Russell,
I must admit you are very persuasive (and verbose ! ) on this issue & I am
coming around to your viewpoint.
However I still have a number of difficulties with this issue -  one being
that I believe it is now too late to change anything.
Even here in NZ we cannot effectively isolate ourselves from GE products -
as recent events have shown. Worldwide, the horse has truly bolted.

The simplified analogy of  figuring out how the machine works by playing
with the controls is apt if not entirely accurate. The one regarding the
software routines is probably more accurate but harder to visualise.
The problem is, someone, somewhere, will be playing with the controls and
we may well feel the consequences. If we do not do the same (or find a
better way) then we will not be able to mitigate any adverse effects that
may come our way.
Even if no-one anywhere were to work on GE development, a situation could
arise  by "normal" mutation that we are unable to understand or correct
early - having GE in our toolkit does increase our chances of minimising
the effects of various diseases  to plants, animals and mankind. But at
what cost? The release or evolution of a GE based disease or organism could
take us back the 700 years or so you mentioned earlier.

Of course continued GE research increases the chances of release of
hazardous organisms.  This could be accidental, or deliberate - the return
to the dark ages with  a dedicated religious/terrorist  group with
foreknowledge (and resistance ?)  would answer all their prayers!  The
existing (or at least acknowledged) biological weapons would pale into
insignificance beside a GE weapon. It is like comparing conventional &
nuclear explosives and the users could well have some sort of immunity to
the effects of the attack themselves. Makes you wonder about the sabre
rattling going on between Bush & Saddam at the moment doesn't it.  Or is
that, like some suggest re Afghanistan, mostly based on the medium term oil
supply situation- sorry, I'm getting very OT.

If widespread public opinion could be harnessed (wrong word - this implies
manipulation but I can't think of the right one) to support the general
opposition to GE the main players would be likely to continue covertly.

Big business would still chase the profits available by producing higher
yields/disease resistance - and presumably would claim that "natural
selection" etc. was the method used - and Military/terrorist development
would not be affected by public opinion anyway.  Restricting the
distribution of information may delay things slightly but in the end that
is all that would happen.

In the event of terrorist or accidental release of something really nasty
we would be better off if someone, somewhere knew something about the issue
- which means that some sort of sanctioned research should continue anyway.
Research is mainly going to be funded by the possibility of long term
financial gain - so again, in order to maintain a knowledge base in the
subject we will have to risk the consequences.  Very much a catch 22
situation although I  suspect there is a more classical example that,
again, I can't remember.

On the other hand apathy is not the answer either - burying heads  in the
sand never achieved anything. (Unless they were someone else's heads.)

Joe Blo in the street is generally unaware of most of the issues involved -
and the media do little to help. Either they are supporting the Monsantos
of the world in their propaganda campaign (we are working to feed the
starving millions) or are being similarly manipulated by other pressure
groups (e.g the Greens) for their own ends - most recently political..
Possibly they would have more support in this case if they weren't so
extreme on other issues!  In the long run however, the media is just trying
to sell paper or airtime so they will always tend to the sensational.

So what to be done. A sensible education program of some sort would be a
start but it is hard to see how a balanced presentation could be made while
keeping the public interested. The only thing that the Monsantos of the
world will react to is profit & loss statements. To reduce their GE
investment there would need to be a significant public resistance to the
consumption of GE products and this is unlikely while the perceived quality
is high and the dollar cost of produce is low. Politicians are going to be
subject to pressure groups, largely uninformed and with their own
interests.   - or am I being too cynical?

As I noted at the start - I am coming around to your viewpoint but do not
believe a blanket prohibition is necessarily desirable - or even possible.


Richard P

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads