On 19/05/99 at 1:15 PM Wilson, Dale wrote:
>Hello Douglas,
>I'm still not sure you have adequately defined "transgenic." I guess I
>would define it as taking pieces of DNA from one species and inserting them
>into the germline of different species.
>If you will go along with that definition, ...
The species themselves and not doing the taking and inserting, and
the people doing it are doing it via mechanical or chemical means, as
distinguished from "husbandry" consisting of breeding methods that involve
the appropriate sexual organs of the organisms being combined. In short:
Genes are being manipulated outside the context of the tissue, organ and
organism in which they evolved, and this is occurring in the absence of any
comprehensive or profound knowledge of their nature. You stated below:
>We know there are genetic factors involved, but we don't
>understand them very well. ... we don't know where most of these genes are.
This is comprehensible. If one is not born with this knowledge, one must
acquire it and perhaps that is what is occurring. You also said:
>most of the genes of interest are already in the
>corn genome. Soon Pioneer will have sequenced the expressed portions of the
>entire corn genome. But it will take many, many years to put together the
>biological jigsaw puzzle.
So far so good. We are studying the nature of the organism, working with it.
But that's not all.
>the social and economic results of the concentration of
>genetic knowledge and material into a few private hands, is more
>consequential than whether we use this or that promoter or transgene.
True, but much of what's happening is fueled by the possibility of obtaining
rights to a patented organism. In that sense, the "ownership" is more important
than the knowledge, which is more like genetics - easily transferred, if you've the
framework to assimilate and use it. The problem is, as with atomic energy, a
given use can be benefic or destructive, controlled or uncontrolled. And as far as
I'm concerned, there are less problematic ways to generate electricity than
harnessing atomic energy (for instance), that don't involve risks for which there is
no known solution (i.e. adequate disposal of spent nuclear fuels). It does not
make sense to create unnecessary problems, especially in the face of alternative,
less dangerous solutions.
The correlation here is that genes, like knowledge, should not be transferred
indiscriminately. (As with atomic energy, it's getting into the wrong hands could
mean a lot worse than the dangers inherent in living in proximity to an uranium
fueled electricity generated plant. And traditional breeding programs don't
contaminate, as burning coal does).
[In] Pioneers favor though, ... we are very
>good at traditional breeding and seed production.
Do stick with it. It will serve you well, because everyone else needs the results.
>>"criteria are being used to define quality"
>Defining quality as usefulness of the grain, the directions include better
>nutritional quality, energy yield, milling/processing quality, special oils,
>reduced mycotoxins, special starches, reduced phytate (reduce P in manure),
>along with lots of other more exotic things that IMO don't have a high
>chance of success (but who knows?).
So you have a list of maybe 50 characteristics to check for.
I wish you could touch with greater depth the potential for applying knowledge
gained through working with GMO's to traditional breeding programs; particularly
in lieu of the above:
>it will take many, many years to put together the
>biological jigsaw puzzle.
Is this being done? Will there be any benefit? (In the context of traditional breeding
programs that involves whole organisms, not just their genes; where the genes
are transmitted via organs adapted for that purpose. Would you want to lose
yours)? Or is what's going on just tinkering, or if you will - just screwing around?
When I was little there was a game on the market called "Mr Potato Face", that you
used to create different faces with a variety of pieces that came with it. Perhaps soon,
someone will market a game that will consist of creating something similar, except alive.
The only definitive statement that can be made to date is that to the degree that
the principles and particulars of genetic function and their place within the framework
of the whole organism and the ecosystem are as yet undefined, so are the risks
involved. Most importantly, these risks are totally unnecessary. This can be stated
and upheld, unequivocally. Therefore, it can be concluded that more public and
ultimately, legislative attention must be focused on the issue. What is clearly called
for is more research and less (i.e. no) marketing of products whose permanent effects
on the biosphere are undocumented, until those effects can be plainly demonstrated
and qualified. A reasonable period of time for the duration of such a study would be no
less than one hundred years. Meanwhile, a moratorium should be mandated and
energies constructively channelled into tradition genetic developments.
OK?
D H
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 19/05/99 at 1:15 PM Wilson, Dale wrote:
>Hello Douglas,
>
>>> We are beginning to use powerful genetic and informational
>>> tools to gain understanding of the biology underlying quality
>>> and yield. This understanding is necessary to make much new
>>> progress.
>
>> I would hope that the new progress you speak of is not
>> dependant on transgenetic technologies; that is,
>> technologies that can NOT be performed within the framework
>> of evolutionary, biological (rather than mechanical, surgical)
>> processes.
>
>I'm still not sure you have adequately defined "transgenic." I guess I
>would define it as taking pieces of DNA from one species and inserting them
>into the germline of different species.
>
>If you will go along with that definition, then the progress I am speaking
>about is not only transgenic. For example, I work with seed vigor and
>germinability. We know there are genetic factors involved, but we don't
>understand them very well. A lot of the Pioneer germplasm is good in this
>regard, but we don't know where most of these genes are. The heritability
>is not very good (ie, it is hard to measure) because the tests for seed
>vigor in lab and field are not good.
>If we understood the biology better
>and had better markers, we could make sure new seed parents all were
>excellent for seed vigor. Seed vigor is just a very small part of what
>Pioneer is working on, but most of the genes of interest are already in the
>corn genome. Soon Pioneer will have sequenced the expressed portions of the
>entire corn genome. But it will take many, many years to put together the
>biological jigsaw puzzle.
>
>> I have said before - the problem as I see it is not with
>> the goal (except where the goal is weighted toward
>> developing a proprietary more than truly useful
>> product) but rather with the methodology.
>
>Things that are not useful don't last too long in the marketplace. But more
>to the point, IMO the social and economic results of the concentration of
>genetic knowledge and material into a few private hands, is more
>consequential than whether we use this or that promoter or transgene.
True, but much of what's happening is fueled by the possibility of obtaining
rights to a patented organism. In that sense, the "ownership is more important
than the knowlege, which is more like genetics (easily transferred
>> 2).- To what extent do the current research priorities of
>> "Pioneer, and the other big breeding companies" permit
>> (or logically lead to) that.
>
>I don't have any inside information about this, but I suspect they are
>reevaluating how hard to push transgenics in light of European public
>distrust. All this will work to Pioneers favor though, because we are very
>good at traditional breeding and seed production. Internally we don't have
>any bias against transgenics.
>
>> 3).- What criteria are being used to define quality? (Yield
>> is a less complicated measurement - unless you take into
>
>Defining quality as usefulness of the grain, the directions include better
>nutritional quality, energy yield, milling/processing quality, special oils,
>reduced mycotoxins, special starches, reduced phytate (reduce P in manure),
>along with lots of other more exotic things that IMO don't have a high
>chance of success (but who knows?).
>
>> ...this is not a black and white issue).
>
>That's for sure!
>
>Dale
Douglas M. Hinds
Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, A.C. (CeDeCoR)
(Center for Community and Rural Development)
Petronilo Lopez No. 73
Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 MEXICO
e-mail: dmhinds@acnet.net, cedecor@acnet.net, cedecor@ipnet.com.mx
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