in English or German; as I tend to forget these things after a while.)


Might you be talking about Bt modified crops which are genetically modified to produce a toxin that is lethal to European corn borers and other pests? Studies have been conducted to estimated spill over effects on native butterflies. Effects have been shown but the seriousness of their impacts is debated. I tend to think that a cautious and conservative approach is warranted but, unfortunately, the nature of the impacts makes it easy to discount those effects. Here's a pretty good article: Articles of Interest - Biotechnology: Food & Agriculture


----------



## Rich Conley (Jun 12, 2008)

Sarkany said:


> "RoundUp-Ready"...? No, I don't think that's it. (In fact, I've never even heard of the name). I'm pretty sure it was also only here in Europe, not in America. It was an article that stated clearly that genetically modified cultured plants had _transferred_ the herbicide immunity to the weeds. It also said that this was the first case where this happened, or at least they were the first to admit it.
> (If anyone's interested I'll see whether I can find the link for the article again, although i've not much hope on that  I'm not even sure whether it was in English or German; as I tend to forget these things after a while.)


You're gonna need a reference for genes transferring from one species to another. A much more likely explanation is a natural immunity developed from repeated partial kill-offs (the most resistant survive, gene gets reinforced)


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

You mean like 
GENE TRANSFER BETWEEN CANOLA (BRASSICA NAPUS) AND RELATED WEED SPECIES 

Ed


----------

