Calling in the Chemistry Squad

[Keith Levenberg]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Leave it to Keith to make a straightforward position indefensible. GMO stands for genetically modified organism. The term was introduced precisely to capture organisms produced by modifying its DNA directly rather than breeding for a genetic mutation.

That may be so but the term's use of the passive voice draws no distinction between modifications in a lab and modifications by operation of natural (or human) selection. So, yes, all organisms are GMOs. The only distinction is by whom or what, and when.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Leave it to Keith to make a straightforward position indefensible. GMO stands for genetically modified organism. The term was introduced precisely to capture organisms produced by modifying its DNA directly rather than breeding for a genetic mutation.

That may be so but the term's use of the passive voice draws no distinction between modifications in a lab and modifications by operation of natural (or human) selection. So, yes, all organisms are GMOs. The only distinction is by whom or what, and when.

The distinction is the term's raison d'etre. Every definition you find will register it. Humpty Dumpty to the contrary notwithstanding, words don't mean anything we want, or even anything we can manage to construe them to mean.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

That may be so, but my point is that the distinction it purports to draw (however clumsily) does not rest in any biological reality. It is mere origins chauvinism.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Leave it to Keith to make a straightforward position indefensible. GMO stands for genetically modified organism. The term was introduced precisely to capture organisms produced by modifying its DNA directly rather than breeding for a genetic mutation.

That may be so but the term's use of the passive voice draws no distinction between modifications in a lab and modifications by operation of natural (or human) selection. So, yes, all organisms are GMOs. The only distinction is by whom or what, and when.

You know you are hiding a distinction between a term of art and what words otherwise can mean under their broadest reasonable interpretation without context. GMO is a term of art that requires human intervention with the DNA sequence of the modified organism through techniques of direct genetic engineering. Neither breeding, nor macro level biological manipulation, nor natural evolution of the genome fall within the term of art. You are not right on this one.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by Jay Miller:

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Leave it to Keith to make a straightforward position indefensible. GMO stands for genetically modified organism. The term was introduced precisely to capture organisms produced by modifying its DNA directly rather than breeding for a genetic mutation. It's the reverse that is true: All GMOs are organic (since they are genetically modified organisms and not some other kind) but not all organisms are GMOs.

I hadn't heard about the mosquito business that Jayson mentions. If this was done before controlled experiments on the ecological results, it is, of course, indefensible given the type of organism a mosquito is. And I'm not sure I would be able to figure out what kinds of experiments would be reliable, also given what mosquitoes and ecosystems are. I would probably feel the same way,therefore, though ,about the release of a mosquito from outside an area's ecosystem for some benefit or other.

If you're interested in the mosquito thing here's an article:

Loading…

www.cnn.com

Apparently a similar mosquito was released in the Cayman Islands, Panama and Brazil and has been very effective in curbing mosquito populations.

The effects of this type of ecological manipulation seem so rife for insidious changes that are difficult to track and identify but I would expect would reveal themselves over time. I’d be interested to see what studies have been carried out in these locations. The issue is especially important in the Florida Keys and Everglades because of the insane biodiversity that exists there.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
That may be so, but my point is that the distinction it purports to draw (however clumsily) does not rest in any biological reality. It is mere origins chauvinism.

You surely do believe that there are reasons for distinguishing between things that happen in labs or things that otherwise require human intervention and things that mutate and evolve without that intsrvention. Otherwise you wouldn't be non-interventionist in winemaking. The fact that the distinction doesn't have much biological significance, a claim with which you should know I agree, doesn't mean no distinction exists or that there is no good reason to attend to it.If those are the arguments you want to make, you should make them directly and not construct absurd straw men.

As a small side point, I think that given that we call what happens in reproduction a genetic mutation does entail that the novel labelling of genetic modification strongly implies that a distinction is at issue.I think it is your reading that is strained.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
You know you are hiding a distinction between a term of art and what words otherwise can mean under their broadest reasonable interpretation without context. GMO is a term of art that requires human intervention with the DNA sequence of the modified organism through techniques of direct genetic engineering. Neither breeding, nor macro level biological manipulation, nor natural evolution of the genome fall within the term of art. You are not right on this one.

Like I said, I wasn't making a claim about what the term of art does or does not connote. My claim was that the distinction it purports to draw is arbitrary and not rooted in biological reality. Language debates are fun but this isn't one of those.

 

[Jim Hanlon]

I once litigated a case that presented the question whether a foodstuff made with GMO corn could be marketed as "natural" without unlawfully misleading consumers. Our lead argument was that "natural" has essentially no meaning as applied to corn. Alas, the case resolved before a jury or judge could decide.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
You know you are hiding a distinction between a term of art and what words otherwise can mean under their broadest reasonable interpretation without context. GMO is a term of art that requires human intervention with the DNA sequence of the modified organism through techniques of direct genetic engineering. Neither breeding, nor macro level biological manipulation, nor natural evolution of the genome fall within the term of art. You are not right on this one.

Like I said, I wasn't making a claim about what the term of art does or does not connote. My claim was that the distinction it purports to draw is arbitrary and not rooted in biological reality. Language debates are fun but this isn't one of those.

That’s scientifically incorrect. The genetic modifications made for all GMOs except maybe when the field was its infancy about 40 years ago are absolutely impossible in nature or using macroscopic biology. The term of art GMO is therefore firmly rooted in biological reality to use your term. I don’t understand your scientific basis for stating otherwise.

 

[Jeff Grossman]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
Whatever your thinking about GMOs--and I have said on other threads, though I don't particularly want to revive that argument here...

And yet....

 

[Keith Levenberg]

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
The genetic modifications made for all GMOs except maybe when the field was its infancy about 40 years ago are absolutely impossible in nature

How so? What genetic configuration could ever be called "impossible" in a natural world that permits single-celled organisms to evolve into fish that grow legs, walk ashore, and eventually turn into apes that build spaceships?

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

The difference between evolutionary developement, which is necessarily step-like, each change depending upon prior changes, each change in the chain having to have its own productive benefit, and the sudden introduction of a new gene into an existing mechanism should be self-evident. GMOs are still biological, obviously, and, unless human beings are not natural, it's still natural, as in part of nature (Jayson to the contrary, notwithstanding). But gravity is different from evolution, which is different from thermodynamics even though they are all natural. And the distinction here is neither rarified, nor without purpose. I'm really not sure what your point is. As an argument in favor of GMOs, I can only say that I am unhappy to have it as an ally. As an example of interpretation, it leaves a lot to be desired (at least to me).

 

[Jayson Cohen]

Nature cannot make the vectors we use for genetic modification and insert into DNA. Scientists don’t like to ever say things are impossible. In physics we make calculations on the probability of natural events on much simpler systems than DNA sequences, and when the expected time for an event is much longer than the age of the universe, which is not difficult to get to, that sort of ends whether something will happen without human interference. Humans now splice together pieces of DNA elements in ways that nature never ever has and never will. That DNA of course generates proteins or prevents the generation of naturally occurring proteins in novel ways by design.

What one could say is that similar effects could in principle be observed in systems not manipulated at the DNA level in the GMO sense. But the way we engineer it doesn’t occur. And I think the safe position is we cannot know the broader ecological and biological effects of releasing such GMOs into nature in an uncontrolled way. Like the mosquito. Or a GMO plant that turns out to be invasive.

 

[Jonathan Loesberg]

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
Nature cannot make the vectors we use for genetic modification and insert into DNA. Scientists don’t like to ever say things are impossible. In physics we make calculations on the probability of natural events on much simpler systems than DNA sequences, and when the expected time for an event is much longer than the age of the universe, which is not difficult to get to, that sort of ends whether something will happen without human interference. Humans now splice together pieces of DNA elements in ways that nature never ever has and never will. That DNA of course generates proteins or prevents the generation of naturally occurring proteins in novel ways by design.

What one could say is that similar effects could in principle be observed in systems not manipulated at the DNA level in the GMO sense. But the way we engineer it doesn’t occur. And I think the safe position is we cannot know the broader ecological and biological effects of releasing such GMOs into nature in an uncontrolled way. Like the mosquito. Or a GMO plant that turns out to be invasive.

I agree with every sentence here but the first one (and maybe your third to last one, but that is probably a question of fact). The fact that human beings do it doesn't make it not natural. Mostly this disagreement wouldn't matter except that much of the knee-jerk opposition to GMOs comes precisely from seeing it as something like the creation of the creature in Frankenstein (who started out as a rather more moral being than many of the other humans in the book, by the way).

 

[Keith Levenberg]

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
Nature cannot make the vectors we use for genetic modification and insert into DNA. Scientists don’t like to ever say things are impossible. In physics we make calculations on the probability of natural events on much simpler systems than DNA sequences, and when the expected time for an event is much longer than the age of the universe, which is not difficult to get to, that sort of ends whether something will happen without human interference. Humans now splice together pieces of DNA elements in ways that nature never ever has and never will. That DNA of course generates proteins or prevents the generation of naturally occurring proteins in novel ways by design.

What one could say is that similar effects could in principle be observed in systems not manipulated at the DNA level in the GMO sense. But the way we engineer it doesn’t occur. And I think the safe position is we cannot know the broader ecological and biological effects of releasing such GMOs into nature in an uncontrolled way. Like the mosquito. Or a GMO plant that turns out to be invasive.

I have trouble seeing a justification in either biology or probability for the idea that nature can turn a fish into a man but can't turn a cornstalk into a slightly different cornstalk. I wouldn't disagree about the need to exercise caution in introducing new elements into an existing ecosystem. But that principle does not and cannot turn on the mere fact that those genetic modifications are the product of design instead of randomness or selection pressure, or that those designs have been implemented with the equivalent of a surgical scalpel instead of a sledgehammer. I note that we're currently in lockdown on account of a naturally evolving gene sequence and not a genetically engineered cornstalk.

 

[Keith Levenberg]

Relevant: https://www.sciencealert.com/fruits...tion-photos-genetically-modified-food-natural

 

[VLM]

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
Nature cannot make the vectors we use for genetic modification and insert into DNA. Scientists don’t like to ever say things are impossible. In physics we make calculations on the probability of natural events on much simpler systems than DNA sequences, and when the expected time for an event is much longer than the age of the universe, which is not difficult to get to, that sort of ends whether something will happen without human interference. Humans now splice together pieces of DNA elements in ways that nature never ever has and never will. That DNA of course generates proteins or prevents the generation of naturally occurring proteins in novel ways by design.

What one could say is that similar effects could in principle be observed in systems not manipulated at the DNA level in the GMO sense. But the way we engineer it doesn’t occur. And I think the safe position is we cannot know the broader ecological and biological effects of releasing such GMOs into nature in an uncontrolled way. Like the mosquito. Or a GMO plant that turns out to be invasive.

I have trouble seeing a justification in either biology or probability for the idea that nature can turn a fish into a man but can't turn a cornstalk into a slightly different cornstalk. I wouldn't disagree about the need to exercise caution in introducing new elements into an existing ecosystem. But that principle does not and cannot turn on the mere fact that those genetic modifications are the product of design instead of randomness or selection pressure, or that those designs have been implemented with the equivalent of a surgical scalpel instead of a sledgehammer. I note that we're currently in lockdown on account of a naturally evolving gene sequence and not a genetically engineered cornstalk.

I'm just wondering what the world record for false equivalencies in one argument is.

If your argument is that every ACTG is inevitable because it is possible, well, I'm glad you're a lawyer.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by VLM:

originally posted by Keith Levenberg:

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
Nature cannot make the vectors we use for genetic modification and insert into DNA. Scientists don’t like to ever say things are impossible. In physics we make calculations on the probability of natural events on much simpler systems than DNA sequences, and when the expected time for an event is much longer than the age of the universe, which is not difficult to get to, that sort of ends whether something will happen without human interference. Humans now splice together pieces of DNA elements in ways that nature never ever has and never will. That DNA of course generates proteins or prevents the generation of naturally occurring proteins in novel ways by design.

What one could say is that similar effects could in principle be observed in systems not manipulated at the DNA level in the GMO sense. But the way we engineer it doesn’t occur. And I think the safe position is we cannot know the broader ecological and biological effects of releasing such GMOs into nature in an uncontrolled way. Like the mosquito. Or a GMO plant that turns out to be invasive.

I have trouble seeing a justification in either biology or probability for the idea that nature can turn a fish into a man but can't turn a cornstalk into a slightly different cornstalk. I wouldn't disagree about the need to exercise caution in introducing new elements into an existing ecosystem. But that principle does not and cannot turn on the mere fact that those genetic modifications are the product of design instead of randomness or selection pressure, or that those designs have been implemented with the equivalent of a surgical scalpel instead of a sledgehammer. I note that we're currently in lockdown on account of a naturally evolving gene sequence and not a genetically engineered cornstalk.

I'm just wondering what the world record for false equivalencies in one argument is.

If your argument is that every ACTG is inevitable because it is possible, well, I'm glad you're a lawyer.

Hey. I’m a lawyer.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:

originally posted by Jayson Cohen:
Nature cannot make the vectors we use for genetic modification and insert into DNA. Scientists don’t like to ever say things are impossible. In physics we make calculations on the probability of natural events on much simpler systems than DNA sequences, and when the expected time for an event is much longer than the age of the universe, which is not difficult to get to, that sort of ends whether something will happen without human interference. Humans now splice together pieces of DNA elements in ways that nature never ever has and never will. That DNA of course generates proteins or prevents the generation of naturally occurring proteins in novel ways by design.

What one could say is that similar effects could in principle be observed in systems not manipulated at the DNA level in the GMO sense. But the way we engineer it doesn’t occur. And I think the safe position is we cannot know the broader ecological and biological effects of releasing such GMOs into nature in an uncontrolled way. Like the mosquito. Or a GMO plant that turns out to be invasive.

I agree with every sentence here but the first one (and maybe your third to last one, but that is probably a question of fact). The fact that human beings do it doesn't make it not natural. Mostly this disagreement wouldn't matter except that much of the knee-jerk opposition to GMOs comes precisely from seeing it as something like the creation of the creature in Frankenstein (who started out as a rather more moral being than many of the other humans in the book, by the way).

My first sentence is a statement of fact really, not opinion: “Nature cannot make the vectors we use for genetic modification and insert into DNA.” If your point is philosophers can debate whether something that is infinitesimally likely to occur can, that’s not a valid argument here because the insertion of a DNA vector is entirely a man-developed process. The DNA in vectors in GMOs are snippets stitched together to cut off or promote the production of one protein or another and then inserted into the DNA. It can’t happen other than by engineering. Naturally occurring mutation doesn’t work that way. Neither does cross-breeding. The resulting organism defined by its DNA has never existed and has no chance of ever otherwise existing.

 

[Jayson Cohen]

One more thing. The reason I want to get the science right is not normative. It’s the baseline from which normative arguments about GMOs should flow in my view - start with what it is and what it is not, and then argue about possible consequences, about its pros and cons, and about its philosophical implications.