by wj
OK, we need a new open thread. I get that. So here ya go.
Once upon a time, I read a science fiction story which featured a group called "Control Normals". (No, I don't recall who the author was or what the title was. Perhaps one of the SF fans here will remember.)
The time was a future where genetic engineering was readily available, and widely used. But to keep an eye on what the results had been, and to keep open to new random mutations, the best scientific tradition had been observed by the creation of a control group -- one which did not get all those deliberate improvements. To convince people to agree initially to be part of that group, and later to compensate its members for their handicaps, they got a government subsidy.
At the time, this seemed rather off the wall. I mean, assume that that level of gene engineering would be available -- at some distant time in the future. Why would anyone, even for money, agree to not do the best for their kids that they could? It just seemed ludicrous. (I was, obviously, very young.)
Now, it seems wildly improbable for other reasons. First, getting (and keeping) a government subsidy seems like a stretch. And second, more importantly, why would we need a government subsidy to get people to sign on? We already have people refusing to get their kids vaccinated. Why would someone like that, especially if they are also hysterical about GMOs. need a bribe to opt out of improving their kids? No matter how obvious the advantages.
Who decides what the desirable traits are, or are we only talking about obvious ones like, say, not having cystic fibrosis and such?
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | August 21, 2015 at 01:04 PM
Open Thread!
Great article on how the GOP presidential candidates all want to force people to be live organ donors.
Posted by: Ugh | August 21, 2015 at 01:45 PM
I suspect that, once the technology gets settled in**, we'll start with the obvious genetic disorders. And only then start arguing about what general "improvements" might be desirable. Probably start with stuff like 20/20 vision -- common but not universal features. And only then move on to trying for "new and improved".
The Economist has a whole Briefing on the subject this week.
** I'd expect we're looking at a couple of decades here. But that may be seriously pesimistic, given how fast things are starting to more.
Posted by: wj | August 21, 2015 at 01:56 PM
Who decides what the desirable traits are, or are we only talking about obvious ones like, say, not having cystic fibrosis and such?
I'll inject some dark humor and I'm out for the weekend:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3717
Posted by: thompson | August 21, 2015 at 02:32 PM
Was the SF book Robert Heinlein's Beyond That Horizon?
It's one of his early books, if I'm remembering right. Full of eugenics and woo, and chock full of government-subsidy sermons (Heinlein was pro-Social Credits back then).
Posted by: Kelly Jennings | August 21, 2015 at 02:37 PM
"Control naturals"
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 21, 2015 at 02:53 PM
Who decides what the desirable traits are
mothers. it's all about the sexy sons.
Posted by: cleek | August 21, 2015 at 02:55 PM
Black humor I saw on Balloon Juice earlier this week:
What do you think Jesus' favorite type of gun would be?
Posted by: Ugh | August 21, 2015 at 03:01 PM
A nail gun.
Posted by: Ugh | August 21, 2015 at 03:01 PM
Because he was a carpenter. What were you thinking?*
*this is my bit
Posted by: Ugh | August 21, 2015 at 03:02 PM
Thanks, Slarti
(Searches work so much better when you search for the correct term....)
Posted by: wj | August 21, 2015 at 03:14 PM
Kelly Jennings,
It was an interesting book. Not fascist-libertarian like many later Heinlein books but an interesting mixture if libertarianism and socialism. A world with a high level of guaranteed income for everyone, which would make work essentially a hobby. On the other hand, every male was socially required to carry a handgun and duel for petty matters of honour and politeness.
The socialist government would not be able to defend itself against an armed uprising without posses of lawful armed citizens coming to help lawmen to quell a rebellion, and Heinlein portrays this as a deliberate positive feature, not as a bug. On the other hand, the anti-government rebellion is portrayed as a bunch of losers with delusions of grandeur. Their ideas sound a lot like tea party.
I think that the end reveals that the male protagonist who is described as objectively superior human being in regard to his genetics is black.
So, this is one of Heinlein's better books: Voluntary eugenics, open carry and 2nd amendment safeguards as a foundation of a social democratic welfare state. :-)
Posted by: Lurker | August 21, 2015 at 04:19 PM
Mutant, undesirable gene traits are replicating and presenting as malignant tumors metastasizing throughout the body politic.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/maybe-this-time-really-is-different/401900/
Place the F-word as a descriptor before every noun in the article, and you have one of my posts.
Unfortunately, nearly the only "lawful (heavily) armed citizens" in this country right now are the anti-government losers with delusions of grandeur (sounds like Tea Party and the militias armed by the NRA and the Republican Party), unless you count the Professor Plums in the drawing rooms with the politically correct brass candlesticks, which ain't going to do the job against the paramilitary forces the Right has been preparing for years.
You'll notice in recent times the only "citizens" showing up to help "lawman", who can't seem to be trusted to shoot the right people either, are fascist, subhuman, heavily armed, right-wing vermin, who have every intention of murdering their fellow Americans of color and liberal bent as soon as they have the chance.
Objectively superior human beings are sparsely armed at best.
None of them will be at the Republican Convention Ornstein references.
But, I'll guess that's where the gunfire will start in earnest if the far right wing is denied the nomination.
They'll kill a RINO or two first and then come for the rest of us.
What else are the stockpiles of guns and ammo for?
I like some of Heinlein's scenario but it's ass backwards in describing the USA in the here and now.
I'm plum out of smiley emoticons.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 21, 2015 at 04:51 PM
As I wrote yesterday, crashy-looking stock market been going on. Maybe a snapback soon, but the downside is formidable after that.
That, and whatever possible economic disruption might ensue, regardless of the cause, will be excellent news for armed Republican Party operatives hoping to sow pigfilth outrage and fear among their cadres.
They have been dying for bad news economically.
Every down tick in the unemployment rate has been killing them. They gnaw on the end of their gun barrels as things have gotten better.
Bad news is always good for fascists. Means to an end.
The END.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 21, 2015 at 05:02 PM
Hardly surprising that the stock market is coming down. (Something it generally does in crashes, rather than gradually.) Prices were well into bubble territory -- P/Es were way high.
Of course, since the markets were up without reference to how the economy was actually doing on the ground, they may crash with equally little impact (outside the very rich). So the Republicans may want to wait a bit before popping the champagne corks. Not that I think they will.
Posted by: wj | August 21, 2015 at 05:11 PM
Lurker: Right, that's the one. It's also the one which gives us the often-quoted "An armed society is a polite society."
As I recall, not all men *had* to be armed. You could choose to wear a badge saying that you weren't armed, but this meant accepted second-class citizenship -- basically, the same status as a woman or a child. (Misogynistic? Heinlein? Never!)
But yes, definitely an interesting read.
Posted by: Kelly Jennings | August 21, 2015 at 05:39 PM
"An armed society is a polite society."
Oft-quoted indeed. But truly stupid nonetheless. Is the argument really that if someone is rude, by your definition, you have the right to shoot them?
Posted by: byomtov | August 21, 2015 at 08:29 PM
An armed society is a terrified and paranoid society.
Posted by: Ugh | August 21, 2015 at 08:42 PM
Editing humanity: A new technique for manipulating genes holds great promise—but rules are needed to govern its use
Posted by: CharlesWT | August 21, 2015 at 10:03 PM
Govern?
Rules?
By what agency?
Try it, with the armed society right-wing society we're birthing.
See what happens to ya.
"Oft-quoted indeed. But truly stupid nonetheless. Is the argument really that if someone is rude, by your definition, you have the right to shoot them?"
Conversely, if someone is armed, you have the right to be rude to them?
And then what?
We're not a society. We're a piece of shit.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 21, 2015 at 11:05 PM
"An armed society is a polite society."
Actually, what that translates to is "Skill with a gun is an excuse to be as rude and obnoxious as you want." Which, if you think about it for an instant, is one rotten way to live.
Not least for those who have vast amounts to contribute to society, but happen to have relatively slow reflexes. (Raises hand, as the man with the slowest reflexes of any adult I have ever met. Even if not necessarily qualifying on "vast potential contribution.")
Posted by: wj | August 21, 2015 at 11:32 PM
"But truly stupid nonetheless. Is the argument really that if someone is rude, by your definition, you have the right to shoot them?"
That was indeed the thesis Heinlein was putting forth in this book. All men (except those willing to accept 2nd class status) went armed; all men thereby accepted the possibility that they would be facing death by duel at any moment.
This was a good thing, as Heinlein explains (has his characters explain) in the book.
Why, you wonder? Well, because the human race has stopped evolving, you see, what with the invention of society and medicine and keeping people alive even when they fall off cliffs and so forth.
These duels are how the human race can continue to evolve, don't you see? Very social Darwinist. Very much shows you how little Heinlein understood of how evolution actually works.
Posted by: Kelly Jennings | August 22, 2015 at 12:20 AM
I don't, by the way, agree with Heinlein's thesis in any fashion, in case I'm not making that clear. When I say the book is an interesting read, I mean, you know, as an artifact.
He's got this idea that if people -- men -- go armed we're going to have a noble society, in which the "less fit" are winnowed out.
But in fact what do we see happening, here in the 21st century, when men run around with guns? People shooting one another over nothing much, or shooting strangers over nothing. Nothing noble or *evolved* about any of it.
Certainly we're not seeing that armed men make us a more polite society. Quite the contrary.
Posted by: Kelly Jennings | August 22, 2015 at 12:33 AM
Certainly we're not seeing that armed men make us a more polite society. Quite the contrary.
Indeed, an excellent case can be made that politeness, and good manners in general, are far more common in those parts of society where guns are extremely rare compared to those parts of society where they are extremely common.
(I except those areas where guns are common because there is an actual reason for them. E.g. where there is dangerous wildlife running around. I'm just referring to those areas where the only significant threat is from other people.)
Posted by: wj | August 22, 2015 at 12:38 AM
I like some of Heinlein's scenario but it's ass backwards
In later works he portrays an America that succumbs (for a time) to American Fascist Protestantism, starting with Nehemiah Scudder.
Posted by: joel hanes | August 22, 2015 at 03:23 AM
For me the most interesting part of the novel was the idea that prospective parents could choose (with professional advice) the best possible combination of their genes. This seems to me a relatively benign form of human genetic engineering, and much more possible now than when he wrote.
Posted by: David Evans | August 22, 2015 at 08:54 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/22/us/donald-trump-fails-to-fill-alabama-stadium-but-fans-zeal-is-undiminished.html?_r=0
Besides the highlight that the Bible is his favorite reality show, this, from an acolyte:
“Hopefully, he’s going to sit there and say, ‘When I become elected president, what we’re going to do is we’re going to make the border a vacation spot, it’s going to cost you $25 for a permit, and then you get $50 for every confirmed kill,’ ” said Jim Sherota, 53, who works for a landscaping company. “That’d be one nice thing.”
First off, every landscaping company I'm familiar with in my part of the country employs hard-working Mexican immigrants at dicey pay without benes. I'm sure that includes the landscaping companies who manicure Trump's residential and commercial properties around the country.
Second, I estimate that there are roughly 50 million right-wing, so-called Americans of doubtful human origin who are chomping at the bit to murder their enemies -- Democrats, Latin immigrants, liberals, Muslims, blacks, gays and lesbians, the poor, RINOs-- and who have been deliberately and systematically armed by the Republican Party and its paramilitary partners, namely the NRA.
Rudeness towards them will not suffice.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 22, 2015 at 12:45 PM
Another filth Republican candidate for the Presidency going after a dying decent man on the wrong day:
http://wonkette.com/593195/ted-cruz-chooses-perfect-day-to-be-a-dick-to-jimmy-carter
How is it that Texas residents can fire off so many bullets every year and not one of them manages to strike Cruz in the head?
They must be killing all the wrong people.
How is that Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy, JFK, innocent theater goers, elementary school kids, and government employees are targeted for murder in this country and yet these 18 pieces of filth candidates and their base can utter the most f*cked up threatening crap into microphones for all to hear and they attract no gunfire aimed their way?
Apparently they are permitted to be rude, and worse, because they are armed.
We are full of sh*t.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 22, 2015 at 12:57 PM
I suspect that, once the technology gets settled in**, we'll start with the obvious genetic disorders. And only then start arguing about what general "improvements" might be desirable. Probably start with stuff like 20/20 vision -- common but not universal features. And only then move on to trying for "new and improved"
"New and improved" seems like a clear fallacy to me. What is it anyway? How do you "improve" the human race?
There is one thing here which should give us great pause. Humans have a long history of "improving" other species, animal and vegetable, by what amounts to genetic engineering. And what we mean by "improving" is "making them more useful to humans."
How is that going to work when the species being improved is humanity itself?
Posted by: byomtov | August 22, 2015 at 07:26 PM
How do you "improve" the human race?
Most likely, the aim will to be to emphasize what makes the human race great. Leading, almost instantly, to fierce arguments about just what that might be.
For example, some will argue that we ought to be faster and stronger. Others, that we ought to be smarter. And doubtless still others will have ideas along that line that haven't even occurred to me.
Personally, I think that what makes human beings the top of the food chain on earth is our variability, and the adaptability that comes with it. If we need to be bigger and stronger in some situation, we've got people who fit that. If we need to be smarter in another situation, we've got that, too.
It doesn't seem to matter what the situation is, or what the environment is, we (as a gorup, as a species) can adapt to cope with it. And when we can't adapt directly, we use the other feature of our variability: someone among us makes tools which will allow us to cope anyway. Doesn't matter whether it is the bottom of the ocean or the vacuum of space -- we, with the right tools, can cope. And we can develop the tools to do so.
So, probably the only way to "improve" the race (once we've dealt with various genetic diseases, etc.) is to expand our variability even more. What it won't be is to somehow make us more uniformly better.
Posted by: wj | August 22, 2015 at 08:08 PM
Dominant human beings have been trying to make the rest of humanity useful and servicable to them for eons.
Consider the job resume.
Ya ever wonder why Jeb Bush didn't offer Terri Schiavo a job in the Florida Governor's office. She could have been his receptionist. "The Governor is .... in the office to the right ... upstairs," her roving eyes would indicate.
Oh, she was useful to him, kind of like everyone is useful to the Bush family.
But not like he made it out to be, given his desire to cut Medicaid and Medicare.
Then consider what we've done to the tomato.
Tasteless, each one exactly like the other, they'll keep until you need them, not a hunchback among them.
Should we perfect human beings like we've perfected the tomato, eventually we'll rebel and heirloom humans will begin reappearing from boutique humanity farms.
Of course, they'll be expensive, unlike decades ago when were just tomatoes, and yet another grift shall be born, probably brought to you by Whole Foods.
Whole Humans.
Flavorful, none like the other, eat 'em quick because they don't last. Get em at the farmer's market.
The tomatoes, not the humans.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 22, 2015 at 08:39 PM
This is richly meditative:
http://www.businessinsider.com/time-lapse-container-ship-baltic-sea-2015-7
I'm going to go to sea.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 22, 2015 at 09:08 PM
some will argue that we ought to be faster and stronger.
How will that help? I am a slow runner, and have been since I was a boy. So if we make everyone, including me, faster, I'm no better off in matters of running.
Stronger? Same thing, unless I'm trying to fight off a lion, which is unlikely, especially since I carefully spread lion powder outside my condo every morning.
Posted by: byomtov | August 22, 2015 at 09:53 PM
How do you "improve" the human race?
I'm old-fashioned : I think that sexual selection is not only the best way for this to happen, I think it's impossible to prevent.
Lust is apparently one of the strongest forces in natural selection, and natural selection makes species.
Posted by: joel hanes | August 23, 2015 at 12:00 AM
Just wait until the new homo sapiens monsanto enters the market that cannot reproduce by itself so that the next generation seed has to be bought. It will outperform the obsolete homo sapiens sapiens by such a margin that the latter will be unable to compete (especially after lobbyists have dictated new 'social reform' laws in disfavor of the old-fashioned model).
Posted by: Hartmut | August 23, 2015 at 03:56 AM
FWIW, here is my whole issue with genetic modification.
The genetic information in any given organism, and how it is expressed in the actual organism, is a very complicated system.
Likewise, only orders of magnitude more so, the enormous collection of living organisms that make up the biosphere.
Tweaks to those systems have immediate, obvious, direct effects, and also less immediate, less obvious, indirect effects.
IMVHO, the capacity of the human mind to understand, predict, and reason accurately about the downstream consequences of f***ing with this stuff is not, remotely, commensurate with the potential consequences of doing so.
We've figured out the mechanics of tweaking this stuff pretty well, but outside of manipulating very specific and narrowly focused outcomes, knowing what the results will be is beyond our ability to grasp.
Yes, people have been doing "genetic manipulation" for thousands of years via selective breeding etc., but that is a matter of working with genetic material already in the organism - working with inherent latent properties of the organism - that are themselves the results of a millions-of-years long evolutionary balancing act.
There are issues concerning the motivations of the people who are engaged in this stuff, and that should give us pause. But more broadly, even the folks who are doing this stuff out of the best of motives have, at the very best, only the most limited grasp of what the downstream results will be, and even less control over them.
Living things do what they want to do. There is no freaking way this stuff can be kept in a lab. And we have no idea whatsoever, and no control whatsoever, over what happens when it's out of the lab.
I'm a GM luddite, straight up, because everything I know about humans tells me they don't have the chops to do stuff like this without making a freaking mess.
My opinion, no more no less.
Posted by: russell | August 23, 2015 at 01:53 PM
So if we make everyone, including me, faster, I'm no better off in matters of running.
But the idea of making human beings "better" isn't really to make some of them better with respect to the others. (Although it might have that effect, if there are inherent limits on how good a particular characteristic can be.) Rather, it is to improve our ability to function in, or to compete with, the universe outside the human race.
Posted by: wj | August 23, 2015 at 01:56 PM
See another result of faulty gene selection among conservative Republican filth:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a37324/mike-huckabee-embarrasses-himself-in-israel/
Trying to f*ckup the Mideast even more that is already is.
Huckabee should be apprehended at the border on his return, charged with treason and interference in a war zone and executed.
That would be just a meager start.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 23, 2015 at 02:02 PM
it is to improve our ability to function in, or to compete with, the universe outside the human race.
But this is tricky, once you get past genetic diseases and so on, especially the "compete with" part. Human competition with other species isn't going badly in the usual sense. If anything, it's too successful. There may be some fallacies of composition here, in that the adaptations that would improve our life span and make us better able to survive in the environment as a species are not particularly attractive to individuals today.
Suppose, for example, we could digest grass or tree leaves. Well, it wouldn't thrill me to be able to do that, but the long-run effects on humanity's wellbeing might be positive.
Posted by: byomtov | August 24, 2015 at 06:28 PM
"Suppose, for example, we could digest grass or tree leaves. Well, it wouldn't thrill me to be able to do that, but the long-run effects on humanity's wellbeing might be positive."
We already can. It' called 'salad'. Nutritional value varies.
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki | August 24, 2015 at 07:46 PM
Genetic engineering worries me for a couple of reasons:
1) when it results in animal suffering or further commoditization (because I believe that we should be working against animal commoditization);
2) when it has an unknown effect on the environment: the way that plants and animals (including insects) interact is very complicated. We know so little about insects: apparently the number of insects humans have discovered is fewer than half of the number out there (read it recently - cite to be determined if I have time). We have very little idea about the benefits of various plants and animals in the ecosystem.
3) There are a lot of "slippery slopes" but I hope that genetic engineering can cure diseases that we all dread without marginalizing those who weren't lucky enough to benefit from the treatment.
Scientists don't have all of the ethical solutions, but it's difficult for people who don't understand the science to have a worthwhile opinion other than to speak in generalities.
Posted by: sapient | August 24, 2015 at 08:27 PM
Where you want to get to with gene engineering is a slab of steak growing in a vat -- no animal involved. Ditto pork chops, etc., etc. It may not seem obvious, but gene engineering is how we get to there.
Posted by: wj | August 24, 2015 at 08:57 PM
Well, not necessarily. I mean, it's one path to get there, but it's not the only one.
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide | August 24, 2015 at 11:11 PM
Thanks NV. Learn something new every day. (I'm assuming that the date of April 1st on the post you linked to isn't really relevant....)
Posted by: wj | August 25, 2015 at 11:49 AM
Where you want to get to with gene engineering is a slab of steak growing in a vat -- no animal involved.
I don't know if you're serious about this or not, but certainly there are people who are.
When I read stuff like this, it makes about a million question marks explode over my head.
To me, it makes much more sense to adjust our own expectations and learn to live with the planet and the things that live on it as they present themselves, as a given environment. As opposed to trying to engineer it to fit our preferences.
I'm not arguing for throwing away all of modern technology and infrastructure. I am arguing for pursuing technical solutions that don't start by assuming we are capable of re-engineering fundamental natural processes without incurring significant harms.
Because I don't think we are capable of re-engineering fundamental natural processes without incurring significant harms.
Gene manipulation is a very remarkable technology, and there are obvious potential benefits in a variety of specific areas. But it's extraordinarily powerful, and involves systems and processes that we barely understand, and which are to a large degree outside of our control.
Posted by: russell | August 25, 2015 at 02:47 PM
Well, let's think about what something like that steak would require.
1) some muscle tissue (as a base, so we don't have to create it from scratch). It needs to be both able to grow, and able to have that growth constrained (i.e. not cancerous).
2) some way to give it some exercise (that being, as far as we know, a requirement for healthy muscle tissue).
3) some way to provide nourishment to the muscle tissue. Of which the most obvious would be to just use blood, like the real thing does. (Synthetic blood has some obvious medical applications.)
4) leading to some kind of pump to move the blood around. It's probably easiest to just use a mechanical pump -- even if we discover that having pressure cycles (like a heartbeat) is necessary for optimum function).
5) some way to get nourishment into the blood in the first place. (Which also has obvious medical applications, once we figure out what is required.)
So, I don't see it really being a threat to nature. And it seems like removing the necessity to produce meat the old fashioned way would make a substantial improvement on the stress we currently put on the environment. Just for openers, there would be a lot of range land that could go back to being wilderness.
Not to mention the elemination of factory farms (in the current usage of the term), which try to do essentially the same thing, except using real animals.
Posted by: wj | August 25, 2015 at 03:33 PM
There is definitely a good case to be made that steak, as a staple food, is environmentally costly.
A simple way to address that is to eat less of it.
Not trying to kick off some big prescriptive debate about What Everybody Should Eat, I eat steak myself.
Just saying that one available option for addressing things that are harmful when scaled up to very large populations is "do something else".
As compared to spinning up complex, technology-intensive "fixes", it seems to me that making simple lifestyle adjustments is a pretty attractive alternative.
If eating the amount of steak that we all eat creates problems that require artificially growing faux hamburgers in a lab somewhere, maybe just eat less of it.
There are other things to eat.
It just doesn't seem like a great rationale for messing with the gene pool. To me.
Everything has effects. To me, genetic manipulation is basically an enormous artificial input into a fairly delicate self-balancing system. A system which includes us, and which is the irreplaceable fabric which supports our own existence.
There are, no doubt, really compelling cases where the upside justifies the risk.
"Grow your own hamburger" just doesn't seem like one of those cases. It's just not that important or necessary for people to (for example) eat the amount of meat that we seem to feel like we need to eat.
There are other things to eat, that don't incur the same environmental costs, and also don't require weird technological interventions.
All of this is my opinion, nothing more or less.
Posted by: russell | August 25, 2015 at 04:27 PM
I find myself in significant general agreement with russell. I'd want to see us understanding more about what parts of DNA do exactly what, before monkeying with it. That goes for human DNA as well as plant and animal DNA.
It's a tall order, to be sure.
Hybridizing just uses natural processes already in place to select for certain features. It's what I would want things to be limited to until a more complete understanding is achieved.
It's a problem a million times more complicated than looking at a huge chunk of machine code and inferring what that machine code is supposed to be doing.
When we do get there, things I'd like to see go away are susceptibility to e.g. cancers, myopia, anemia, heart disease, etc, provided that could be done without taking away anything.
It's that last condition that worries me. Because you can't know what you've taken away until you have already made the changes that lead to it. If doing all what people would want to do would of necessity lead to making us more...alike, then we would have made of ourselves a hardy but drab species. It's not something I'd wish on us, if that could be avoided.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 25, 2015 at 04:43 PM
To me, genetic manipulation is basically an enormous artificial input into a fairly delicate system...
Alternatively, it's something that bacteria and viruses have been doing for a few billion years.
Indeed many of our 'engineering tools' are directly derived from them.
The "system" is a great deal more robust than you imagine, I think.
Posted by: Nigel | August 25, 2015 at 05:06 PM
The "system" is a great deal more robust than you imagine, I think.
IMO the system is enormously robust. It's generated every living thing that exists, or has ever existed.
What I do not think is robust is the depth of our understanding of it, or our ability to make accurate or reliable estimates of the downstream results when we artificially manipulate it.
I understand that one of the ways that we do gene insertion is by exploiting the natural and pre-existing abilities of bacteria and viruses to swap genetic material around. At least in the area of agricultural modifications, it's one of the reasons I'm not so confident about claims made by folks who do this stuff that their tweaks will never spread once they're outside the lab.
Posted by: russell | August 25, 2015 at 05:27 PM
Viruses in particular simply hijack DNA to create new viruses. Anything they do that isn't along the lines of replication is, therefore, not a survival trait.
Also, they don't in general tend to make changes that get passed on to subsequent generations.
But I could be wrong, here. This is not exactly my area of expertise. If I am not wrong, the objectives of humans and those of viruses would wind up being completely different, and so I would expect the consequences could be also completely different.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 25, 2015 at 06:05 PM
You might want to read up on bacteriaphages -- basically viruses which infect bacteria.
They are being used to deal with MRSAs, because unlike antibiotics they evolve right along with the bacteria. And they do kill the bacteria as they go along.
Posted by: wj | August 25, 2015 at 06:23 PM
To give some idea of where I'm coming from, I will ask a couple of specific questions, about a specific case.
In Bangladesh, people eat eggplant. They call it birjal. It's prone to damage from certain kinds of borers. The borers can be killed off with Bt. Bt is a generally benign microbe that is commonly used in agricultural applications. I spray the trees in my yard with Bt every year, to ward off winter moth caterpillars.
So, somebody developed a strain of birjal that includes the gene from the Bt microbe that makes the protein that is toxic to borers. It doesn't have to be treated with toxic insecticides, the farmers don't have to spray it with Bt all the time because it makes it's own Bt.
Better yields, not toxic insecticides, less labor involved. So far, all good.
Can farmers get birjal seeds with the Bt gene for free? What do they cost? What licensing restrictions are placed on them? Can farmers propagate new generations of birjal from existing plants? Will the presence of Bt birjal on the market crowd out other strains through purely market forces, resulting in a monopoly on the supply of the seeds and a de facto monoculture?
Those are more or less my socio-economic questions.
Can the Bt gene find its way into other plants that grow around the GM birjal? If not, why not? The organisms that are used to purposefully inject the Bt gene into the birjal occur naturally, and could spontaneously transfer the gene into other plants.
Do we want that? What if expressing the toxic gene became commonplace among plants in the area? What would happen to the borers? What other organisms rely on the borers for food or other important lifecycle functions? What happens if the borers are eliminated from that environment?
These are my basic environmental questions.
The Bt birjal is among the most clearly benign applications of GM technology, but I'm not sure all of these issues have been addressed. In other contexts, the introduction of "miracle" GM plants have been frankly disastrous for the folks involved.
Everything, especially everything that has to do with natural systems and processes, has consequences, and exists in complex interrelationships with everything else. It's an amazing technology, I'm sure there are valuable applications to consider, but it's not a panacea. Everything has a price.
Posted by: russell | August 25, 2015 at 09:12 PM
Those are more or less my socio-economic questions.
Good questions. Let me take a whack at that:
Can farmers get birjal seeds with the Bt gene for free?
Free? Obviously not. The question is, will the increase in price be covered with the savings from not having to plant as much in the first place?
What do they cost?
No way to know what the price will be. But the question, as noted, is the price compared to the unenhanced seeds. If the total cost of enough seeds is lower than currently, then it's worth paying. If not, then why would anyone buy it?
What licensing restrictions are placed on them?
Not sure I understand the question. But it sounds like you might be asking: Who, besides the original developer, can sell those seeds, and at what cost? Just like any other patent, it would seem.
Can farmers propagate new generations of birjal from existing plants?
If so, the price worth paying for the original seeds shoots up, simply because they won't have to buy them every year. (I know nothing about eggplant, so I don't have a clue whether that is even a possibility.)
Will the presence of Bt birjal on the market crowd out other strains through purely market forces, resulting in a monopoly on the supply of the seeds and a de facto monoculture?
A possible monopoly supply? Sure, at least for a while -- that's what patents are all about. Permanently? Almost certainly not. And, as noted, even a monopoly supplier has to keep prices down to the point where it is worthwhile for the buyer to buy them.
There is a monoculture issue. And monocultures are not desirable -- cf maize in the US, among numerous others. But what is the alternative? Seriously. Is it better that the folks in Bengladesh have less food? Or is there an alternative to supply them with more?
Posted by: wj | August 25, 2015 at 09:39 PM
The Bt birjal is among the most clearly benign applications of GM technology, but I'm not sure all of these issues have been addressed.
I'd actually peg something like Golden Rice as a better example of the most benign end of the spectrum, simply because it has a narrower probable impact outside human consumption.
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide | August 25, 2015 at 09:41 PM
"Field trials conducted on research-managed farms carried out by Mayhco and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research suggested a 42% pesticide reduction and a doubling of the yield was possible. The economic gain for consumers, developers and farmers was estimated to potentially be US$108 million per year with an additional $3–4 million saved due to health benefits associated with decreased pesticide use."
Bt brinjal - Controversy
Posted by: CharlesWT | August 25, 2015 at 09:53 PM
russell, just to be clear, I'm not saying that there are NO problems with gene engineering. Just that there are not automatically problems (the No GMO movement position), and that a little examination will mostly filter out which applications are problematic and which are unexceptional. Which Bt brinjal, for example, looks to be.
Posted by: wj | August 25, 2015 at 11:14 PM
You are wrong, Slart.
In fact, quite a lot of you genome came about that way (eg):
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrotransposon
Also bear in mind that your body contains rather more bacterial and viral cells than it does your own.
This is quite an interesting read:
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002226
Posted by: Nigel | August 26, 2015 at 01:14 AM
Don't forget GM seed companies mercilessly going after farmers that had not bought their seeds but got their fields contaminated by them from neighbouring fields through wind drift (plus getting their contaminated harvest rejected by some important markets). The courts have very open ears for those companies and their cries of 'theft'.
It's not limited to the 3rd world. A few years ago the 'owner' of the two most popular varieties of potato in Germany tried to get them off the market and to legally prevent others from keeping them alive, so people would have to buy the new 'improved' (and far less popular) models. Iirc the courts could do nothing but the public outcry was strong enough for the company to go into retreat (at least temporarily, they might try again in a more clandestine way later).
Gene engineering combined with unscrupulous business practices are a lethal cocktail.
Posted by: Hartmut | August 26, 2015 at 02:47 AM
"Gene engineering combined with unscrupulous business practices are a lethal cocktail."
Yeah, how long 'till Monsanto has the copyright on your kids DNA, so no grandkids for you unless someone can pay the licensing fee?
And you don't want to know what they do with 'pirated' copies.
Posted by: Snarki, child of Loki | August 26, 2015 at 09:28 AM
At least one gene tech company already tried to patent human DNA (starting with South American 'stone age' tribes).
Posted by: Hartmut | August 26, 2015 at 09:52 AM
I've been aware of those since I read Arrowsmith about 40 years ago, and wondered whether that "phage" thing was really a thing. Naturally, I had to check it out.
Bacteriophages have been used for nearly a century. Almost since people knew about viruses.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 26, 2015 at 10:25 AM
That's not really the question, because people will keep seed for re-planting. I do it, even though seed is fairly cheap, because I grow some things that the seed is not really readily available these days. Hardly anyone carries zipper cream peas, retail. Hybridized plants don't necessarily breed true, so not being able to keep seed and get the crop you harvested back isn't a problem that is localized to GM plants.
The relevant question is: how much does the seed cost, and does the Bt mutation breed true?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 26, 2015 at 10:41 AM
Probably so, but if you don't mind, could you tell me which of the things I have said that is wrong, and what parts of the article you cited are relevant? I can't tell what point you are making.
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 26, 2015 at 10:43 AM
I am aware of a case that sounds like what you are talking about, but in actuality it was shown that the farmer took active measures to capture and isolate the desired quality (Roundup-resistance) that obtained from accidental cross-pollination. Which, in the view of the court, made it something more than an incidental occurrence that the farmer could not avoid.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 26, 2015 at 10:46 AM
Regardless of how the science comes down on these issues, what is the problem with transparent labeling?
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-gmo-bill-would-ban-state-labeling-laws-20150723-story.html
And if they don't want us to call the stuff Frankenfood, why the extreme effort by states-right conservatives to prevent states from formulating their own mandates for product labeling, and, I expect, to get rid of labeling altogether at the federal level.
Must be that nontransparent plague of unlabeled Frankenmoney conservatives have set loose on our government. And woe to the Democrats who like it to.
Hartmut, those potatoes are probably owned by Syngenta, which Monsanto is trying to buy at the moment:
http://www.banterminator.org/News-Updates/News-Updates/Andean-Farmers-Oppose-Syngenta-s-Terminator-Potatoes
Unlike software patents, which are dicey enough, when I eat a potato, I'm declaring ownership.
They can have what's left of it after I'm done with it.
I recognize the legal questions arising from the capture of the Monsanto seeds by an individual farmer, but I'm not comfortable with penalizing a farmer over something farmers since the Fertile Crescent have been doing for eons.
If Nature couldn't sue farmers for picking and choosing among seeds, why does Monsanto have legal standing to do so?
The law seems a donkey, but I don't see anyone suing the mules and horses who made it up.
Maybe because it's sterile.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 26, 2015 at 11:03 AM
Rewrite: "The law seems an ass, but I don't see anyone suing the donkeys and the horses who made it up."
Posted by: Countme-In | August 26, 2015 at 11:06 AM
Now, your "hinny" on the other hand ...
By the way, labeling is permitted that extols the virtues of GM products, which is fine as far as it goes, which isn't far enough.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 26, 2015 at 11:09 AM
Just this second, Monsanto dropped its bid for Syngenta:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/monsanto-says-no-longer-pursuing-145706739.html
They must read Obsidian Wings.
Posted by: Countme-In | August 26, 2015 at 11:23 AM
Gene engineering combined with unscrupulous business practices are a lethal cocktail.
Actually, unscrupulous business practices combined with shady lawyers are a lethal cocktail. And are well on the way towards inflicting critical damage to our ability of function -- especially for small businesses (which includes at least some farmers, although far fewer in the US than you might imagine).
Posted by: wj | August 26, 2015 at 11:35 AM
russell, just to be clear, I'm not saying that there are NO problems with gene engineering.
Yes, I get that.
Just that there are not automatically problems
IMO there actually are some inherent issues with the technology.
GM is fundamentally a really big input into what is otherwise a self-balancing system. It is an extremely robust self-balancing system, we aren't going to destroy it. We're just introducing really large inputs into it. I'm not sure we have the chops to understand or predict what the second-order effects of doing that are. There are just a lot of things about the dynamics of gene transmission and expression that we don't understand.
The other issue I see, especially in the area of agriculture, is that it's an extremely technically complicated and capital-intensive approach. It also generally comes accompanied by complicated legal and licensing baggage. That takes it out of the control of people who, for example, are farmers, and introduces a variety of extrinsic agendas into the situation.
I also think it's today's shiny new toy, and to no small degree it strikes me that folks who are interested in the technology, for whatever reason and from whatever motive, are falling over themselves looking for places to apply it. Whether its the best choice or not.
I'm not sure there's a equally attractive option in the case of the Bt brinjal. You could just spray the plants with Bt, but as I understand it the larvae eat the fruit from the inside out, so external application will probably not get it done.
In the case of golden rice, among other things people could simply eat unpolished rice, which was the traditional norm, and which retains the beta-carotene. And/or, supplement their diet with leafy vegetables, grown by themselves. Those options are effective, cost little, and can be carried out by farmers and local folks themselves, without introducing a dependence on capital-intensive technologies and/or organizations with their own agendas.
I'm sure there are cases where the advantages of GM technology is such an overwhelming win that it's a no-brainer. In medicine specifically, they appear to offer approaches to treating really horrible and intractable conditions that simply aren't available otherwise.
All good.
I just don't think we understand the underlying systems and processes well enough to think we can apply the technology to every possible situation, without incurring some large and unexpected harms.
We're smart, we're just not that smart.
Posted by: russell | August 26, 2015 at 12:40 PM
Via the Count's link:
It wants Syngenta to publicly disown the patent, which describes a genetic- modification process that could be used to stop potatoes from sprouting unless a chemical is applied.
Terminator technology refers to genetic modifications that 'switch off' seed fertility, and can therefore prevent farmers from using, storing and sharing seeds and storage organs such as potato tubers.
If there is one GM innovation that IMO should be scrubbed off the face of the earth, now and forever, it's the freaking terminator technology.
"It could never ever be transferred to other species or cultivars. Trust us!"
Agricultural ice-nine.
Posted by: russell | August 26, 2015 at 12:44 PM
I am so far in a fairly complete state of WRS, in this thread.
It's not technology I am afraid of. It's what management will do with technology that I am afraid of.
Technology wielded by ignorant people, in other words.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 26, 2015 at 02:39 PM
there's another kind of people?
Posted by: cleek | August 26, 2015 at 03:46 PM
Despite my ambivalence towards GMOs expressed upthread, russell does an excellent job of capturing what troubles me about it. I have very little fear of genetic engineering by itself. However, any tech can be abused, and just the applications we've seen so far have been worrisome in their application, both on the legal side and the practical side.
I'd disagree with Slarti's summarized concern slightly, though; I'm more concerned with technology wielded by rapaciously self-interested people than by ignorant ones. I'm not so much worried that the owners of the new organisms won't be able to see the ramifications; I'm worried they just plain won't care if it increases their bottom line.
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide | August 26, 2015 at 03:53 PM
Ignorant, rapaciously self-interested people in management should have all control removed from their grasps.
But then what do we do about the highly intelligent sociopaths without consciences, who may overlap to varying degrees with the above classifications?
First off, who would run for President?
But, besides that, except for Obsidian Wings participants and cleek ;) (can't speak for lurkers, banned parties, etc), who would be left if we somehow rid ourselves of the above?
Posted by: Countme-In | August 26, 2015 at 04:12 PM
No, the German potato affair was not (iirc) about GM crops. The company just wanted to push new breeds and tried to remove those the people actually bought and preferred in order to achieve that. It reminded me more of the practices of some movie companies in the past that did remakes of famous earlier movies and tried to acquire and destroy all extant copies of the originals (a classic example, fortunately unsucessful, was the 1925 silent Ben Hur that was seen as too dangerous a rival still to the 1959 remake with Charlton Heston).
Posted by: Hartmut | August 26, 2015 at 04:19 PM
If there is one GM innovation that IMO should be scrubbed off the face of the earth, now and forever, it's the freaking terminator technology.
"It could never ever be transferred to other species or cultivars. Trust us!"
Even if it a transfer were to occur (unlikely, but theoretically possible) how on earth could it spread, if its effect is to prevent reproduction ?
Posted by: Nigel | August 26, 2015 at 07:11 PM
Sorry not to be clear, Slart.
Viruses in particular simply hijack DNA to create new viruses. Anything they do that isn't along the lines of replication is, therefore, not a survival trait.
Also, they don't in general tend to make changes that get passed on to subsequent generations.
Changes to DNA initiated by viruses over evolutionary time make up quite a large part of our DNA (along with that of other eukaryotes).
Posted by: Nigel | August 26, 2015 at 07:17 PM
how on earth could it spread, if its effect is to prevent reproduction ?
Actually, a very good point. It's unlikely to transfer to a large enough population to be a problem.
Suffice it to say that I'd rather not have folks f***ing around with stuff like this, especially if it's just to enforce their patents.
Changes to DNA initiated by viruses over evolutionary time make up quite a large part of our DNA
Changes that occur over evolutionary time sort of have the vetting process baked in.
Posted by: russell | August 26, 2015 at 08:50 PM
Does anyone remember the line from Singles where the guy says, "I'm probably sterile. It runs in my family."
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | August 27, 2015 at 09:51 AM
That's not actually impossible, provided that the sterility only affects one sex, e.g. the sons but not the daughters.
Posted by: Hartmut | August 27, 2015 at 11:33 AM
You must be more of a "big feet run in my family" kind of guy, Hartmut.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | August 27, 2015 at 11:40 AM
I was actually referring to this court case, but I am not familiar with all things that have been done by makers of GMO seed to protect their IP.
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 27, 2015 at 12:45 PM
"Even if it a transfer were to occur (unlikely, but theoretically possible) how on earth could it spread, if its effect is to prevent reproduction ?"
Well, if it were transferred via airborne virus.
Besides, the concept creates a slow but painless end to the human infestation of earth. Everyone gets to live out their life, but the last few people probably commit suicide rather than risk being entirely alone.
Unless they are dog and cat people. Then the only question is, who buries them? Not that there would be anyone to care.
Posted by: Marty | August 27, 2015 at 02:02 PM
terminator tech...
1) It affects plant seeds, so hopes for the end of the human race are a little premature.
2) 'Accidental' transfer of genetic elements like this is very difficult. Given a large enough (plant) population, and sufficient time, it's not improbable, but you are talking about a few, self limiting, cases.
Posted by: Nigel | August 27, 2015 at 03:05 PM
Unless they are dog and cat people. Then the only question is, who buries them?
The dog, obviously.
Posted by: Nombrilisme Vide | August 27, 2015 at 04:32 PM
Remove all plants, or even a significant source of plant matter from the food chain, and what happens?
Posted by: Slartibartfast | August 27, 2015 at 05:10 PM
I think you have to ignore the self-limiting aspect of terminator genes to postulate removing a significant source of plant matter based on terminator genes. They would have to spread like wildfire before snuffing themselves out. I imagine whatever chemical makes the seeds grow would be taken by force if necessary, even in such a highly improbable situation, and those genes engineered back out under the threat of force in the longer term.
Pure speculation, natch.
Posted by: hairshirthedonist | August 27, 2015 at 06:00 PM