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

81–90 of 101 posts

Re: Atomic Gardening

#81

Post by pvaldes »

dragonwriter wrote: post #76
pvaldes wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mutagenesis, has been around since the 1920's using x-rays and chemicals and currently doesn't normally fall under most GMO definitions because its "traditional". Not, is because is a different technique. Hybridizing two closely related species is a thing. Introducing the gen of a fish into a tomato is another totally different, and mutating the gen of one species (often with poor results) is a third thing. GMO mix…

> Mutating the gen of one species, often with poor results, is clearly different than introducing the gen of a different species into other that can be even classified in a different kingdom. Genes aren’t inherently kingdom specific, and mutagenesis can produce genes that don’t even exist in nature; moreover, it produces changes all over the genome ; when you then select for a desired trait, you still have unrelated…

> Genes aren’t inherently kingdom specific

Some not. We share common mechanisms with other life beings, but most of the time, Yes, they are. You will not find a single animal able to photosynthesize by its own means.

> mutagenesis can produce genes that don’t even exist in nature

Because they are broken. DNA "per se" is useless unless it can be read and used to build something useful. Mutated genes are like changing a paragraph from a book to a language that does not exist and can't be translated. Most of the times the result will not made any sense. Evolution will eventually clean the mess, as usual.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#82

Post by [deleted] »

theptip wrote: post #37
mahogany wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

[deleted]

Re: Atomic Gardening

#83

Post by msandford »

pfdietz wrote: post #77
firebaze wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Occam's razor suggests the best strategy - if available - is to suppress natural reproduction, if you were in possession of a superior genetic strain, in order to stay ahead of the market. Suppressing natural reproduction is the same general principle as suppressing others using your idea/strategy/copyright. I'm sincerely curious why this seems so far fetched to you. If I were the CEO of a company having the option t…

No one is holding a gun to farmers' heads forcing them to buy GMO seeds. If a particular kind of seed doesn't increase their profit they won't buy it. The older non-GMO seeds will still be around. They won't be outlawed. So, the scenario you seem to be thinking of is that GMOs will drive down the price of agricultural commodities, so that farmers who don't avail themselves of them will be unable to compete. But this…

I think the worry is that you get the biased against reproduction genes that make a lot of sense for a for profit GMO plant that hop to normal plants and reduce their ability to reproduce.

Not saying that's the concern just my impression.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#84

Post by asdff »

favoritecolor wrote: post #11

This is a pretty brute force method for genetic engineering -- and yet it works! It's essentially just pressing fast forward on evolution. But this is wildly inefficient. Plant genomes are often ridiculously large (e.g., the onion genome is 4X the size of the human genome), so you either have to throw a bunch of mutagen on the plant (which can cause off-target, toxic mutations) and/or plant a bunch of seedlings to ge…

Getting the mutation is not an issue, its understanding what the mutation does to the organism that's the hard part, and that still usually means planting a bunch of seedlings to screen for favorable progeny.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#85

Post by asdff »

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…

Selective breeding can also introduce harmful characteristics. Many modern cultivars that have been selectively bread for commercially favorable traits for decades lack the hardiness found in landraces, for instance. Species also are mutating all the time randomly.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#86

Post by asdff »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #18
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…

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

Organic farming also means pesticides. All farming means pesticides.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#87

Post by scoopertrooper »

mahogany wrote: post #53
theptip wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. This is an interesting point. The practice of using GMOs, including the broad category of selective breeding, could ultimately lead to much less biodiversity which is, at best, not fully understood by us, but seems to be quite bad for life.

Conversely, it could lead to much greater biodiversity as we control the process.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#88

Post by dragonwriter »

pvaldes wrote: post #78
dragonwriter wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mutating the gen of one species, often with poor results, is clearly different than introducing the gen of a different species into other that can be even classified in a different kingdom. Genes aren’t inherently kingdom specific, and mutagenesis can produce genes that don’t even exist in nature; moreover, it produces changes all over the genome ; when you then select for a desired trait, you still have unrelated…

The statistical probability of a crop randomly mutating a gen that would express a new complex alkaloid from scratch is close to zero (We know it because hasn't happened often in the last 3000 years)... but can be easily done with GMO. To blend all those different techniques under the same term would be useless and confusing to both science and consumers.

> The statistical probability of a crop randomly mutating a gen that would express a new complex alkaloid from scratch is close to zero

That's true if most mutations produced through and then artificially selected for in modern mutagenesis based techniques, as well as most of the mutations irrelevant to the targeted trait that come along for the ride.

> We know it because hasn't happened often in the last 3000 years

3,000 years isn’t all that long and we don’t know that, what we do know is that no mutation that does that has occurred where it has been in net of cost to the organism useful enough to be selected for an retained, which is a very different thing.

> To blend all those different techniques under the same term would be useless and confusing to both science and consumers

So? The post you respond to acknowledges that they are different but notes “it is insane that mutagenesis (especially in its modern forms) is not treated as even a moderate concern by the same people who hold up transgenics as an existential threat.”

That it is comparatively easy to do a precise, targeted change where you know exactly what new thing will be expressed and change little else through transgenics isn’t in dispute, its the whole reason for that statement.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#89

Post by bpodgursky »

forgotmypw17 wrote: post #18
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…

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

That's not true for bt-corn or golden rice.

Re: Atomic Gardening

#90

Post by pfdietz »

msandford wrote: post #83
pfdietz wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is holding a gun to farmers' heads forcing them to buy GMO seeds. If a particular kind of seed doesn't increase their profit they won't buy it. The older non-GMO seeds will still be around. They won't be outlawed. So, the scenario you seem to be thinking of is that GMOs will drive down the price of agricultural commodities, so that farmers who don't avail themselves of them will be unable to compete. But this…

I think the worry is that you get the biased against reproduction genes that make a lot of sense for a for profit GMO plant that hop to normal plants and reduce their ability to reproduce. Not saying that's the concern just my impression.

If it reduced the plants' ability to reproduce, surely that would not spread in a population. So that seems no different from any other deleterious mutation. Such mutations happen all the time in any population.

Your argument there does apply to non-Mendelian inheritance ("gene drive"), so banning modifications to crops that would be engineered to cause that seems prudent (although I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that). Modifications to pests, on the other hand...

Post reply on HN