Lemdro.id

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/13/glow-in-dark-rabbits-scientists

14 points

3 months ago

By the individual definitions of the words, yes. However in actual use, genetically modified means modification through direct methods such as chemical agents, enzymes, or electroporation.

Edit:

This isn’t my opinion. Here is an article in Nature: https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/genetically-modified-organisms-gmos-transgenic-crops-and-732/

You can selectively breed rabbits for 1000 years and not get a glow in the dark rabbit that can be made in a week in a lab.

report

[ - ]

Signtist@lemm.ee

13 points

3 months ago

Sure, but you could selectively breed rabbits for 1,000,000 years and get a glow in the dark rabbit; GFP is just a protein like any other - if you painstakingly selectively breed for a specific DNA sequence, you’ll eventually get it regardless of your starting genetic pool. Classic selective breeding is a form of genetic modification - modern genetic modification methods are just way faster.

I agree that we don’t currently know enough about genetics to utilize genetic modification without unforeseen side effects, and so there should be limitations on what we’re able to genetically modify until we can show that we understand it well enough to meaningfully minimize potential issues, but those same issues occur with selective breeding - they’re, again, just slower.

report

[ - ]

5 points

3 months ago

That’s all beside the point that actual scientists use GMO to mean directly genetically modified and not selective breeding.

The speed of a technology is a substantial difference.

Claiming selective breeding is GMO because they are both artificial genetic modifications is like saying a horse and an Boeing 747 are both just transportation.

report

[ - ]

LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net

3 points

3 months ago

a horse and an Boeing 747 are both just transportation.

But… they are.

report

[ - ]

3 points

3 months ago

And like GM technically including selective breeding if you look at the words individually, no one would confuse getting their New York MTA pass as including horse rides even though Transportation is the T in MTA. Actual scientists use GM to mean methods other than natural or selective breeding.

report

[ - ]

0 points

3 months ago

The speed is substantial, yes. That was my point. They are essentially the same; one simply uses the organism’s own natural genetic variation mechanisms, while the other introduces new variations manually. Yes, that is a difference that requires separation of the two in certain circumstances, but not when it comes to whether or not we’ve genetically modified all strains of modern agricultural corn, GMO-labeled or not.

Claiming selective breeding is the same as producing a GMO is like saying an eagle and a Boeing 747 are both utilizing mechanisms that allow them to fly, which is true.

report

[ - ]

3 points

3 months ago

They are essentially the same;

A bullet shot from a gun is not the same as a bullet moved a few inches every year.

We already know about the devastating effects of invasive species where an animal was introduced to a new environment and had unexpected effects.

but not when it comes to whether or not we’ve genetically modified all strains of modern agricultural corn, GMO-labeled or not.

It’s the details that matter. It can take decades before side effects are noticed. Like DDT and now neonicotinoids. GMO could be better or worse. Saying it’s the same as natural selection is misleading which is why scientists use GM to mean direct gene modification, not natural or selective breeding.

report

[ - ]

Signtist@lemm.ee

4 points

3 months ago

Again, selective breeding suffers from the same issue of introducing changes that can be detrimental to the organism itself and its place in the balance of the environment. Look at dog breeding as an example. Pugs were bred for a specific look, and that inadvertently caused them to have severe breathing issues. Dachshunds are another example, with many developing spinal issues over time. The difference, as I said before, is the speed; making a change causes unintended side effects - when you make a huge change quickly, it will produce more side effects than making a small change slowly will.

And… again… as I already said… there should be limitations to prevent rolling out new GMOs without specific testing for safety, both in a lab for potential problems to the organism or - in the event of an agricultural product - its consumers, as well as in the environment as a whole, to determine how it may affect the ecology if and when it is introduced. It may take decades to notice changes if the GMO is released immediately after being developed, but if testing protocols are made and followed, we should have no problem quickly spotting any issues before the organism is rolled out into the world.

Just like newly developed medicines need to go through rigorous testing to prevent things like the Thalidomide scandal that caused an immense amount of birth defects due to lax testing, new GMO’s will need to be tested as well. But, just like you likely understand the benefits of medicine for helping people suffering from various diseases, GMO’s can provide the same level of benefit to people suffering from malnutrition, among a wide range of other positive uses. The key is to study new developments to the point where we can spot and address issues. Throwing away the technology as a whole is not the answer.

report

Markus Sugarhill@discuss.tchncs.de

Show more comments

[ - ]

-2 points

3 months ago

You cannot distinguish selective bread organisms from gene edited (think CRISPR) organisms. You also do not get glow the dark rabbits from it. But you can get the same result as with selective breeding over countless generations in one generation.

report