so give me some opinions here:

BIOTECHNOLOGY: playing god or what?

Biotechnology covers a broad area - from a "peg" leg, to microscopic machines designed to be injected to a problem area. There aren't any significant ethical dilemma that I'm aware of.

There is the privacy issue in the little injectable robots that do stuff for you, but other than that I see no ethical problems in biotech.

you agree with the use of genetically modified organisms?

Originally posted by MajiPirate
you agree with the use of genetically modified organisms?
Yes, totally. There is a myriad of benefits to using genetically modified plants, including tastier, more nutritious fruits/veggies, plants that have a longer shelf life, more grow-ability to feed poor third-world countries, and the ability to withstand pests. A lot of people proclaim genetically modified organisms to be the end of the world, but those claims are either overblown or even completely fabricated.

I agree with Borg here. GMO's can not only have longer shelf life and more nutrients (as well as better drought and salinity tolerance), but can also be used as pharmecuticals by putting edible vaccines into vegetables to give to ailing third-world countries, since most medicines and vaccines are often costly and expensive to produce. Plus this would make it easier for shipment, storage, and availiability than the traditional injectible vaccinations.

Biotechnology is not playing God. If you believe in God then you would know he was the one who gave humans the ability to think and would be highly disappointed if we did not use that knowledge to make our lives and the lives of others better (see my signature quote).

If you really want info on agricultural uses for biotechnology check out The Council for Biotechnology Information webpage at http://www.whybiotech.com/.

Or, if you prefer the more life science/chemistry oriented applications of biotechnology, go to the National Center for Biotechnology Information website http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/

no problems with it whatsoever, kinda curious why people think its bad to be "playing god". if you believe he exists, then why would he be mad for duplicating his efforts in creation. If he did get mad then he's got serious jealousy issues or he just wants to knock us down a notch.
In any case there isn't really an argument against biotech.

Wow ! I call that a consensus.
I don't know if this forum is representative of american opinion, but it seems that there is not much debate about GMO on your side of the Atlantic, while it is here in Europe a very delicate issue.

There are mostly four major arguments against GMO :
1- scientific argument. The effects of GMO on nature have not been studied long enough to know if they may alter the ecosystem. For example, if you cultivate crop which is resistant to some insects, the resistant gene may very easily be transmitted to wild crop species, thus resulting either in the disappearing of the instecs (which can lead to major ecosystem trouble) or the apparition of a new breed of "superpest" (as we have seen with DDT).

2- Health argument. The effect of GMO food on humans is still unknown. When you miw animal and vegetal genes, you may trigger unnoticed allergies or diseases. For example, what happen if you are allergic to nuts and you eat GMO soy with some nuts genes ?

3- Ecologic argument.
GMO are produced and controlled by a few companies, mostly Monsanto. They have spent a lot of money in PR to convince people that this is a good thing for consumers, through the arguments we have read on that thread (better resistance to diseases and pests, better nutrition, etc…). But in fact the currently used GMOs are not this kind of GMO. Soy and corn crops sold by Monsanto are resistant to weedkillers produced by Monsanto. This only results in massive use of weedkillers on these fields, and thus more pollution for the ground and more toxins on the vegetable we eat.

4- Economic and social arguments

very few companies have the technology to produce GMOs. They have spent a lot of money in R&D and now want to make profit. When they sell their seeds, they make sure thet the farmers will use them only for one season. They do so by legal ways (contract) but also by including in some of their crops some genetic mofifications that make them unable to reproduce (the "terminator" gene).
This results in an unprecedented dependance of the peasants over their crop supplier and a risk of having 2 or 3 companies controlling the whole agricultural market in a few decades.

I think that all these reasons make that we should be very cautious about GMOs. research should be stricly controlled, with no possibility of gene migration in the wild, and a long term impact syudy should be mandatory before they are used. It is already too late in North America - most organic fields in Canada have already lost their organic label because of GMO contamination.

Those are all valid reasons for caution, but none outright against biotech.
I believe you have brought some very valid points into focus, and they should be delt with through tests and segregation from the outside world and the native species. But to an extent this does happen every day, animals and plants change slightly to have advantages in the current circumstances. We are only advancing the pace in the direction of our choice.
That is not to say that we should just scatter the new seeds all over farms, but in time and through tests we might be able to.

hey, i realize that there are a lot of problem with biotech, but the population ain't getting any smaller and the world ain't gettin any bigger... where is teh food going to come from? more people + same amount of food= more starving people

Originally posted by MajiPirate
hey, i realize that there are a lot of problem with biotech, but the population ain't getting any smaller and the world ain't gettin any bigger... where is teh food going to come from? more people + same amount of food= more starving people


I agree. Anyway, this is a political issue much more than a technical issue, even if, of course, science is welcome to help !
Tge present food production on earth is way enough to feed all human being. In fact, if only 10% of the total food production was diverted from rich countries, there would be no hunger on earth.

And there are many modern but environment-friendly ways of improving agriculture in third world countries. Many experiments have been conducted to use traditional crops, more resistant to diseases of climatic conditions, annd they are succesful. By limiting biodiversity, GMOs may be a threat to future needs rather than a good solution.

This said - I do not prentend that research on GMOs should be banned or that nothing good can come from them. But I think that they have been sold as a miracle tech that will solve 3rd world problems only to make the public opinion accept them, while in fact they are mostly good for 1st world farmers who have big fields and want to lower their cost, and mostly for big companies that produce them.

I should start out by saying that I really can't call myself against biotech, because I find technology exciting and useful, and biotech will be no exception to that. To call myself against it, I would have to be categorically against all of it.

But

Many policies that I would advocate would likely put me in a category that people would perceive as being against biotech.

The reasons are pretty much 3-fold, 2 are related.

1) Industry and politics should be checked, limited. If one believes in God, there is just as much validity to think he hopes a conservative, appreciating the earth and its huge body of accomplishment type of approach, before we came along. Perhaps he is seeing if we can have the collective caution to save ourselves. Well, industry and politics when mixed tend to favor the concentration of power. That means that there are always rationalizations afoot to sweep people and their real spiritual needs under the rug. I always contribute to politics if at all, on the left-wing side, because the right wing and its concentrated-power-representees can do fine for themselves, and if anything, need to be brought back to balance. Industry and politics is why the third world starves. It's also why there are high tech hospitals in the world, saving lives. We just need balance.

2) Information is deep. Again mentioning the accomplishment of earth. Regardless of how all life was put here, recently by an intentioned God, or b.y. ago by glorious accident, either way, there is a vast body of work represented by the interactions of all living things on the planet. And their DNA reflects this as well. It is known that genes do an obvious thing, but they frequently do a host of unobvious things as well. There is an unknown meta-interaction going on in the genetic body of information in any species, indeed in all species at once. Not the least of which in terms of evidence is the so-called, "junk DNA". Some of it is likely stored DNA to be reactivated if conditions change. Anyways, the point is, there is a huge depth within the information to be learned before we step too far into the unknown. It is if right now we can read the table of contents, based on hieroglyphs, but have no idea what the actual cotent says.

3) Which kind of brings me to the precautionary principle. It's the only time I like to use the reverse principle of guilty until proven innocent. When we're dealing with a question of our global ecosystem, or rather more likely, smaller subecosystems, we should proceed with caution because our food supply depends on it if for no loftier spiritual reason. Science is a noble pursuit, but time and time again its application has killed and injured people. We could prevent that without sacrificing the benefits of application. Applied technology is like the pedophile that moves in down the street. Sure, he's trying to make a fresh start, has a job, even means well, but that doesn't guarantee he isn't going to abuse again, and I'll be #&*'d if I'll trust my kid alone with him.


What would God want? How do we know? Just do what is the rightest. Mother knows best, advises caution. Only deadbeat Dads poke and run. Let's get to know this body of information for its mind, let's not just poke it and run, ruin lives.