For those against genetically modified food...

steddyeddy · 15-02-2013 10:00PM #1

Dogs have been cured of type one diabetes using gene therapy. Link here. This is the exact same type of type of genetic manipulation as the type that attracts so much hate when related to food. They can now use gm (genetic modification) to cure type 1 diabetes in mammals. That means we can cure humans too. If the anti gm food lobbys don't want to look like hypocrites then I suggest they oppose this too because there is no difference in the science involved in gm crops and this.

Gene therapy has successfully banished type 1 diabetes in dogs, the first
time this treatment has worked to treat the disease in a large animal, according
to a study published online in the journal Diabetes earlier this month (February 1).

For the study, Spanish researchers induced diabetes in beagles between 6
months and 1 year old. They then injected the dogs’ skeletal muscles with
viruses carrying genes for insulin and glucokinase, an enzyme involved in
processing glucose. Following the treatment, the researcher confirmed that the
genes had been incorporated into the DNA of the dogs, which were able to
regulate their own blood sugar levels without medical help. And when they
exercised, they no longer had episodes of hypoglycemia.

Dogs that were injected with viruses carrying only the gene for insulin or
only the gene for glucokinase continued to have symptoms of diabetes, indicating
that the genes acted in concert.

Following more tests in dogs, the researchers hope to try out the treatment
in humans. But sources warned New Scientist that the treatment might not work
the same way in humans that it did in canines, as the dogs’ diabetes was induced
by chemically destroying pancreas cells that produce insulin. In naturally
occurring type 1 diabetes, on the other hand, the immune system destroys the
insulin-producing cells.

Still, “this work is an interesting new avenue which may give us a
completely new type of treatment,” Matthew Hobbs, head of research at Diabetes UK, told New Scientist.

Lenin Skynard · 15-02-2013 10:02PM

Roast labrador on Sunday for me so.

squod · 15-02-2013 10:04PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

there is no difference in the science involved in gm crops and this.

Wha?

catallus · 15-02-2013 10:04PM

I'm pretty sure the problems a lot of people have with GM crops is the potential problems they have on the environment; I think there are few people who are against gene therapy to cure disease in people or even animals. Aren't these entirely separate things?

1ZRed · 15-02-2013 10:04PM

The vast majority of people who are against GMOs don't have the slightest fucking clue about it and base everything off of fearmongering and pseudoscientific "articles".

And if those same people are against genetically modified organisms such as food crops, then they should also be against vaccines and GM products such as human insulin, because the process is one in the same.

steddyeddy · 15-02-2013 10:05PM

Apart from the gm foods thing dig (I apologise for being mean), this is huge news. Once we isolate the genes and gene regulation methods for all diseases we can cure some of most deadly diseases man has known.

steddyeddy · 15-02-2013 10:05PM

catallus wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the problems a lot of people have with GM crops is the potential problems they have on the environment; I think there are few people who are against gene therapy to cure disease in people or even animals. Aren't these entirely separate things?

Not in the slightest. What if a GM dog cross breeds with a non gm dog? Or a gm human with a non gm human?

steddyeddy · 15-02-2013 10:07PM

squod wrote: »

Wha?

The science being genetic engineering. The isolation and amplification of certain desired genes using polemerase chain reaction. Then the (possibly) bacterial insertation of the gene into the host organism.

RDM_83 again · 15-02-2013 10:08PM

1ZRed wrote: »

The vast majority of people who are against GMOs don't have the slightest fucking clue about it and base everything off of fearmongering and pseudoscientific "articles"

It depends how you "against" it you mean, rabidly against it, possibly yes, I did my undergrad in Botany and there were those (academic staff) that were distinctly ambivalent about GM crops being rolled out.

catallus · 15-02-2013 10:08PM

I try not to get my hopes up when they start lauding new therapies; too many people get their hopes crushed when the promises are shown to be untrue.

1ZRed · 15-02-2013 10:09PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Apart from the gm foods thing dig (I apologise for being mean), this is huge news. Once we isolate the genes and gene regulation methods for all diseases we can cure some of most deadly diseases man has known.

Exactly, genetic engineering will be massive in the future and people would want to wise up to they massive benefits it will offer all of mankind instead of opposing so much progress based off of false and biased information.

CollardGreens · 15-02-2013 10:11PM

My geans fit fine with or without the dog, what's the problem?

My name is URL · 15-02-2013 10:11PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Dogs have been cured of type one diabetes using gene therapy. Link here. This is the exact same type of type of genetic manipulation as the type that attracts so much hate when related to food. They can now use gm (genetic modification) to cure type 1 diabetes in mammals. That means we can cure humans too. If the anti gm food lobbys don't want to look like hypocrites then I suggest they oppose this too because there is no difference in the science involved in gm crops and this.

So all of the concerns that many scientists and research institutions have can be laid to rest now? Bit simplistic is it not?

http://independentsciencenews.org/commentaries/regulators-discover-a-hidden-viral-gene-in-commercial-gmo-crops/

1ZRed · 15-02-2013 10:19PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

It depends how you "against" it you mean, rabidly against it, possibly yes, I did my undergrad in Botany and there were those (academic staff) that were distinctly ambivalent about GM crops being rolled out.

For fear of cross-contamination with wild plants I assume, and thus making truly wild grasses and crops extinct? Well if that's the angle then I agree, but crops have been breed and modified by humans for thousands and thousands of years to the 'detriment' of wild crops which have mixed regularly with them ever since. Not seen as a big issue, at least I've never head of any concern over it, so why this?

I'm sure there will be ways of modifying the crops so they will only reproduce with their own species. That'll lay to rest many concerns people have in regards to preserving natural plant species.

squod · 15-02-2013 10:19PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

The science being genetic engineering. The isolation and amplification of certain desired genes using polemerase chain reaction. Then the (possibly) bacterial insertation of the gene into the host organism.

That just sounds like a process. Can't see how it will make crops better. Haven't we been cross breeding stuff for hundreds of years already?

Honestly I can't see how having a good scientific process equals good science.

catallus · 15-02-2013 10:19PM

It just occurred to me that it really doesn't matter in the slightest what the public think about scientific endeavour.

Science progresses whether we like it or not, (even if we debate whether or not it is actual "progress").

All this talk about people being against this or that is just rabble rousing. The science goes on and public opinion follows.

ancapailldorcha · 15-02-2013 10:19PM

I don't understand the OP's point. There's a huge difference here. Gene Therapy offers a potential method for treating diseases previously though incurable, like Cystic Fibrosis or even just dramatically enhancing the quality of life of those affected by those conditions.
GM food is a completely different ballgame. We can't even trust the non GM food on the shelves these days and people want to add tampering with genetics to that mix? Madness, until a lot more research is done at least.

1ZRed · 15-02-2013 10:28PM

squod wrote: »

That just sounds like a process. Can't see how it will make crops better. Haven't we been cross breeding stuff for hundreds of years already?

Honestly I can't see how having a good scientific process equals good science.

In a simple way of explaining it,
It's like if one plant can grow in very arid regions, yet still survive successfully, you isolate that gene, extract it and put it into another crop, lets say corn.

Now if you planted corn in a dry part of Africa, and it hadn't sufficient water, you wouldn't get a good yield. By putting this gene into the corn, the corn can give a greater yield as it is a hardier plant and is more adapted to the environment.

You could carry out the same process for plants in areas of poor soil fertility for example.

That's the basics of what they want to do.

DonkeyStyle \o/ · 15-02-2013 10:46PM

1ZRed wrote: »

The vast majority of people who are against GMOs don't have the slightest fucking clue about it and base everything off of fearmongering and pseudoscientific "articles".

At the same time, I think there's a lot of wishful thinking being peddled, where it's seen as science trying to end world hunger and the only people standing in the way are religious fundamentalists. There's an ill-informed emotional stance to be had on both sides.

I don't have a scientific objection to it, I'm totally in favour of anything cool they can do with stem-cells, etc. - what I hate are the secondary effects of companies owning the rights to plants, and suing people because their crops got cross-pollinated. I don't have much faith in the ethics of people when there's a lot of money at stake. I think if they can position themselves as a monopoly, they will. And the world's food supply is controlled by a few companies who can name their price and do what they like.

MadYaker · 15-02-2013 11:17PM

There is a long way to go before this method can be used to treat humans. It will be years before this method will even begin clinical trials with humans. It involves using a vector, normally a deactivated virus, to implant a new gene in place of the defective one causing the illness and in doing so curing the illness. That's it in a nutshell. It is hoped that this method can also be used to cure terminal genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis. But it will be years before it becomes used widely in hospitals.

Also, its worth mentioning that gene therapy such as this and GM foods are not really related.

hatrickpatrick · 15-02-2013 11:46PM

There are two reasons people oppose GM food.
Firstly there's the fact that as with anything relatively new, we don't understand fully what side effects, if any, genetic modification might have on nutrition - in other words, can we be sure that genetically modified food will still be safe to eat?
Another more obscure reason is because there are supposedly some companies out there, the names of which escape me, which sell or attempt to sell genetically modified crops which are incapable of reproducing on their own without buying further stuff from the company, ergo creating a monopoly in which they screw over poor farmers etc.

Don't know how true the latter accusation is, but if it's even a technical possibility it's obviously something to be very concerned about.
(NOTE: I'm not actually opposed to GM food, but I can certainly appreciate the reasons others might be.)

IM0 · 16-02-2013 12:07AM

gm food tastes worse, end of. no two ways about it

imitation · 16-02-2013 12:27AM

The funny thing is we have been genetically modifying food for thousands of years, maize for instance is entirely dependent on humans for reproduction. Only difference is it was done through breeding, but its still effectively exploiting mutations.

steddyeddy · 16-02-2013 12:27AM

MadYaker wrote: »

There is a long way to go before this method can be used to treat humans. It will be years before this method will even begin clinical trials with humans. It involves using a vector, normally a deactivated virus, to implant a new gene in place of the defective one causing the illness and in doing so curing the illness. That's it in a nutshell. It is hoped that this method can also be used to cure terminal genetic diseases like cystic fibrosis. But it will be years before it becomes used widely in hospitals.

Also, its worth mentioning that gene therapy such as this and GM foods are not really related.

Well no we already have the technology to do it in humans. The ethics on the other hand will mean that there will be delays in human trials. The animal trials will undoubtedly speed up human trials.

On your last point I have to disagree and say that genetic modification is genetic modification. GM foods would actually be a lot safer than gm of a human.

catallus · 16-02-2013 12:41AM

imitation wrote: »

The funny thing is we have been genetically modifying food for thousands of years, maize for instance is entirely dependent on humans for reproduction. Only difference is it was done through breeding, but its still effectively exploiting mutations.

Exploiting mutations which are done along with the environment in which they are grown; we shouldn't go all gung ho and say that it's a great thing that we can grow a food-plant that is resistant to pests because if the pests die then it has an effect on something else down the line; a good analogy is, I think, sudoko; anyone who has played it knows how tempting it is to "guesstimate" a number; it usually doesn't work out, and you end up with a fcked up outcome.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well no we already have the technology to do it in humans. The ethics on the other hand will mean that there will be delays in human trials. The animal trials will undoubtedly speed up human trials.

On your last point I have to disagree and say that genetic modification is genetic modification. GM foods would actually be a lot safer than gm of a human.

GM food is a godsend, no right thinking person would deny it, but to equate it with the genius work of the biologists who are curing or trying to cure people? nope

Andy-Pandy · 16-02-2013 12:49AM

I'm not worried about the effect's that GM food will have on people. What does scare me is both the effect it could have on the enviorment and companies like Monsanto owning the rights to food stuffs through genetic patients and monopolising grain and seed supplies. In the USA and Canada if your crop that you have been selectivly breeding for generations is cross polintated with the monsanto strain they then own the right to your crop due to owning a genetic patient. This is terrifying. They have unlimited funds and will persue farmers through the courts untill they are broke and cant fight them any more due to running out of money.

There is an excellent thread already on Afterhours that deals with this, it's well worth the read.

catallus · 16-02-2013 12:58AM

Andy-Pandy wrote: »

I'm not worried about the effect's that GM food will have on people. What does scare me is both the effect it could have on the enviorment and companies like Monsanto owning the rights to food stuffs through genetic patients and monopolising grain and seed supplies. In the USA and Canada if your crop that you have been selectivly breeding for generations is cross polintated with the mosanto strain they then own the right to your crop due to owning a genetic patient. This is terrifying. They ha ve unlimited funds and will persue farmers through the courts untill they are broke and cant fight them any more due to running out of money.

There is an excellent thread already on Afterhours that already deals with this, it's well worth the read.

This is true. That company and others do this type of stuff and they are being backed all the way to the top. I think the NewYorker did a story on it a few years ago. Scary stuff. But that's capitalism for ya.

I'd be concerned aswell about the problem of the environment not being able to adapt to these man-made crops. Nature throws enough problems at us without us throwing a spanner in the works.

illicit007 · 16-02-2013 12:59AM

The documentary titled Food covers the Monsanto topic mentioned above. Well worth a watch a terribly ducked up how reality is. The question I ask myself when I hear how people are genetically modifying things to cure disease and save millions... Is what about world wide over population. On one hand I'm glad for all those people,on the other I think crikey when does it end. The world can only fit so many people in it.

Andy-Pandy · 16-02-2013 01:22AM

illicit007 wrote: »

The documentary titled Food covers the Monsanto topic mentioned above. Well worth a watch a terribly ducked up how reality is. The question I ask myself when I hear how people are genetically modifying things to cure disease and save millions... Is what about world wide over population. On one hand I'm glad for all those people,on the other I think crikey when does it end. The world can only fit so many people in it.

The world could support many more people with the correct farming methods. It's all about the supply chain as well as politics. Dont anybody fool themselves, companies like Monsanto are only interested in money. They want to own the food chain.

steddyeddy · 16-02-2013 01:59AM

catallus wrote: »

Exploiting mutations which are done along with the environment in which they are grown; we shouldn't go all gung ho and say that it's a great thing that we can grow a food-plant that is resistant to pests because if the pests die then it has an effect on something else down the line; a good analogy is, I think, sudoko; anyone who has played it knows how tempting it is to "guesstimate" a number; it usually doesn't work out, and you end up with a fcked up outcome.

GM food is a godsend, no right thinking person would deny it, but to equate it with the genius work of the biologists who are curing or trying to cure people? nope

You'll have to elaborate on that. It's the same biologists working on both. Genetic techniques work on all life. In fact plants are often harder to work with than human genomes because some species contain several genomes. Trying to cure people isn't automatically more difficult than working on other organisims. It's basically the same.

Run_to_da_hills · 16-02-2013 03:42AM

The Biggest problem with genetically modified food is Monsanto.

Monsanto controls 90% of all genetically engineered seeds.

In other words, Monsanto is gradually gaining control and placing its own patents on the worlds food supply.

For those against genetically modified food...

Comments