Re: Genetic modification

MV (XD026Y@mail2.compy-net.com)
Sun, 16 May 1999 00:27:44 +0200

> As a example, inserting the gene for herbicide-resistance
> transgenically (vs. a natural mutation) changed a selfing weed
> species Arabadopsis thaliana into a 10% outcrossing species.
> Outcrossing - apart from enhancing the risk of weediness - has
> nothing to do with herbicide resistance. It is a secondary,
> unintended trait. And it was caused specifically by placement of the
> novel gene within the chromosome because a) when it happened
> naturally, outcrossing was not affected, and b) the % outcrossing
> varied among transgenic lines given the same herbicide resistant
> gene. Numerous other examples exist - this is not unique.

This is one good example of the pseudo-science. How much is the outcrossing
rate in wild Arabidopsis? (in other word, how much is the *control*?, or
better, how much it was in that particular experiment?) This data is not
given, then it is concluded that 10% is caused by GE.
If normal outcrossing rate is 50%, GE are bad because reduced the rate ;-)
If normal outcrossing rate is 0%, GE are bad because enhanced the rate
If normal outcrossing rate is not tested or given, GE are bad because
outcrossing was (searched and) found in GE.
It is called CONTROL, it is what should *normally* happen, and it is
necessary.

By the way, I also know other examples like this, of course without the
control.

Maurizio Ventura

"Be part of the solution,
not the problem."

To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg". If you receive the digest format, use the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg-digest".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".

All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail