QDavid Suzuki says that we dont know the unintended consequences at the molecular level of genetic engineering. He uses the analogy of taking Mick Jagger and putting him in with a symphony orchestra and saying Now, make music. He say that the context of a

David Suzuki says that we dont know the unintended consequences at the molecular level of genetic engineering. He uses the analogy of taking Mick Jagger and putting him in with a symphony orchestra and saying Now, make music. He say that the context of a gene is the genome, and we simply dont know enough now to be able to anticipate all of the consequences of GM. What is your response to this argument?

AExpert Answer

Genes — portions of the chemical abbreviated as DNA — have been moved around from one species to another by humans since the 1970s, and by Mother Nature for eons. In every case, the anticipated outcome has been realized. For example, humans have been moving the gene for insulin from humans to bacteria for almost half a century (and now provide insulin for almost all insulin-dependent diabetics). In every case, the recipient bacteria “read” the human insulin gene recipe and make human insulin. They never make anything else from the human insulin recipe, just insulin. When the exercise fails, it fails because the bacteria produce either no insulin or too little insulin to be of use, but the genetically engineered bacteria have never made something other than human insulin. This history of success is also true with plants; genetic engineering of genes into plants has never resulted in the recipient plant’s producing something other than what the gene recipe coded for in the original host. The gene may not work at all, or it may not express enough of the new protein to be useful, but it has never produced something unexpected, something other than what the transferred gene coded for. In the early days of genetic technology, especially in the 1970s, when Dr. Suzuki still worked in a lab, some critics (including Dr. Suzuki) worried that a transferred gene might result in something other than the expected outcome, either because the recipient species used a different DNA code or because of some unspecified locus, or “position effect,” and proximity to other genes in the recipient. But in all of the genetic engineering done to date, starting with the most diverse transfer imaginable (from a human to a bacterium), such an unexpected outcome has never happened.
 

Posted on March 1, 2018
GMOs are crops - and like any other version of the same crop, where you grow them and how you grow them is far more important than whether they are GMOs. No known system of agriculture can promise that it is sustainable forever; much agricultural research is being devoted to improving the sustainability of agriculture. In this regard, it appears likely that using GM technologies may improve sustainability of a particular crop cultured in a specific manner and place. Other... Read More
Answer:
Posted on March 5, 2018
Your question is being asked about many things that surround pregnant woman. Recently, studies have shown that many different things can effect pregnancy. Chemicals in water, air, soil, many medications, infections and chronic diseases, poor blood sugar control, tobacco exposure, and even mental and physical stress all carry risk. What happens to the mother, happens to the baby. At risk is not only the baby’s immediate growth and development, but also risk for chronic diseases in later... Read More
Answer:
Posted on March 2, 2018
In order to answer this question, it is important to first be clear about what a GMO/GMO farm is and secondly to discuss the complex issues relating to herbicide and pesticide use. What is a GMO/GMO farm? It is assumed that this question refers to genetically modified crops. GM crop technology has been widely used since the mid-1990s and in 2016 were planted on about 178 million hectares worldwide. The main GMO traits convey: Tolerance to specific herbicides (notably to glyphosate) in maize... Read More
Answer:

Explore More Topics