RE: Where Biotech's Going -

Douglas M. Hinds (dmhinds@acnet.net)
Wed, 19 May 1999 18:53:04 -0600

If reproduction is based on genetics and genetics normally occurs through sex and sex is ideally founded on love (which itself could be considered a mature, controlled and sustained form of desire), just where do GMO's fit in? Just where are you and Pioneer taking us, Dale? Following Monsanto's headlong leap to nowhere? This whole thing is a joke and the funniest thing of all is that it's so obviously garbage. (Of course I just ate 2 K of seedling mangos - but then I hadn't eaten all day. Now I'm chomping on some guamuchiles NEVER grafted as I type this). The insidious thing is that so many people have little or now choice. This stuff, this way of "thinking" is really forced on people, for lack of any prominent and viable alternatives.

I am going to start exporting real socially and environmentally responsible tropical food - the world's first international CSA movement, to complement the organic scene - any takers? I'm not kidding.

DH

*********** 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.
>
>> 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, Director
Centro para el Desarrollo Comunitario y Rural, A.C.
(Center for Community and Rural Development, Non-profit Association)
Cd. Guzman, Jalisco 49000 Mexico
U.S. Voice Mailbox: 1 630 300 0550 (e-mail linked)
U.S. Fax Mailbox: 1 630 300 0555 (e-mail linked)
Tel. & Fax: 011 523 412-6308 (direct - Cd. Guzman, Jalisco)
Tel. & Fax: 011 528 922-2424 (direct - Reynosa, Tamaulipas)
e-mail: cedecor@acnet.net, cedecor@ipnet.com.mx, dmhinds@acnet.net

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