DWYP Round 2: AltF4 Vs ModestEgoist, Genetic Engineering

[AltF4]

Placeholder Post:

I will be making the affirmative. It will be double-posted right after this one.

 

[AltF4]

Welcome,

Genetic Engineering has been a hot topic in the past and continues to be so today. Genetic Engineering, as defined by Biology-Online.org, is "The technology entailing all processes of altering the genetic material of a cell to make it capable of performing the desired functions, such as producing novel substances. "

There are some who are opposed to the research and / or practice of Genetic Engineering, for various reasons, but I will argue here for the continued practice of this well established science.

1) Genetic Engineering has already given us many incredibly valuable products. These include synthetic insulin for diabetics and bacteria designed to break down oil for oil spills and industrial waste spills. These products are already being used to solve serious human health and environmental issues today.

2) Genetically Altered Crops can be vastly superior to "normal" crops. One quick example is the Hawaiian papaya crops in the mid-90's. A nasty plant virus went around that was killing crops and threatened to decimate Hawaii's second largest crop entirely.

Then Genetic Engineers created a virus-resistant breed of the Papaya plant, and it quickly solved the virus problem. (1)

This is just one example of a practice that is commonplace today. Food is regularly altered to be insect repellent, virus resistant, and more bountiful. Keep in mind that these technologies are put in place in more regions than urban United States. Impoverished regions of Africa today on these new crops to provide reliable food. The Genetic Engineering of these plants has saved countless human lives.

3) Genetic Engineering in humans: Genetic Engineering promises to be the cure for deadly and horrible genetic diseases. Huntington's disease, sickle-cell anemia, and cystic fibrosis are just some quick examples of terrible plagues on humans which all have a genetic cause. It widely believed possible through more research to prevent or cure these diseases. Many strides towards making these cures are already underway.

4) Safety of Genetic Engineering: Genetically altered products are regulated by the FDA, USDA, and EPA. (1) There is a commonly perpetuated myth of a "mad scientist" doing strange and inhumane experiments on animals, and creating monsters which have to be destroyed. But this simply is not true. Genetic Engineering research (and especially GE products) are heavily regulated by governmental agencies.


(1):http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2003/603_food.html

 

[Modest_Egoist]

Genetic engineering poses dangers that need to be weighed against its advantages.

Genetically engineered crops can cross-pollinate with other plants, affecting both the environments and farmers. There are crops that are modified in order to be resistant to herbicide. However, cross-pollination has lead to the rise of “super-weeds”, which have become resistant to the herbicide as well. This has lead to increased herbicide use, which can affect food and water supplies (1).

There is also the case of Monsanto vs. Schmeiser case. The company Monsanto sued the farmer for violating a patent on the genetically engineered canola. Schmeiser claimed that the crops had cross-pollinated with the GE canola and that he had intentionally violated the patent. The courts held him accountable. This set the precedence that if cross-pollination does occur, the farmers will be held responsible for violating patents on GE crops (1).

----

There are two ways that genetic engineering can be done to treat diseases in humans: somatic cell gene therapy and germ line gene therapy.

Somatic cell gene therapy is a procedure done in adult cells to try to correct or replace a bad gene to treat an illness or condition. There are several ways the gene can be inserted; the most common ways involve the use of weakened viruses. There are several problems with this procedure, including the potential for the inserted virus to affect normal cells leading to adverse effects. Two children were diagnosed with leukemia when they were treated for Severe combined immunodeficiency (“bubble-boy”) disease (2). There is also the case of Jesse Gelsinger, who died as a result of a gene therapy experiment (3). There is also the possibility for athletes to use gene therapy in order to make themselves stronger and have more endurance.

Germ line gene therapy is a much more controversial procedure. It involves the insertion of the corrective gene into the germ line (the cells that later become sperm or egg). This procedure is in the fertilized egg; in this way, the corrected gene is passed down from generation to generation. The procedure is not 100% safe, as there is no way to tell where the inserted gene will attach. It could create mutations that will affect the health of the potential child. It also could lead to the possibility of parents being able to design their child with the desired characteristics (4).

(1) http://www.indsp.org/MOP1-GEHazards.php
(2) http://hum-molgen.org/NewsGen/06-2003/000004.html
(3) http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/kolehmainen.html
(4) http://www.hgalert.org/topics/hge/noToGE.htm

 

[AltF4]

The Monsanto Vs Schmeiser case is an interesting one. First off, this had all taken place in Canada. None of the court decisions were made on this issue in the United States. So no "precedents" set have any bearing to our United States courts.

Secondly, Monsanto has a well established record of malicious litigation and business practices, including child labor exploitation, using chemicals known to be poisonous in top soils, and taking advantage of Indian farmers to the point of them committing suicide in the thousands. (1)(2) It's so secret that if there is such a thing as the embodiment of an "evil corporation" Monsanto is it. It's also no wonder that such a decision has not been made in the United States.


As for the first claim (herbicide resistant weeds), the medical field experiences the same effect with antibiotics. As we employ these cures, the diseases naturally begin to adapt to overcome our attempts. But this is no reason to stop the use of the antibiotics!

Similarly, the use of GE crops is an invaluable tool that allows us to bring a steady food supply to areas that desperately need them. Weeds that are tougher to kill is an insignificant side effect to this life saving technology.


About GE in humans: Genetic Engineering in humans has been the most regulated and controlled research of all, which is why you are providing casualty rates that I can count on my hands. I couldn't even find a statistic which lists the actual number of Genetic Engineering related deaths.

Compare that to, say, early research in surgery! I don't think it's any stretch of the imagination to say that plenty of people died (in very painful ways, too) from this early research. I'm not advocating that we endure such an experience again today, but it is important to put this in perspective.


And lastly, you seem to be under the impression that it is wrong to allow humans to select genetic traits for their children. If the science were refined to the point where a parent could choose their child's eye color before even being born, what is wrong with this?


(1) http://www.indianet.nl/cotseed.html
(2) http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/9182

 

[Modest_Egoist]

The Monsanto Vs Schmeiser case is an interesting one. First off, this had all taken place in Canada. None of the court decisions were made on this issue in the United States. So no "precedents" set have any bearing to our United States courts.

Secondly, Monsanto has a well established record of malicious litigation and business practices, including child labor exploitation, using chemicals known to be poisonous in top soils, and taking advantage of Indian farmers to the point of them committing suicide in the thousands. (1)(2) It's so secret that if there is such a thing as the embodiment of an "evil corporation" Monsanto is it. It's also no wonder that such a decision has not been made in the United States.

Actually, Monsanto has sued farmers in the United States. The Superior Court passed judgment on Monsanto's favor that reusing seeds from plants grown by farmers violates their patent. (1)

As for the first claim (herbicide resistant weeds), the medical field experiences the same effect with antibiotics. As we employ these cures, the diseases naturally begin to adapt to overcome our attempts. But this is no reason to stop the use of the antibiotics!

Similarly, the use of GE crops is an invaluable tool that allows us to bring a steady food supply to areas that desperately need them. Weeds that are tougher to kill is an insignificant side effect to this life saving technology.

A 2008 study has shown that GE crops are not sent to areas that desperately need them. Instead of being sent to poor nations to feed the hungry, they are sold to rich nations to feed livestock. In other cases, the boost in crops and farmer income has been from factors other than the use of GE crops.

And the fact that weeds are becoming tougher to kill is a serious side effect. Now, stronger and more toxic herbicides are being used to control the weed problem. This can have a harmful effect on the food and water supplies. The antibiotics comparison isn't accurate. The bacteria not destroyed by antibiotics develop resistance to them. This is comparable to insects that develop a resistance to pesticide. Both are natural evolutions. In the case of the herbicide tolerant weeds, they don't naturally become resistant to it. They develop it in a way that would not have happened in nature.

About GE in humans: Genetic Engineering in humans has been the most regulated and controlled research of all, which is why you are providing casualty rates that I can count on my hands. I couldn't even find a statistic which lists the actual number of Genetic Engineering related deaths.

Compare that to, say, early research in surgery! I don't think it's any stretch of the imagination to say that plenty of people died (in very painful ways, too) from this early research. I'm not advocating that we endure such an experience again today, but it is important to put this in perspective.

The only difference between early research in surgery and early research in genetic engineering is its test subjects. It's easy to say that the reason human casualties are low because the amount of test subjects are low. Genetic engineering uses animals as its test subjects. And there have been scenarios where animals have died (in painful ways as well) because of this research. And the animals are sacrificed often in vain, since a gene would react in a different way in an animal host than in a human being.

And lastly, you seem to be under the impression that it is wrong to allow humans to select genetic traits for their children. If the science were refined to the point where a parent could choose their child's eye color before even being born, what is wrong with this?

Not everyone wil have access to this kind of technology. This would expand the gap between the rich and poor. Much like how not everyone can afford plastic surgery, the same will happen with this. We run the danger in the near future that those who are genetically modified will look down upon those who are not. Parents should not treat the prospect of having a child the same way as if they were buying a car, selecting what features they want.

(1)http://www.columbiamissourian.com/s...to-vs-pilot-grove-coop-protecting-patents-or/
(2)http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/WhoBenefitsPR2_13_08.cfm
(3)http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/ar-animalsandge.html
(4)http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/agar.html

 

[Modest_Egoist]

Noticed I forgot to put the second, third, and fourth notations in the response.
Source 2 is for the "A 2008 study has shown that GE crops..." part.
Source 3 is for the "The only difference between early research" part.'
Source 4 is for the "Not everyone wil have access" part.

 

[AltF4]

Actually, Monsanto has sued farmers in the United States. The Superior Court passed judgment on Monsanto's favor that reusing seeds from plants grown by farmers violates their patent. (1)

I fail to see how this is a reason to discontinue the use of Genetically Engineered crops. In fact, it demonstrates that these GE seeds are superior to ordinary ones, and are a valuable tool.

A 2008 study has shown that GE crops are not sent to areas that desperately need them. Instead of being sent to poor nations to feed the hungry, they are sold to rich nations to feed livestock. In other cases, the boost in crops and farmer income has been from factors other than the use of GE crops.

This is not an argument that GE crops should not be used. This is just complaining that the crops are not being used to feed more poor people. In fact, the insinuation here is that GE crops are great, and should be used, but more for poor people.

And the fact that weeds are becoming tougher to kill is a serious side effect. Now, stronger and more toxic herbicides are being used to control the weed problem. This can have a harmful effect on the food and water supplies. The antibiotics comparison isn't accurate. The bacteria not destroyed by antibiotics develop resistance to them. This is comparable to insects that develop a resistance to pesticide. Both are natural evolutions. In the case of the herbicide tolerant weeds, they don't naturally become resistant to it. They develop it in a way that would not have happened in nature.

The antibiotics comparison is absolutely accurate. Bacteria does not independently evolve antibiotic-resistance. It only only does so when exposed to antibiotics. The widespread use of penicillin has CREATED bacteria that is resistant to antibiotics. Yet it is still worth that consequence.

The benefits of Genetic Engineering (which you have not disputed) are great, and have the potential to be even greater. It will take more than a tough to-kill-weed to stop all research on this emerging technology.

The only difference between early research in surgery and early research in genetic engineering is its test subjects. It's easy to say that the reason human casualties are low because the amount of test subjects are low. Genetic engineering uses animals as its test subjects. And there have been scenarios where animals have died (in painful ways as well) because of this research. And the animals are sacrificed often in vain, since a gene would react in a different way in an animal host than in a human being.

Now you're just appealing to emotion. Your third source is a laughable website which tries in vain to make personal attacks on the scientists who do the research, and makes appeals to emotion the entire way through.

If you're concerned about animal rights, or animal cruelty, try looking up the makeup industry, or traditional medicine companies for god's sake. They each are responsible for countless animal testing deaths and injuries, yet we consider that "worth it".

Not everyone wil have access to this kind of technology. This would expand the gap between the rich and poor. Much like how not everyone can afford plastic surgery, the same will happen with this. We run the danger in the near future that those who are genetically modified will look down upon those who are not. Parents should not treat the prospect of having a child the same way as if they were buying a car, selecting what features they want.

I asked you last post: Why Not? What reason can you give me that a parent should be disallowed from selecting the eye color of their child? You have not given any reasons, just blind assertions. All you're doing again is making appeals to emotion with that bit about people looking down on those not Genetically modified.

And this business about the gap between rich and poor is just plain absurd. I suppose we should outlaw any expensive new technology because only the rich will afford it, yes?

Better ban that new expensive laptop. Only the rich can afford it, and it will increase their efficiency and make them even richer!