Lets deal with last things first

> 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.

Sorry -   my fault - I obviously didn't make my position clear enough amidst
all my rantings and railings :-).
I agree with you on both points.
I consider myself to be essentially *PRO* GE.
I am happy that we explore the mechanisms that we find inside every living
thing - I just think that we should do so intelligently and holistically.
The potential hazards are absolutely certain. The risks are influenced by
our approach. (Risk = function(hazard, probability, luck, ...) :-) )
If we rush in headlong, as we are largely doing then we make it much more
likely that we will encounter disaster. Which is about where I came in.

There are also ethical and moral considerations and business and religious.
I am not saying that these are not important - just that I believe my
"responsibility" is to address the issue of plain common sense engineering
aspects and leave the other issues to those who feel called to address those
areas. I think it IS possible for people to "play God" in manners that they
ought not but, so far at least, I feel there are enough others addressing
those areas.

I am a committed Christian but I do not necessarily take the position that
we should not "play" with God's creation. I have a "world view" that may
influence how I interpret what I see BUT in matters genetic it seems to me
that all of us are attempting to understand what is really there and what
really happens. Regardless of worldview we are concerned with the nuts and
bolts of the mechanisms we find. HOW the mechanisms came into being does not
effect the engineering implications.

SO

Taking only the engineering perspective: I think we should proceed at a rate
that is prudent given what we know. I believe that if we do not there will
certainly be others who do. There are some areas that are beyond being
reasonably addressed.

- We cannot stop people addressing the military aspects and we can be
certain that this is happening in numerous countries now. We can be sure
that selective and formidable weapons of stupidity are already under
development. It may be that this is the aspect that will predominate. It is
possible NOW for a team to seek to develop a disease that would have a good
chance of wiping out the human species. This activity is so hidden from the
areas of public debate that it must for now be noted and set aside.

- We cannot reasonably stop the bulk fermentation production of GE products
for medical purposes. It may in fact be excessively dangerous to allow this,
notwithstanding the great advantages (the always cited example is GE
produced "human" insulin). For an extremely well defined single product
grown in strict containment and with a process of demonstrable consistency
and refined  and tightly quality controlled there is a reasonable hope that
nothing will go too wrong. This is not a certainty but the public have been
so well accustomed to this sort of application that it would be impossible
to go back. At least until there is a major disaster in a related area. The
distressing loss of life and quality of life which would occur if we
abandoned eg GE insulin is hard to balance against never yet experienced
dangers. Medical production is here to stay and is probably OK in almost all
cases.

> However I still have a number of difficulties with this issue -  one being
> that I believe it is now too late to change anything.

This is what the larger GE producers have been trying to achieve for a
considerable period. This may be labelled "conspiracy theory" by some but
the record is pretty clear. eg Monsanto have repeatedly aimed at the minimum
legal level of labelling and identification of GE content - this is usually
no labelling or identification at all. They have consistently said that it
is not possible to identify the source of various material. Odds are they
are right but you can draw your own conclusions about how hard they have
tried to ensure this is so.

It's still not true though. A ruthless "GE free outside the lab" policy
would be extremely expensive but needs not be anywhere near as dear as it is
now. At present a single GE sample analysis in this country costs several
hundred $NZ with samples being sent to Australia for analysis. I have no
idea what a PCR system costs but I'd guarantee that the cost per test could
be in the tens of dollars if we had a number of systems here and made
extensive use of them. The process is also getting faster and cheaper as
experience grows.

> Even here in NZ we cannot effectively isolate ourselves from GE products -
> as recent events have shown. Worldwide, the horse has truly bolted.

The reason that we have had GE intrusions recently is that nobody REALLY
cares about it. GE testing is on a par with keeping the Tangata Whenua
happy. ("In" NZ reference). You do it because it's PC and gets/keeps votes
and you don't want to stir up the public too much. The powers that be don't
really believe in it, they don't care and they don't try. When pigeons are
allowed to carry off GE contaminated seed from an accidental contamination
while they incinerate the majority of the grain then the degree of lip
service is evident. If this is the level of seriousness we have then indeed
we can't catch the bolting horses. If we ONLY imported seed corn from
certified GE free markets AND tested it before planting and while growing
AND we required the suppliers to be responsible for the outcomes we would
see a much more serious approach AND suspect supply chains would be shunned.
The recent claims about our inability to supply seed from other than US
markets were highly suspect. Even if true, serious pre-testing would have
prevented the recent scare OR confirmed that contamination was from local
sources.

> The simplified analogy of  figuring out how the machine works by playing
> with the controls is apt if not entirely accurate.

I still believe it is a very good one. I did not study biology in school or
at university so have come to its wonders with a fully fledged engineers
mind (or as fully fledged as its going to get :-) ). I know a fine piece of
precision machinery when I see one (even if its too small to see). Have a
look at a Ribosome and how it works and what it does - then tell me its not
a machine in every sense of the word. This is an excellent machine to look
at as it's much simpler than a cell but plays such an important part. A cell
is so complex that it defies reasonable description in our terms. ANY cell
is a complete self replicating factory that not only contains fabrication
instructions and details for its entire end product (plant or animal) but
can also in concept make every single part of the body/plant it is part of.
(I say "in concept" because any given cell resricts its ability and
implements only that part of the "program" that it is meant to).

> The one regarding the
> software routines is probably more accurate but harder to visualise.

Also a good model. Not a different one. Both are very good models and views
of the same reality IMHO. The program execution is hard to comprehend
because its operation is entwined in time and space with its own output
products and those from other processes. Nothing we have ever built comes
close.In fact, EVERYTHING we have ever built doesn't come close!

> 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.

See military comments at start.
It is unlikely that any small country will be reasonably able to do work
which will definitely work against what "enemies" may produce. It is far
easier to tear down than to build. Internationallycoordinated research is
the probable best (but least likely) approach. It is vanishingly unlikely
that the US is NOT conducting intensive military research in this area -
offensive and defensive. Whether what they learn will be available to us
(the world) in the event of a disaster is unknowable.

I have proposed the ideal GE research facility for some years. Yes - of
course I know it's a dream. Seal off a 500 mile radius area somewhere useful
(Australia?) and build a world class GE research facility therein where ALL
world GE research is carried out. All underground. Total containment. Crops
grown in artificial underground fields with artificial sun etc. yada yada
... All the world cooperates to learn together. Probably have NO useful GE
food products for about 50 years :-). Interestingly, I'm told that this
facility approximates that in the film "Resident Evil". They also had
problems:-).

In practice a much less draconian path forward should be tenable.

> 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.

I have no problem with our trying to understand nature and work against its
greater excesses.
"Natural" genetic events are liable to be far less severe than what we might
inflict on ourselves. We ar purposefully circumventing in every possible way
* the barriers that nature has ereceted. That said, HIV / AIDS is a good
example of what sort of cross species infector nature can throw up. Why
should we thing that we can't ceate worse if we leap over nature's barriers.

* - LITERALLY in every possible way - any time we find a new way to do what
nature does not let itself do, we use it. We rush headlong into anything
that we can do, in order to gain new knowledge, Nobel prizes, money, market
share and fame.

> Of course continued GE research increases the chances of release of
> hazardous organisms.

Yes

>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.

Yes. A "weapon" could be tailored to destroy certain ethnic groups and not
others. Too bad for converts :-)

> 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.

Agree.

> 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.

Lets examone the terms "gain", "we" and "risk".

The problem is that human nature steps in.
Insurers WILL NOT insure GE risk.
GE developers wish to not be liable for GE risk.

The public are misinformed about GE HAZARD as opposed to risk.
Risk = function(hazard, probability).
IF a GE disaster occurs the hazard is what matters. Nobody at Chernobyl
cared, after the event,  that the risk of such an event occurring HAD been
low.
ALL GE is low risk by definition - the more hazardous it is the more care
you take.
People don't understand this.
The legislators don't.
The businessmen all too often don't care.
And Space Shuttle Challenger died for the same reasons.

Those who wish to garner financial gain are NOT those who will bear the risk
and the hazards can be extreme, even when the risk is low.

Q: How much good does a product have to show before it's worth the possible
hazard of wiping out 25% of the world's population, regardless of how
unlikely this is ?

Some people will actually try to give you an answer to that question.

There comes a stage where no amount of good is worth the gamble. Joe Public
does not realise that this is the sort of systems that we are playing with
when we fiddle inside life without enough knowledge.

> Either they are supporting the Monsantos
> of the world in their propaganda campaign (we are working to feed the
> starving millions)

I didn't know that Monsanto had millions of shareholders :-)

> 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.

To my somewhat surprise, on this issue the NZ Greens make almost total
sense. On all other issues they seem to go too far. Possibly they agree with
the medicine arguments that I mentioned above.

> 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.

Nature will very probably provide one sooner or later, that people world
wide will find of gripping interest. Hopefully a not too severe one.




            Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics