[quote=Undertoad I have no clue what that exactly entails [/QUOTE]


jerking hand in the air and practically falling out of chair: OOH OOH, I know this one!!

i do this on a regular basis, the recombinant DNA stuff...except in animal cells not plants.

the generic version is taking a gene of interest from one organism, and putting it in the cells of another. in this example they took the dna that codes for making the blue pigment (the gene) out of flower A and put it in flower B's cells, so that flower B now makes it like it would have it's own pigment.

it's sort of like word processing where you just cut a sentance out of one book and paste it in another, but on a different scale. the language is the same, so the reader (the cells protein making machinery) just goes on translating the new stuff with the old (as if you were reading a paragraph with the new sentance inserted). because dna is dna is dna, the second organism doesn't 'know' that this new gene isn't one of it's own and just goes about tranlating it like all the rest if it's own genes. like a book though, you have to have the new word (or gene) be in context with the rest of the story or it won't make any sense (or, the new protein won't be made or expressed properly in the new organism). this is what takes so long, trying to get the new word (gene) to make sense (be properly translated into a good protein) with the rest of the story (the rest of the proteins in the organism).

there will be a quiz later, i hope you took notes :zzz:

why?

Isn't that how aids works? I heard it "writes itself" into the DNA and all subsequent RNA has the aids definition built in. I never knew what that meant/how that worked until your explanation (assuming I read it right).

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/chem-eng/Bio...rdna/rdna.html

http://www.accessexcellence.org/AB/I...uage_rDNA.html

a couple of sites that don't use too much jargon to explain this, i'll try to find more better ones with prettier pictures :)

this is my passion BTW

Why not? (not being sarcastic - just asking the inverse question).

When someone alters the DNA of something, there could be unintended consequences. Problem is, layfolk like me and LJ don't have a high confidence level that a) they verified that the plant is an exact duplicate but for the intended change which has been verified as good or b) all unexpected changes aside from those intended have been "cleared."

For example: The much heralded zero fat "fat" Olestra. P&G spent decades perfecting it and assured everyone that it was perfectly fine. Problem is, it was found (by a watchdog) to be vitamin soluble (if that's the correct term). Olestra would absorb any vitamin it came into contact with in the digestive system and, as we all know, would exit the system taking all the nutrients right along with it. After Olestra was released into the marketplace, Proctor and Gamble was confronted with this info (I guess 20 years of research either didn't reveal this dificiency or P&G chose to ignore it - either way it was bad). Their simple solution was to pack it full of vitamins (saturate it) such that it couldn't absorb any more. But they had to be intimidated into doing that. And I'm supposed to trust these people?

Frankenfood is scary. You did see Attack of the Killer Tomatoes did you not? :)

If you've had McDonald's fries, you've et GE food, engineered to produce potatoes that are longer than the usual in order to fit into their fry holders and be easily eaten.

just a little mini-fact

yeah, that's what i was thinking. i don't trust MAN to figure out, in a few years, what it took evolution millions of years to perfect. there HAS to be something they've missed. but then, i'm a hippie weirdo, so.....

and you probably didn't know it, either. I think that's fucked up. they want to put warning labels on cd's that contain explicit lyrics, but there are no GMO labels on food that they sell you so that you can consume it, taking it into your own physical composition. They don't tell you. you wouldn't think to ask. much of the produce you buy at the supermarket is GMO. there are lawsuits against farmers who's crops cross polinate with GMO corn, for chrissakes. too many hands in the soup, if you ask me. why do we have to control every little detail? where's the harmony, people?!

not could be, usually are! thats why things for human consumption/use are SUPPOSED to be tested fully. the problem is, testing takes money and time, two things CEOs aren't willing to spend a whole lot of. so a lot of things that pass the 'good enough' tests really aren't FULLY tested.

it's not just layfolk, me too!!! for the very same reasons. i am very wary of some bioengeneered products, because we aren't allowed to test them in the way they should be, IN PEOPLE!! it's a catch22. (if i'm using that right) we use animals to test products/drugs/etc, as MODELS, with the assumption that the human body will react in the same way. however there are some very subtle differences in species that can result in very different outcomes when introduced to specific things. clinical trials are designed to do this for drugs, test them in people after they have been tested in animals. but they are very limited due to the fact that there are so many 'variations' of humans and clinical trials only have a few subjects which represent only a fraction of the possible types of metabolisms out there. but i'm getting off track

no :o

when i taught my undergrads as a grad student, and we were on the topic of biotechnology someone would always bring up how eating bioengeneered food could be harmful. so i explained it this way:

no matter what you are eating, carrot, pork chop, filet mignon, you are consuming (among other things) the dna of that thing. you have yet to turn green from your side salad, or sprout udders after cosuming a big mac, because the dna is degraded in your stomach.

human beings have been 'genetically engineering' food for as long as they have been around. we select two of the most proliferative tomato plants and cross pollinate them, so we get a whole batch of proliferative plants. then we take the most productive two from that batch and do it over. i did this for a summer when i worked for pioneer except we were criossing soybeans for their oil content. this is also BTW how natural selection works...only mother nature is doing the selecting.

Olestra, like pretty much all replacement fats and sugars is about the worst 'food' you can eat, all of that stuff is nasty and nearly all has well demonstrated side effects.

As for GE in general, it's a nice idea but the testing being done is nowhere near through enough, nowhere near long enough and the negative results seem to be being glossed over as minor hiccups. I have about as much faith in Monsanto being interested in the good of the public as Saddam being careful about huamn rights. Beyond that the whole thing is fucked up because companies can own genes, yet another example of how utterly screwed our entire IP system is becoming.

I understand the relationship between GE and natural selection but there is no way naturally a sequence from a cod is going to end up in a potato in one generation. It's not just enhancing natural selection, it's doing things that in no way could naturally occur, that's a fundamental difference.

Lobbiests in the US have your government so tightly by the balls the idea of labelling GM never was very trendy, over here people get seriously anal about it and it's helped spark off a major organic food movement as well, there are now massive selections of organic products in all major supermarkets. While there are questions about the requirements for some of the labelling people taking a stronger interest in the quality of their food can only be a good thing.

I wholeheartedly agree on both points. frankly i feel the main reason that there is genetic engeneering in food at all is because we are lazy. we want 1 food that is going to taste good, give us all the vitamins we need and not take up any room or money to produce so it's cheap and easy to fix. Sha Right. i am in science, and i do genetic engineering, but i am on the discovery side of things. I feel like we need to know FULLY how things work first before we start tinkering with them trying to make them 'better'.

Oh I know why it's being done, the profit motive is huge. Particularly monsanto who have created this funky synergy (argh, I can't beleive I just used that) between RoundUp and their GE crops that not only locks farmers into only using their seed but only their chemicals as well.

Sometimes I think the greatest problem with humanity is our willingness to trade quality for price.

I think the big difference (speaking as someone who hasn't set foot in a bio lab since ninth grade), is that when you cross tomatoes, you get tomato DNA + tomato DNA, which can basically only yield tomato DNA; you really are doing nothing different than nature has done for billions of years, or animals/people have done for millions.

However, when you want to put insulin production into your eggplants, or whatever (which is a totally cool goal, actually; the medical uses of GM seem a lot more worth the risk, to me), you're mixing eggplant DNA + pig insulin DNA. Which nature hasn't been doing, as far as I know. So, while you might be getting insulin just fine, there's no precedent for what else these two disparate DNA's will do together. Clearly, it's not the deoxyribonucleic acid itself that you're concerned about when you eat the GM food; it's the organism itself, and its products and byproducts.

Amen to that - I thought these things would be blue - not purple.