Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Atomic Gardening

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 101 posts

Re: Atomic Gardening

#31

Post by enchiridion »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #22
forgotmypw17 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GMO in the sense most people mean it (direct genetic modification) almost always also means pesticides. I think that

I have never heard of that connection. I was under the assumption anti gmo folk were against modified rice that is super drought resistant.

Sure there are some anti-science people out there, but most people I've talked to are worried about pesticides.

GMO plants are designed to take much higher doses. That is a concern both environmentally and as a potential health issue.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#32

Post by SigmundA »

mahogany wrote: post #27
SigmundA wrote: post #9

It always amuses me to find that people are against GMO foods yet almost everything we eat is GMO depending on how you define it. Almost every crop and livestock has been genetically modified through selective breeding (domestication). Mutagenesis, which atomic gardening falls under, has been around since the 1920's using x-rays and chemicals and currently doesn't normally fall under most GMO definitions because its…

> It always amuses me to find that people are against GMO foods yet almost everything we eat is GMO depending on how you define it. > Almost every crop and livestock has been genetically modified through selective breeding (domestication). I agree with your broader point that much of what we eat is GMO. But isn't selective breeding a categorically different process of modifying an organism? My understanding is that s…

Again mutagenesis I would consider "manipulating DNA directly using technology" its just using a less targeted and more random approach.

Every variation of life today including poisonous and deadly plants and animals came from random mutation over time.

For example tomatoes and eggplants and peppers are closely related to tobacco and to deadly nightshade. How likely would a random mutation create a poisonous version, or one that is just poison to some people. Many people are allergic to them already.

Artificial selection with artificial mutation speed that process up greatly, targeted gene editing even further but in a more controlled way.

Which process is more likely to produce harmful side effects? Is there data to warrant engineered organisms are more likely or is it just unwarranted fear?

Re: Atomic Gardening

#33

Post by SigmundA »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #29
SigmundA wrote: post #9

It always amuses me to find that people are against GMO foods yet almost everything we eat is GMO depending on how you define it. Almost every crop and livestock has been genetically modified through selective breeding (domestication). Mutagenesis, which atomic gardening falls under, has been around since the 1920's using x-rays and chemicals and currently doesn't normally fall under most GMO definitions because its…

I'm in your boat. Gene's are letters in a story. To say "That's a salmon gene! It doesn't belong in my tomato!" is puzzling, like "That letter belongs to another book! Keep it out of this book!" Anyway, good ol' paleo food was whatever nature provided, most of what was happy to kill you. Humans tamed 1000's of plants over 50,000 years changing them beyond recognition so they wouldn't hurt us with alkalis and poisons.…

Since I share at least 60% of the DNA with about anything I eat I don't worry too much about mixing one organism with another genetically bad things can happen mixing close relatives or distant ones and I am not sure one poses a higher risk than the other.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#34

Post by lavela »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #22
forgotmypw17 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GMO in the sense most people mean it (direct genetic modification) almost always also means pesticides. I think that

I have never heard of that connection. I was under the assumption anti gmo folk were against modified rice that is super drought resistant.

One use if GMO is to engineer a plant, that is resistant to a specific herbicide, which is typically sold by the same company (see e.g. Monsanto and Glyphosate).

Another use is to engineer plants that produce insecticides themselves, which raises the concern if those insecticides affect other organisms as well.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#35

Post by tryonenow »

SigmundA wrote: post #9

It always amuses me to find that people are against GMO foods yet almost everything we eat is GMO depending on how you define it. Almost every crop and livestock has been genetically modified through selective breeding (domestication). Mutagenesis, which atomic gardening falls under, has been around since the 1920's using x-rays and chemicals and currently doesn't normally fall under most GMO definitions because its…

Most people who oppose GMO don't really understand the scientific reasons to do so, and I don't think that all GMO are necessarily dangerous.

However what I've come to realize over the years is that if mutations can induce positive traits in organisms, they can also induce negative attributes. With crude methods like atomic gardening, and to a lesser extent crispr, it's quite possible for example for a seemingly desirable plant, or even a desirable mutation, to inadvertently also introduce, say, the production of a carcinogenic or otherwise toxic compound. And the difficulty here is that such undesirable effects are only likely to be detected through correlational studies decades after the engineered genome is widespread and the damage is done, if at all. Sure, all of this is possible with conventional selective breeding, but orders of magnitude less likely given the quantity and randomness of artificially induced mutations. AFAIK gene splicing is still a rather messy, evolving practice.

The progress of science is marred by unexpected dangers, for which we must be vigilant.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#36

Post by LatteLazy »

SigmundA wrote: post #9

It always amuses me to find that people are against GMO foods yet almost everything we eat is GMO depending on how you define it. Almost every crop and livestock has been genetically modified through selective breeding (domestication). Mutagenesis, which atomic gardening falls under, has been around since the 1920's using x-rays and chemicals and currently doesn't normally fall under most GMO definitions because its…

Techniques like CRISPR are at least 1000 times more powerful than selective breeding. That's why we use them.

Given the food industry don't give a shit about nutrition and have spent decades pushing sugar and fat and 101 similar things, why would you trust them with tools 1000 times more powerful than they already have?

I'm opposed to gmo not because I think it will magically make me grow another head or something. I'm opposed to it when it doesn't offer anything good for me as a consumer.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#37

Post by theptip »

mahogany wrote: post #27
SigmundA wrote: post #9

It always amuses me to find that people are against GMO foods yet almost everything we eat is GMO depending on how you define it. Almost every crop and livestock has been genetically modified through selective breeding (domestication). Mutagenesis, which atomic gardening falls under, has been around since the 1920's using x-rays and chemicals and currently doesn't normally fall under most GMO definitions because its…

> It always amuses me to find that people are against GMO foods yet almost everything we eat is GMO depending on how you define it. > Almost every crop and livestock has been genetically modified through selective breeding (domestication). I agree with your broader point that much of what we eat is GMO. But isn't selective breeding a categorically different process of modifying an organism? My understanding is that s…

It’s interesting to read Greenpeace and other environmental groups’ writings to see what they are objecting to.

It seems they are primarily concerned about two types of issue; one is why I’d call “safety”: gene transfer/escape into wild species, unintended ecological consequences, human safety of consuming GM plants. Tho other group is around “licensing”: essentially a deep concern about going down a path where plant seeds are licensed instead of bought, and all the “Monsanto is evil” concerns.

I think on the safety point there is some FUD about what kind of gene transfer is actually biologically possible, but you can make a more general rebuttal that selective breeding has the same risks, it’s just harder to get positive changes into your genotype. Maybe Greenpeace would argue that we’re already endangering the biosphere a bit with selective breeding, and going any faster would dramatically increase the danger.

On the licensing point, I’m very sympathetic, but I think that is an argument for IP law reform or public investment in GM, not an argument against GM itself. But of course if you believe the safety concerns then you don’t want public or private research to happen because you think it’s prima facie harmful.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#39

Post by b3morales »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #29
SigmundA wrote: post #9

It always amuses me to find that people are against GMO foods yet almost everything we eat is GMO depending on how you define it. Almost every crop and livestock has been genetically modified through selective breeding (domestication). Mutagenesis, which atomic gardening falls under, has been around since the 1920's using x-rays and chemicals and currently doesn't normally fall under most GMO definitions because its…

I'm in your boat. Gene's are letters in a story. To say "That's a salmon gene! It doesn't belong in my tomato!" is puzzling, like "That letter belongs to another book! Keep it out of this book!" Anyway, good ol' paleo food was whatever nature provided, most of what was happy to kill you. Humans tamed 1000's of plants over 50,000 years changing them beyond recognition so they wouldn't hurt us with alkalis and poisons.…

This is oversimplifying in the opposite direction in my opinion. The important thing is not the letters, it's how they manifest -- the way they're interpreted as instructions. So the objection is to taking a paragraph of Ulysses and putting it into The Grapes of Wrath. Or even better, selecting a step from the middle of How to Build a Birdhouse and inserting it into the directions for crocheting a tea cozy.

If properly chosen, it could certainly have a beneficial effect. But DNA is also a much more complex system than a book.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#40

Post by b3morales »

pharmakom wrote: post #8

So The Simpsons episode with “tomacco” wasn’t entirely unrealistic!

Tomatoes and tobacco are actually reasonably closely related already: same Family, Solanaceae. (I wouldn't be surprised if that fact inspired the episode.) They might even be cross-breedable as is.
Post reply on HN