GM -General Misunderstanding? (GM and cloning)

Member Name: Cheuk

Product:	GM and cloning
Date:	04/06/01 (27 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: solves problems, scientific progress

Disadvantages: creates other problems, unknown dangers

Well The GM debate will go on forever, and before anyone accuses me of being pro-GM then let me tell you I am undecided.

Alot of it has played on our fears on the unknown and the media hasn't helped in giving the biased and often naive written pieces. Remember these articles are often written by people who are not scientists themselves and very often cannot get basic scientific facts right! Remember the press never follow up on a story and are interested only to get you to buy their paper and will greatly exaggerate the piece.
The only way to get at the truth is to either hire Mulder and Scully or to read the literature directly.


As a scientist I have heard both sides of the argument and let me start by saying much need to be done before we fully understand the implications, that is maybe we should stick to more lab experiments and create a simulated environment before we start proper trials in the open, as once it starts, then maybe we can't contain it.

What exactly is GM or Genetic Modification? The common view is that we are now starting to play God and cloning humans. This is untrue. Not totally anyway. GM is the creation of species with desirable characteristics. We have been doing it for centuries. It is called EVOLUTION, a word not used in the states. Simply we have mated with partners that have favourable characteristics that will enable their gene to be carried on into the gene pool. Without this we wouldn't be were we are now. We would all be a single cell organism still. GM we common now refer to is done with modern techniques and much quicker. Ever since history we have performed GM with whatever technology existed.

GM Crops

GM Crops the common target have been in existence for centuries. The difference is now we can be more specific in what we transfer and the approach is more directed, and the species barrier can be overcome. This is done in labs with test tubes
and chemicals etc.. But that is because of the progress in technology man has come. We have moved on. Past methods, would include specifically trying to breed two species say orange and lemon to create a new species that would have the characteristics of both, but not always the desirable ones. Rice has been bred so that they are more hardy and produce more yield. This is not new. Nature also does it. Insects can cross pollinate other species by accident. However the species barrier prevents the creation of species that are too dissimilar. With modern technology this can be relatively overcome. This is because one gene or product of characteristic is transferred, and the approach is more directed so that it can be succeed.

The difference between the different approaches is speed and directness. We are introducing a characteristic that is relatively known, but the effects and implications maynot be fully understood. Nature has mechanisms to do this at pace. For those struggling to understand, we can liken this to antibiotics resistance that is developing in bacteria that causes disease.

A mutation causes a trait or characteristic in the bacteria that is hardy to the drug and it no longer dies when it sees it.

This bacteria strain will soon become the dominant species if its competitors doesn't adapt. Nature ensures competition occurs, and other species can acquire this trait or mutation through the transfer of genetic material.

Man has no control of this whatsoever. It is for this reason that I am uneasy about GM. The technology is sound, but the approach maynot be the best way. Antibiotic resistance genes are often used to select out the one with the transferred gene, it is one of the few ways that we can quickly identify the transformed line. However as mentioned above, bacteria in the environment can potentially acquire the resistance as well. There is evidence that the use of human related antibio
tics in animal feed is one of the main reasons for the increase in antibiotic resistance.

It is also the potential impact on the environment that is another cause of worry. It has been shown that a toxin gene which occurs naturally that was developed against various pests, and as it natural much more desirable than synthetic pesticides, also harms butterflies in the US. Yes an unwanted side effect, but it protects the crops. But does it and for how long? Strains that are resistant to the toxin have appeared but whether this will spread quickly remains to be seen. The main question is it safe to man? Well yes and no. We don’t know in the long run. Conflicting data often clouds things and data at present suggest that it is perfectly safe. With the advances in science and technology we may find out in the future that there may be. But that is were research plays a role to determine this. Without research we do know. Life is a risk. We all have to take risks. Without risks, we would not be very developed and remain herbivores, probably becoming extinct like the dinosaurs. There are many natural plants and sources of food that are not suitable for man because they are poisonous. But how do we know they are poisonous? True this borders on a debate on animal experiment which this isn’t, but we can only learn from our mistakes. Lets face it there are much more of us in the world these days and more source of food are required to feed us. Remember there is a finite area of land where we can produce our food. Intensive farming, and deforestation has caused damaged to the environment and there is an increase in desertification. Technology is one way to help man produce enough food, but it should be viewed as that. One alternative. Farming practices must also evolve.

To Clone or not to clone?

This is perhaps the most controversial area. Is it desirable to replicate in entirety one complete organism. Ethically no.
We are struggling to cope with the population size at present, any more attempts to live longer will not only overburden the economy and welfare system amongst others. The thought of designer babies is equally incorrect. However thankfully for me this is a long way of yet. Creation of designer babies is simply not feasible. True we do this naturally, by going for partners with desirable features, intelligence, looks etc.. We are also risk carrying hidden danger. We have some would argue, slowed down our evolution process by adapting the environment to suit us rather than vice versa. Therefore our genetic selection may have slowed down to, and selection could be based on an easier environment. For example, allergies is on the increase and one explanation put forward is that we have so much better hygiene that we no longer stimulate our immune system enough which makes it go haywire. As we are now increasingly becoming aware that there is no such things as perfect genes. Variations of the same genes are called alleles. It is becoming that alleles that are advantageous for one trait can be disadvantageous for others. In the modern environment this is maybe unimportant as we could adapt the environment, but nature has been shown to hit back and hit back hard. True, cynics would argue that most parents are more important on how the kids will look and again this is thwart with danger. Certain genes are linked to each other and by altering one we could alter the make up and link with unknown consequences. Besides, more important we would loose individuality, do we want everyone with blonde hair and blue eyes walking down the street just because it just happens to the fashion statement of the moment? Those wanting to be taller face the same dilemma. We could get taller every generation, so that short people will still exist, so is there any point? Remember what happened to the dinosaurs as we would need more resources!

A perfectly legitimate u
se of cloning is for medical therapy, either for gene therapy, or transplantation purposes. I hear people say surely this is unethical as we are adapting our genes to suit the environment, well to a certain extent. Medicine have mainly changed the environment to suit us, by killing off infectious organisms, etc. By cloning parts of us and as long as it used ethically then there is no danger. Medicine is for the saving of lives and improve our healthcare and the future would probably use these technologies, and we would forget the in the future the ethical debate about this type of cloning.

Conclusion

Hopefully you would have seen a more balanced argument to the pros and cons of GM, and that we shouldn’t believe every thing we read. (Including this for some). We need to be more focused and have a more open mind about things we don’t fully understand. Scientific progress these days is much harder now with all the regulations and ethics involved that we face the possibility of standing still. Not all scientists want to play Frankenstein, and the majority are responsible people, who want to advance science to help the human race. If we look back over history, a lot of major achievements were done so either by accident or unethically these days. We need to give scientists more space so they can get on with their research and find these answers as long as they are responsible and go under enough scrutiny. Maybe a clinical trial system needs to be employed as well to ensure the public has more trust in the work.

NOTE: I DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANY WORK LINKED TO GM AT PRESENT.

Summary: