Quote:
Originally Posted by cmac2012
Upon actually reading the OP, I'll admit, he does raise some interesting questions. It could be argued that the sort of cross-breeding and shaping of plant species that various people like Burbank have done is similar to artificially introducing new genes. And if the former is acceptable why not the latter? But there might be sort of safeguarding effect when done by natural selection, who knows, but then again all sorts of species have sprung up on their own that we find harmful.
It's a tough one. I would feel a lot better about it if big industry wasn't so devoted to extracting profit from every struggling farmer in the world with this stuff. Not sure if the patent rights lapse after some period like they do with other products. All sorts of horror stories out there of small farmers in India drinking pesticide because of slow ruination of career and life by the higher costs and indebtedness that comes with modern farming methods.
|
The methods of plant breeding, whether scientific or traditional, did not introduce exogenous genes into the host genome. They simply rearranged the genome through crossbreeding and selection within the species (except in some rare cases, across species).
This new method allows genetic combinations that are completely exotic, pulling genes from animals into plants and so forth. This is entirely new and the ramifications are staggering. On the plus side is the OP. Also it would be cool to introduce gills into humans, wouldn't it? Or how about photosynthesis?
But it is also easy to imagine a malevolent act -- engineering unstoppable diseases for example. Not to mention the frankenfish and so forth.
If history is a guide, the technology will become widely incorporated into our society, like it or not. History also reminds us that if evil can be done intentionally, it will.