Factory of Life (bioengineering article)

[kay]

In any case GM crops should probably the least of your worries if you plan on being alarmist about scientific research that is being conducted openly and subject to peer review. Labs are springing up all over now as part of the maker movement. Almost unenforceable bio experiments free of ethical controls could be coming to a garden shed near you!

DOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMM!!!!!!

[Terpit]

I bet China are doing some creeepy shit

[knell]

I'm so glad iv'e never been in an argument with you knell

At least test recordings is actually making an effort to be scientific and isn't just throwing around the words "unnatural", "corporate" and "allergy" like most people tend to do, it makes for a much more interesting debate. I just happen to have spent a great deal of time studying food and genetics, so this is basically a chance to talk about the things I'm passionate about. I don't contribute anything to the arguments that I'm ignorant about, because I never want to spread misinformation.

I just wish everyone had the time/interest to study bioengineering and genetics and understand the process behind GM and food manipulation. Most people seem to think that they're just dumping methylmercury on lettuce and saying "maybe this'll work for doing da science, better ignore it for awhile to find out!".

[Genevieve]

I'm studying food as we speak. NOMNOMNOM PASTA NOMNOMNOM AAAH. I'M GETTING A PHD IN DELICIOUS

This is what I do in thread about stuff I don't know anything about (I think? I've barely read anything). I dumb them the fuck down.

But I'd like to believe that I contribute decently as well when the time calls for it.

I'm sorry you guyth. Continue.

[Terpit]

Thanks mate! spot on

[knell]

I'm studying food as we speak. NOMNOMNOM PASTA NOMNOMNOM AAAH. I'M GETTING A PHD IN DELICIOUS

This is what I do in thread about stuff I don't know anything about (I think? I've barely read anything). I dumb them the fuck down.

But I'd like to believe that I contribute decently as well when the time calls for it.

I'm sorry you guyth. Continue.

I present to you, the TL;DR of the entire second half of this thread:

Genes are nucleic acids that encode proteins.

This, along with a basic understanding of digestion, biology and food chains, should be a good starting point in understanding how and why GM foods are useful, as well as the potential dangers and how to recognize and prevent them.

[LACE]

why's everything always got to be biology with you people. let's talk about space and rockets and shiet =D

[kay]

I'm studying food as we speak. NOMNOMNOM PASTA NOMNOMNOM AAAH. I'M GETTING A PHD IN DELICIOUS

This is what I do in thread about stuff I don't know anything about (I think? I've barely read anything). I dumb them the fuck down.

But I'd like to believe that I contribute decently as well when the time calls for it.

I'm sorry you guyth. Continue.

I present to you, the TL;DR of the entire second half of this thread:

Genes are nucleic acids that encode proteins.

This, along with a basic understanding of digestion, biology and food chains, should be a good starting point in understanding how and why GM foods are useful, as well as the potential dangers and how to recognize and prevent them.

Have you heard of the recent reports which suggest that it isn't just the individual genes themselves which are important for the expression of traits and therefore defining what a species' traits are, but that the specific sequential arrangement of genes could also play a major role in differentiating between species? Interesting stuff!

[knell]

Have you heard of the recent reports which suggest that it isn't just the individual genes themselves which are important for the expression of traits and therefore defining what a species' traits are, but that the specific sequential arrangement of genes could also play a major role in differentiating between species? Interesting stuff!

Can you be more specific? Is this a genotype v phenotype study? As I understand it, changes in the RNA splicing of genomic sequences (mutations that make it into the exons) are the whole reason behind speciation as a concept, but I might be thinking too specifically. Do you have a link I can take a look at?

[kay]

Have you heard of the recent reports which suggest that it isn't just the individual genes themselves which are important for the expression of traits and therefore defining what a species' traits are, but that the specific sequential arrangement of genes could also play a major role in differentiating between species? Interesting stuff!

Can you be more specific? Is this a genotype v phenotype study? As I understand it, changes in the RNA splicing of genomic sequences (mutations that make it into the exons) are the whole reason behind speciation as a concept, but I might be thinking too specifically. Do you have a link I can take a look at?

Here you go: http://phys.org/news/2012-12-evolution- ... wires.html

[volcanogeorge]

why's everything always got to be biology with you people. let's talk about space and rockets and shiet =D

yeah this

i was doing some rocket science the other day. feels pretty good to be able to say that.

[knell]

Have you heard of the recent reports which suggest that it isn't just the individual genes themselves which are important for the expression of traits and therefore defining what a species' traits are, but that the specific sequential arrangement of genes could also play a major role in differentiating between species? Interesting stuff!

Can you be more specific? Is this a genotype v phenotype study? As I understand it, changes in the RNA splicing of genomic sequences (mutations that make it into the exons) are the whole reason behind speciation as a concept, but I might be thinking too specifically. Do you have a link I can take a look at?

Here you go: http://phys.org/news/2012-12-evolution- ... wires.html

Thanks I had a feeling it had something to do with RNA splicing, but I was indeed thinking too narrowly. My brain starts to melt down at the protein folding stage, so it's always nice to get a little more clarity on isoform mechanisms, even if I can't understand them in their entirety. I have to tip my hat to those who study alternative splicing, must be as frustrating as studying TV static.

[kay]

Have you heard of the recent reports which suggest that it isn't just the individual genes themselves which are important for the expression of traits and therefore defining what a species' traits are, but that the specific sequential arrangement of genes could also play a major role in differentiating between species? Interesting stuff!

Can you be more specific? Is this a genotype v phenotype study? As I understand it, changes in the RNA splicing of genomic sequences (mutations that make it into the exons) are the whole reason behind speciation as a concept, but I might be thinking too specifically. Do you have a link I can take a look at?

Here you go: http://phys.org/news/2012-12-evolution- ... wires.html

Thanks I had a feeling it had something to do with RNA splicing, but I was indeed thinking too narrowly. My brain starts to melt down at the protein folding stage, so it's always nice to get a little more clarity on isoform mechanisms, even if I can't understand them in their entirety. I have to tip my hat to those who study alternative splicing, must be as frustrating as studying TV static.

It sounds like a pretty interesting subject area really. But then again I have an inclination towards pattern studying.

[test_recordings]

It`s irresponsible to trust science blindly.

Which is exactly what I've asked people not to do, and exactly what you've done, when you haven't been attacking the names rather than the research while putting forth your own that you clearly don't fully understand and haven't fact-checked.

You obviously didn't take the time to read my source either, let alone address any of the points listed within, you just got emotional as soon as you saw the sponsors. If you look at the conclusion, nowhere does it give the thumbs up to GM or anything of the sort, it simply restates the found data and says more research is needed. Monsanto is a business, they have done horrible things to farmers, but even they are weak in the knees when it comes to manipulating raw, publicly available data.

There are plenty of valid arguments against GM, and you have listed none of them aside from an inconclusive correlation to colony collapse (which is still not fully understood). Instead you're seeking refuge in an emotional response against a giant corporation while comparing geo-political differences. Grouping in the tireless efforts of bioengineers with the corporate practices isn't just unfair, it's ignorant and misleading. Reading a health assessment and drawing the conclusion that it will "probably cause a lot of shit later" is not conclusive and is certainly not the scientific consensus.

Of course, I`d love GM to be as easy and unproblematic as it might be made out to be but there also other ways around our problems that would be a lot easier in the long run...
Again, you're attacking the politics, not the science, which is fine, but make sure you can distinguish between the two. If you want to bring up any finer points within your source we can chew them out individually, as it groups a lot of research under a single umbrella (and a variety of the sources go the "we don't know but we can know" route, or contradict the very point they're trying to make). I applaud you for actually providing a source though.

tl;dr - GM research and corporate malevolence are completely different ballgames.

ResponsibleTechnology.org makes their money by scaring scientifically ignorant people and selling DVDs, so of course they will pick and choose data and hope that you don't fact-check them. The key is to look at the data itself, not the people spouting it and certainly not their press releases. Here's a quote from one of the sources of your source (don't worry, no evil names behind this one, just EFSA):

Results obtained from testing GM food and feed in rodents indicate that large (at least 100-fold) 'safety' margins exist between animal exposure levels without observed adverse effects and estimated human daily intake. [. . .] The studies did not show any biologically relevant differences in the parameters tested between control and test animals.

I`ll get back to this when I have more time, though your points have been noted Not all of it can be agreed with, such as science and politics not being mutually related - I attack the politics because it affects the science and there is substantial evidence for that...

For example, science can be prone to a bias towards publishing statistically significant findings because they seem `more significant` and there is substantial evidence for it in psychology. This doesn`t mean psychology is the worst and in fact psychology takes a very serious attempt to police itself and catch others out. Read this article for one particular study of how it may be manifesting in research publications: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?ter ... elow%20.05. There has also been a website created to make up for the bias in mainstream publications (http://psychfiledrawer.org/) and I see no such attempt by other disciplines - please tell if there is.

I`m not `getting emotional` because of the funding source, I just won`t trust sources with a potential for bias easily. This is politics AND science and they are inseparable, the politics feeds the science. Without the politics there would be no GM on the scale we have now because people would never have had the resources to go about it but the politics itself doesn`t generate resources. This is where the private and vested interests come in, ostensibly to further the research but for a profit, of course. Pharmaceuticals have a much longer history than GM and there science has been `sound` since they`re creation in 95% of all published research - because that research is funded by pharmaceutical companies and the criteria for success doesn not reflect their actual use in clinical practice (there is also a substantial amount of unpublished research that will never be submitted as the companies already have FDA approval). The amount of influence the private pharmaceutical companies have is enormous, such that it is almost ubiquitous and not realised that it is essentially the total environment of most pharmacological work. It is only now, after about 60 years, that there is serious recognition that the efficacy of a lot of medication is now questionable but still the whole thing mostly rolls on because the companies have their hands around the balls of the politics. There should be more independent testing of pharmaceuticals and continuous review.

You might want to pay as much attention to the politics, in the meantime... Because there is no precedent, it would be prudent to wait at least the equivalent of two generations of testing on humans in a lab before there is any type of outdoor experimentation. Thay way we can check the effects over the course of the reproductive cycle to make sure of any potential affects to humans in utero and across the lifespan.

[test_recordings]

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#B1

Here`s another bit of GM research that deals with safety issues, corn in this case, and how Monsanto had to be legally challenged to have the raw data released - that is not good scientific practice and a good example of how the politics is inseparable. All data should be available, why did Monsanto have to be legally challenged to release it?

Note this is the FIRST comparative analysis of blood and organ data... but the corn in question is already approved? This should have been part of the preliminary assessment to ascertain the differences between the GM and non-GM in animals` dietary intake.

Have you ever seen anything like this? Please share it with us if so.

[knell]

Politics and science are mutually exclusive in terms of analysis and procedure, as soon as you blur the lines you lend yourself to bias (which we can both agree is something we're not attempting to encounter intentionally).

There's no need to "trust sources" if you analyze the data correctly. Ignore where the press release is coming from, whether it be Monsanto or Greenpeace, and you're heading in the right direction.

So let's separate them out:

1. Politics - we're on the same page. Monsanto and all other big bio-agriculture firms are businesses with shaky track records, and need to be double checked on every move they make. Regulation needs to be fair, responsible, and standardized across the board, and I agree, studies on a variety of different aspects and consequences of GM food need to be done prior to implementation in animal feed and direct food sources (which, as you noted, is not always the case due to said business practices).

I myself own, co-own and coordinate farms, so you bet your bum I won't be supporting any big agribusiness that messes around with health and safety of the food supply.

2. Science - All current evidence indicates that GM food is equivalent to regular food in safety when properly produced and implemented. The specific procedure and analysis of splicing essentially guarantees it, when done correctly. Of course, we don't live in a perfect world and problems do arise, and they are analysed and dealt with accordingly, and you are correct in asserting that all negative impacts should be studied prior to release, which again is a political issue.

Along the way, you find out things that can have negative impacts to health that were unexpected, or they just plain stop working. Is this a reason to throw out all the massive amounts of beneficial products that have not been shown to be harmful? Absolutely not, and to imply otherwise is ludicrous (and would result in incalculable food shortages).



Here's a real-world example of what I mean: picking out the negative effects of particular GM foods and then banning them all outright is the equivalent of finding a defect in Toyota accelerating pedals that cause them to stick (resulting in loss of control and crashes), and then banning every single car, truck, and wheeled vehicle for everyone forever as a response. Used and built properly, cars are safe to operate responsibly and there is no reason to think otherwise, given the fact that almost everyone encounters at least one per day without harm to them or their progeny. Finding fault in particular models and blaming/eliminating the entire engineering/manufacturing/political system behind them is pretty irresponsible, logically speaking (although it would be great for the environment).

Again, the mechanism behind the proper creation of GM food leaves very little to chance.

tl;dr for all the folk who aren't versed in the specific sciences behind GM foods and want to know a general overview of GM foods and safety concerns:
Wikipedia sums it up very well (with plenty of specific citations) over here on their "GM controversies" page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneticall ... troversies

and for more more in-depth reading of broad and specific studies, news articles, and peer review concerning GM food and risk assessment for human health (for your convenience I've removed all sources that I noticed have funding ties to large agribusinesses and narrowed the list down to those which are particularly relevant [i.e. those which have parameters equalling or exceeding those preferred by the French study you linked], there are quite a few more):

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10977
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408621/
http://www.ama-assn.org/resources/doc/c ... dfoods.pdf (PDF)
http://www.sddt.com/News/article.cfm?So ... NZXbInjlhs
http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/ ... -pubs.html
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publicati ... stions/en/
http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8180.pdf
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/ ... ment.shtml
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/gue ... red-crops/
http://www.plantphysiol.org/content/155/4/1752
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18801324
http://www.aspajournal.it/index.php/ija ... 04.107/185
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/2004 ... 5-g9672536
http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... -2?LI=true
http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... rue#page-1
http://tpx.sagepub.com/content/30/1/126.short
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 5209003112
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 4408002239
http://www.isbr.info/sites/default/file ... df#page=43

[kay]

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#B1

Here`s another bit of GM research that deals with safety issues, corn in this case, and how Monsanto had to be legally challenged to have the raw data released - that is not good scientific practice and a good example of how the politics is inseparable. All data should be available, why did Monsanto have to be legally challenged to release it?

Note this is the FIRST comparative analysis of blood and organ data... but the corn in question is already approved? This should have been part of the preliminary assessment to ascertain the differences between the GM and non-GM in animals` dietary intake.

Have you ever seen anything like this? Please share it with us if so.

You are right in the respect that big companies can have an overly large effect on funded science and reported information, whether through direct funding or indirectly through political exertion. However, in theory, if the science behind the reporting is performed rigorously AND the refereering/review system is functioning at the required level of scientific robustness and impartiality, AND the data is studied with sufficient scientific rigour then dubious results would be rejected. While I would agree that the failings in the system are partially political in nature, I think that a large proportion of blame also has to be directed at the end line practitioners as well, especially with respect to pharmaceuticals. Doctors really do need to be better trained in the evaluation of reported data in order to make better informed decisions over the efficacy of drugs. In addition, they really need to re-look at the ethical situation surrounding free/subsidised/incentivised drug prescriptions.

Furthermore, study reviewers who accept dubious/questionable or insufficiently rigorous studies for publication/acceptance really ought to be held accountable for their failings.

[test_recordings]

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#B1

Here`s another bit of GM research that deals with safety issues, corn in this case, and how Monsanto had to be legally challenged to have the raw data released - that is not good scientific practice and a good example of how the politics is inseparable. All data should be available, why did Monsanto have to be legally challenged to release it?

Note this is the FIRST comparative analysis of blood and organ data... but the corn in question is already approved? This should have been part of the preliminary assessment to ascertain the differences between the GM and non-GM in animals` dietary intake.

Have you ever seen anything like this? Please share it with us if so.

You are right in the respect that big companies can have an overly large effect on funded science and reported information, whether through direct funding or indirectly through political exertion. However, in theory, if the science behind the reporting is performed rigorously AND the refereering/review system is functioning at the required level of scientific robustness and impartiality, AND the data is studied with sufficient scientific rigour then dubious results would be rejected. While I would agree that the failings in the system are partially political in nature, I think that a large proportion of blame also has to be directed at the end line practitioners as well, especially with respect to pharmaceuticals. Doctors really do need to be better trained in the evaluation of reported data in order to make better informed decisions over the efficacy of drugs. In addition, they really need to re-look at the ethical situation surrounding free/subsidised/incentivised drug prescriptions.

Furthermore, study reviewers who accept dubious/questionable or insufficiently rigorous studies for publication/acceptance really ought to be held accountable for their failings.

Doctors are trained though, they have a doctorate and substantial clinical training! The problem is the incessant, subtle manipulation of them, all promotion wrapped up as `science`. If you took them out of their usual environment and put them in a blank room with nothing but data they could probably make a much more effective decision. Most practitioners genuinely want to heal their patients but I do agree they could do with a bit of extra `awareness` training.

It would be much more effective to shut private interests out of health care at the point of delivery and make them deal with independent test centres. The Cochrane Library is okay for thorough evaluation of AVAILABLE evidence but that still doesn`t cut deep enough as it doesn`t do any testing itself.

And of course if the science behind the reporting is performed rigorously AND the refereering/review system is functioning at the required level of scientific robustness and impartiality, AND the data is studied with sufficient scientific rigour, then dubious results should be rejected. They should also be made available for everyone else to analyse, good science is transparent. Is data actually readily made available for this stuff in general? It would be interesting to look at.

[Terpit]

I bought a little tub of bell peppers with feta cheese in them today (they were lovely, but a bit too sour) for me and my department, my manager refused to eat them because they must have been genetically modified and are therefore bad for you 'you don't know what youre eating'.

[kay]

http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm#B1

Here`s another bit of GM research that deals with safety issues, corn in this case, and how Monsanto had to be legally challenged to have the raw data released - that is not good scientific practice and a good example of how the politics is inseparable. All data should be available, why did Monsanto have to be legally challenged to release it?

Note this is the FIRST comparative analysis of blood and organ data... but the corn in question is already approved? This should have been part of the preliminary assessment to ascertain the differences between the GM and non-GM in animals` dietary intake.

Have you ever seen anything like this? Please share it with us if so.

You are right in the respect that big companies can have an overly large effect on funded science and reported information, whether through direct funding or indirectly through political exertion. However, in theory, if the science behind the reporting is performed rigorously AND the refereering/review system is functioning at the required level of scientific robustness and impartiality, AND the data is studied with sufficient scientific rigour then dubious results would be rejected. While I would agree that the failings in the system are partially political in nature, I think that a large proportion of blame also has to be directed at the end line practitioners as well, especially with respect to pharmaceuticals. Doctors really do need to be better trained in the evaluation of reported data in order to make better informed decisions over the efficacy of drugs. In addition, they really need to re-look at the ethical situation surrounding free/subsidised/incentivised drug prescriptions.

Furthermore, study reviewers who accept dubious/questionable or insufficiently rigorous studies for publication/acceptance really ought to be held accountable for their failings.

Doctors are trained though, they have a doctorate and substantial clinical training! The problem is the incessant, subtle manipulation of them, all promotion wrapped up as `science`. If you took them out of their usual environment and put them in a blank room with nothing but data they could probably make a much more effective decision. Most practitioners genuinely want to heal their patients but I do agree they could do with a bit of extra `awareness` training.

It would be much more effective to shut private interests out of health care at the point of delivery and make them deal with independent test centres. The Cochrane Library is okay for thorough evaluation of AVAILABLE evidence but that still doesn`t cut deep enough as it doesn`t do any testing itself.

And of course if the science behind the reporting is performed rigorously AND the refereering/review system is functioning at the required level of scientific robustness and impartiality, AND the data is studied with sufficient scientific rigour, then dubious results should be rejected. They should also be made available for everyone else to analyse, good science is transparent. Is data actually readily made available for this stuff in general? It would be interesting to look at.

That's the problem - in pharma pretty much all the testing is done by the pharmas themselves. It doesn't really get peer reviewed in a transparent process, and they can choose which results they wish to submit. They should be required to submit all test data. Currently, it's very difficult to obtain data that they have chosen not to make available. It's a pretty hot topic at the moment as there have been a number of drugs being pulled in recent years due to undersirable side effects which, it turned out, were identified during the trials but were not included in the submitted results.