Social concerns about Genetic Chemistry

[Micro-biology Scholar]

Those interested in reading this text need not be told about the beauty and importance of DNA. Yet many among you may have a nagging concern about the use to which knowledge about DNA will be put. Isolation and synthesis of genes, assembly of genes into chromosomes, and the application of this knowledge to human problems have been suspiciously labeled " genetic engineering."
Most people do not distinguish an atom from a molecule, a virusfrom a cell, or a cell from an organism; and so, through lack of understanding many may be fearful of genetic chemistry( Not the false name genetic engineering). Some of you may even want to enact laws which will regulate genetic research deemed to have a harmful potential. But how can any national group regulate research that can be conducted all over the world?
Public fear of genetic chemistry is a threat both to the future of research and to the application of genetic knowledge to human problems. This threat to the support of science from a public haphazardly informed about scientific progress is a major concern for all who regard basic science a social responsibility. It demands a clear, strong and thoughtful response from the scientific community.

The point of this text-

All knowledge has a potential for both evil and good.
The discoveries of fire, explosives and even the most benign medicines have brought trgedy as well as comfort.

[Micro-biology Scholar]

Are there any thoughts? I am not capable of acquiring the comments and assertions supplyed by you, my peers, for my "log-in time' seems shuffled. Nevertheless, ideas that reveal the contrary are just as useful as the optimistic assertions, but nothing will always end in a obtainable constant-nothing.

[Oso]

Your post seems uncontroversial in observing principles of balance between good and evil and progress. I have been interested in the topic of DNA and transgenic wheat strains lately but haven't found the time to do much research on the subject. From what I gather there is growing cause for concern over the privatization and genetic patenting of DNA.

For example in the interest of increasing wheat production genetic modifications have resulted in a decrease in production. So called Herbicide Tolerant transgenic strains are genetically modified to contain the Bt toxin that produces a crystalline protein that is toxic to most lepidopteran insects (moths and butterflies) Transgenic Crops

HT Wheat production may be similarly biased towards theoretical benefits than reality dictates. Some estimates conclude as much as 20% reduction in crop growth and many undesired effects such as reduced wildlife diversity in areas these crops are planted.

One relatively recent yet similar attempt at advancing production and environment conservation through "chemistry" can be found with the gasoline additive MTBE. What was promised was higher octane cleaner more efficient gasoline but what resulted was reduced the mpg requiring more gasoline to travel an equal distance causing an increase in pollution per gallon and an increase in cost per gallon.

Oso

[Micro-biology Scholar]

Originally Posted by Oso

Your post seems uncontroversial in observing principles of balance between good and evil and progress. I have been interested in the topic of DNA and transgenic wheat strains lately but haven't found the time to do much research on the subject. From what I gather there is growing cause for concern over the privatization and genetic patenting of DNA.

For example in the interest of increasing wheat production genetic modifications have resulted in a decrease in production. So called Herbicide Tolerant transgenic strains are genetically modified to contain the Bt toxin that produces a crystalline protein that is toxic to most lepidopteran insects (moths and butterflies) Transgenic Crops

HT Wheat production may be similarly biased towards theoretical benefits than reality dictates. Some estimates conclude as much as 20% reduction in crop growth and many undesired effects such as reduced wildlife diversity in areas these crops are planted.

One relatively recent yet similar attempt at advancing production and environment conservation through "chemistry" can be found with the gasoline additive MTBE. What was promised was higher octane cleaner more efficient gasoline but what resulted was reduced the mpg requiring more gasoline to travel an equal distance causing an increase in pollution per gallon and an increase in cost per gallon.

Oso

In science there must never be a question of the seriousness of one's work. Respectable research is grounded in the sober parsing of empirical evidence. Fortunately as a microbial xenosociobiologist, I work and study possibilities in DNA mutations and feasible extentions to previously clouded theories, flightly or the contrary. However, your assertions and practices are insignificant to the general dynamics and foundations of prominate Genetic research.
I mean no disrespect. More simplistically, I care not about your concerns nor the concerns of others, I only care for science.

I may have acquired this hostile system of reasoning from Plato, but I blame God.

[maikeru]

Science is a tool or method to study the world. To care for science itself is to care for a lifeless tool. It is the things revealed by this important tool that should be cared for.

[Oso]

Now we know you could care less about social concerns about Genetic Chemistry.

oso

[tarak]

The point of this text-

All knowledge has a potential for both evil and good.
The discoveries of fire, explosives and even the most benign medicines have brought trgedy as well as comfort.[/QUOTE]


Scientific developments should be objectively assessed and understood by the world.We should not get caught in the web of terminology and stereotypes.
Its true we paint the world with the same brush and donot see the perspective.
When automobiles had hit the road in the last century they also bought polllution (along with the comfort of conveyance).Similarly if nuclear energy is used for lighting the world,it has alternative uses too.It could be used to decimate the entire life of human kind.There could be several such examples for various scientific developments.But we have to understand the background behind the innovation and see the big picture.Obviously a person not trained in science would not understand this complexity.So there is a need to promote popular scientific communication.
For example in many developing countries biotechnology(Application of Molecular biology,biochemistry,genetics,engineering and other sciences) is synonymous with plant tissue culture and presently with the GM cotton(B.t. gene based transgenics).When Cohen,Boyer and Borg successfully transferred the genetic material across species they were certainly intrigued by the positive and negative effects (huge potential )that could be generated.Several international technology assessment reviews,commissions on ethics and biosafety have put in place proper mechanisms for the safe operation of recombinant DNA technologies.There are still certain gray areas and uncertainities which the scientific community and the regulatory watchdogs should be capable of handling.I strongly feel that unnecessary social concerns for narrow gains are certainly not warranted although focused campaigns by certain affected groups and other lobbyists would be justified.

[Micro-biology Scholar]

Originally Posted by tarak

The point of this text-

All knowledge has a potential for both evil and good.
The discoveries of fire, explosives and even the most benign medicines have brought trgedy as well as comfort.


Scientific developments should be objectively assessed and understood by the world.We should not get caught in the web of terminology and stereotypes.
Its true we paint the world with the same brush and donot see the perspective.
When automobiles had hit the road in the last century they also bought polllution (along with the comfort of conveyance).Similarly if nuclear energy is used for lighting the world,it has alternative uses too.It could be used to decimate the entire life of human kind.There could be several such examples for various scientific developments.But we have to understand the background behind the innovation and see the big picture.Obviously a person not trained in science would not understand this complexity.So there is a need to promote popular scientific communication.
For example in many developing countries biotechnology(Application of Molecular biology,biochemistry,genetics,engineering and other sciences) is synonymous with plant tissue culture and presently with the GM cotton(B.t. gene based transgenics).When Cohen,Boyer and Borg successfully transferred the genetic material across species they were certainly intrigued by the positive and negative effects (huge potential )that could be generated.Several international technology assessment reviews,commissions on ethics and biosafety have put in place proper mechanisms for the safe operation of recombinant DNA technologies.There are still certain gray areas and uncertainities which the scientific community and the regulatory watchdogs should be capable of handling.I strongly feel that unnecessary social concerns for narrow gains are certainly not warranted although focused campaigns by certain affected groups and other lobbyists would be justified.

Excellent, a scientific mind. How is it that you were capable of penetrating my insight, while others only focused on the promotions of my text? If only they could learn from you. Obviously I feel strongly about the nature of existence.

What evades my reasioning is why others seemed to have not pointed out my intentional hypocrisy between not caring and plato-when caring and plato are one in the same. Now I have found refuge for my sensible and intelligent demeanor. May it be judged with knowledge over emotion, so that it will be seperated from social and cultural injustices.