Comments on: Terminator issue on the cards again

By: ls84

ls84 — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 09:50:58 +0000

I’m not hear to argue political points, I’m here to discuss science.

Don’t be so condescending. It’s sad you have to pull out your biotech record to support your case every time. 9 years initially, now 12 years.

By: superdan

superdan — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 01:34:09 +0000

Ok, I really don’t want to go on with this conversation,and I think it’s great that someone your age is engaging politically, but I have twelve years of plant biotech under my belt and you are wrong again. Germ-line mutations can happen at any time from when the seed is sold to when the plant dies.
It’s interesting to note that when I started my career, gene silencing /RNAi was just viewed as some sort of crazy glitch and people were making broad statements about how they know exactly what goes on in GM plants. Recent advances have shown that such statements were wrong and that we have basically missed (or failed to understand the significance of ) an entire level of genetic control. So you can understand my scepticism when people make exactly the same sort of statements now.

If you see my posts above, you can see that I am not against terminator tech when there is an advantage to it beyond patent protection.

By: ls84

ls84 — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 22:33:00 +0000

An answer to this is that all plant embryos coud be bought from a culture bank. At the culture bank screening would occur for mutations and anything that will stop the terminator gene(s) working. Then they will only sell plant seeds that have functioning terminator genes. Any mutation that has an effect needs to take place at a very early stage, so if they screen for these, I don’t see what the problem is.

I agree we should wait until we know all the factors affecting a potential terminator gene, but that doesn’t mean we should rule it out altogether. It gives the plant owners the security that they won’t destroy others’ organic crops. How is that not a benefit?

By: superdan

superdan — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 21:58:04 +0000

Ls84… done the statistics on that, have you? I would suggest that if you plant millions of hectares of said plants, the chances are distinctly non-zero. There are also RNAi/gene silencing effects (at present not well understood) or the possibility of dominant negative mutations or DNA methylation.. all of these events could concievably repress or inactivate terminator genes, no matter how many you shove into the plant. In other words, plenty of scope for muckups.
Except in a few cases as I mentioned above, it is crippled technology. It adds nothing to the plant except patent protection.

By: ls84

ls84 — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:35:49 +0000

If they design a plant to have two if not several terminator genes, the chances that a mutation in the plant’s embryo will occur that deactivates all terminator genes is essentially zero. The fact that its lineage survives for just one generation eliminates the chance of further mutation.

Any cross-pollination that occurs will not persist, because these plants will have the terminator genes as well.

Science is the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. You’re explanation applies to technology.

I don’t think it is crippled techonology. It allows GE without eliminating present species. Or are you for GE supremacy?

By: superdan

superdan — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 04:37:46 +0000

BTW the one exception I would make to the above post is for things like Pine trees. This is because:
1. They are generally propogated clonally and take 20 years to grow, so the whole saving-seeds-for-next-year problem does not apply
2. They pump out heaps of (allergenic) pollen, using about ~10-20% of their energy budget, and a modification to stop them producing pollen could then make them grow a lot faster (ie 10-20% faster)
3. There might be a bit of demand for biomass-produced ethanol when BushCo start bombing Iran and they respond by shutting down the Persian Gulf
4. I meant it when I said I am not against GM

By: superdan

superdan — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 04:21:45 +0000

BTW stephen, as someone who has actually worked in plant genetics for nine years, I find your argument shallow and mildly offensive.

To say that terminator genes would stop cross-pollination is flat wrong. Anyone who understands evolutionary theory can see that the terminator gene will stop most plants from breeding, but also creates a massive selective advantage for the few plants that will inevitably mutate and inactivate the terminator gene. So they would go on to cross pollinate anyway.

The point of science is to provide options to the human race, not to remove them. This is a classic example of deliberately crippled technology, the other one being region-specific DVD players. I am not against GM, I work in the area, but this is a stupid idea and a waste of resources.

By: superdan

superdan — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 04:11:37 +0000

Hey frog, on an unrelated topic, have you seen this on scoop
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0603/S00185.htm

assuming that the Ministry of Economic Development’s oil price forecasting is as consistently crap as it seems to be, is anyone in the greens working on calling them on it?

By: Scott

Scott — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:06:59 +0000

Hi Stephen: A few thoughts to consider.
1: And what if the terminator gene skips from one plant to another.. and another and another. Please don’t dismiss this as it is already happening with spray resistant plants and has been reported from the UK.
2: Watching a movie entitled “The Future of Food” might be good viewing for you as well. Farmers here in Canterbury are already caught between a rock and a hard place as the only seeds available to them are patented seeds and in the case of Grass Seed no other seed is available and there are currently either no contracts for grass seed growing or a scant few for next season.
3: Again from “The Future of Food”, saving seed is a very good idea. Ask farmers like Percy Schmeiser about how generations of careful seed selection result in seed that is well adapted to local conditions and as a result requires less active management in terms of sprays and other inputs.
4: Ask yourself this one as well. Why would any company whose core business is agrichemicals be involved in seed production if it meant we would need less spray?

By: Stephen Whittington

Stephen Whittington — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 01:43:16 +0000

Firstly environmentalists should love the terminator gene. It stops the very thing that they fear - the cross-pollination of organic crops, the potential to create superweeds, and generally the spread of the genetically engineered material.

The main complaint seems to then be farmers won’t want to buy seeds every year from companies - and it’s unfair on farmers in poor countries to have to do this. Well, here’s an idea, and the second point: don’t buy them.

Currently they buy crops that they harvest and they keep some seeds for next year. Crazy idea: just keep doing that. You’re right - there’s very little demand for crops which will die and need to be rebought the following year.

If your argument is then that companies will simply withdraw all other types of crops they sell to reap the benefits, then this just shows that you don’t understand how markets work. Given that there would be huge demand for non-terminator crops. A company would provide this.

Your argument over this is like saying “If train services really wanted to maximise their profits that charge you for each stop - and up the prices”. And then no one would use the trains, and a competitor would not do it.