[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Gene Tinkering: YOU Are The Mice And They Don't Want You to Know
In Article <323CB5C6.235D@atlcom.net>, Mike Zauzig <mzauzig@atlcom.net> wrote:
>I must speak up here because gene tinkering is something that has
>bothered me for quite some time.
>
>Don't you agree that biological systems are very complicated and that we
>have only just started to scratch the surface of understanding them in a
>scientific sense.
That entirely depends to which biological systems you refer. Of course it
isn't possible to know everything, but certainly some systems are far better
understood than others. I agree, we have only "scratched the surface", but
current knowledge of biological systems is in a rather advanced state.
>And obviously genetics is not much simpler.
Of course it's very complex, but that doesn't mean we don't have a very
detailed understanding of many aspects of genetics. In fact, the wealth of
knowledge is increasing at an exponential rate.
>So to
>say that there is nothing in the scientific literature to support being
>paranoid doesn't really carry much weight.
How about the fact that, on the other hand, there IS a huge volume of
scientific literature indicating that such fears are generally unfounded?
Willful ignorance of the facts is the worst kind! In order to achieve any of
the potential benefits of insect viruses as biological controls, we must
assess the information available and determine a course of action. Based on
a large body of evidence, the risks involved in applying these viruses are
extremely small. I've already referred to my doctoral dissertation and
several other authors in previous posts to this thread. More references
follow (see below).
>(e.g. Two hundread years
>ago, there wasn't much in the scientific literature about germ theory
>either.) I think it's a reasonable to guess that there are many
>concepts to be conceived and facts to be found.
...and there always will be, no matter how much information we accumulate,
but that doesn't mean we don't already have a good idea of what's going on.
Science has progress far more in the last 20 years than in the last 2000.
Twenty years ago, there were no complete genome sequences available.
Certainly there are more facts to be discovered, but the amount of knowledge
accumulated in recent decades is of a proportion incomprehensible to many
people.
It might be wise to identify and try to understand some of the facts that
ARE currently available before jumping to any premature conclusions.
>From this Joe Blow layman's perspective, it seems to me that we are like
>toddlers twiddling the knobs of a hifi sterio, with no concept of the
>consequences of our actions.
No offense meant, but this may be due to your personal lack of knowledge in
this subject area. Although you might not personally know how to fix your
hi-fi once you break it twiddling the knobs, you should not assume that
nobody else can.
>This is important enough to me that I would get politically active if I
>thought it would make a difference.
If it's really important to you, you should be eager to seek the knowledge
you lack which is necessary to understand the risks involved. I suggest you
spend some time in the library reading some literature on the subject. There
are many articles from which one can glean a satisfactory knowledge of the
issues. I have appended a short list below to get you started.
McIntosh, Arthur H., and Rebecca Shamy (1980). Studies of a Baculovirus in a
Mammalian Cell Line. Intervirology 13:331-341.
Groner, Albrecht (1986). Specificity and Safety of Baculoviruses, in The
Biology of Baculoviruses, Vol. I. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, Inc.
Brusca, J., M. Summers, J. Couch, and L. Courtney (1986). Autographa
californica nuclear polyhedrosis virus efficiently enters but does not
replicate in poikilothermic vertebrate cells. Intervirology 26:207-222.
Wood, H. A., and R. R. Granados (1991). Genetically engineered baculoviruses
as agents for pest control. Annual Review of Microbiology 45:69-87.
Hawtin, R. E., L. A. King, and R. D. Posse (1992). Prospects for the
development of a genetically engineered baculovirus insecticide. Pesticide
Science 34:9-15.
The names above are some of the major leaders in the field. If you do a
search at the library you should be able to find many more recent articles.
>Unfortunately, the genie's out of
>the bottle and banning gene twiddling in the U.S. would only push the
>research off to other places which would be less monitored, less
>controlled, and less reputable.
That's already happening in a big way, partly due to so many USA citizen's
unwillingness to make an effort to learn, and their unfounded fears. These
and other insect viruses have been in use in China on a large scale for many
years.
>I do ask that anyone involved with genetic engineering think hard about
>how serious the consequences of their actions could be.
Why would you think most don't? Most scientists I know tend to be very
thoughtful and generally don't act in a vacuum.
Tracy
Follow-Ups:
References: