G
Guest
Science has already changed cannabis.Guess age is helping me. I remember when sensi first got popular.The breeding is science.I would like to cross pot with a chicken.A bud laying super bird.
professordank
Member
For those a little more tolerant:
"Genetically Modified Foods
A genetically modified (GM) food is a plant that has a genetic change in each of its cells that a researcher has introduced. The modification may add a gene from a different species and thereby create a transgenic plant, or it may overexpress or silence a preexisting plant gene. Overexpression is accomplished by altering the promoter region of a gene, which controls how rapidly and in which cells the encoded protein is synthesized, thus directing a plant to manufacture more of a natural product. Conversely, a gene may be "silenced" (directed not to synthesize a protein) through the use of antisense technology, which applies a complementary nucleic acid to messenger RNA, halting expression of the encoded protein.
Genetic Modification in Animals and Plants
Animals have not yet been genetically modified to provide foods. Transgenic animals can, however, produce certain pharmaceuticals, but this approach is still experimental. One possible future use of transgenic animals is to create herds of cattle or sheep that are genetically resistant to developing transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, such as scrapie in sheep and "mad cow disease" in cattle.
Genetic modification in plants produces the same types of changes that result from traditional agricultural techniques, such as controlled breeding. However, genetic modification alters one gene at a time in a controlled manner, and typically has faster results than breeding plants with particular combinations of traits. With standard breeding techniques, it may take a generation to introduce, or remove, a single gene. Breeding a polygenic trait (a trait that involves more than one gene) into apples, which have a generation time of four years, could take two decades or longer.
GM traits that have already been introduced into plants include resistance to insects, insecticides, and herbicides; larger fruits; salt tolerance; slowed ripening; additional nutrients; easier processing; insecticide production; and the ability to take its own nitrogen from the air, lowering reliance on fertilizer. Specific products of genetic manipulation include insect-resistant corn, frost-resistant strawberries, rice that makes beta-carotene (a vitamin precursor), frost and salt-tolerant tomatoes, delayed-ripening pineapples and bananas, canola with a healthier oil profile, and cotton and trees altered to make it easier to process fabric and paper. Some transgenic combinations are strange. Macintosh apples that have been given a gene from a Cecropia moth that encodes an antimicrobial protein, for example, are resistant to a bacterial infection called fire blight.
Regulatory Concerns
Whether a new variety of crop plant presents a hazard to human health depends upon the nature of the trait, not how the plant received that trait. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that a variety of potato obtained through conventional breeding was very toxic, and so it was never developed as a food. However, a potato developed through genetic modification at about the same time did not contain the toxin and was apparently safe to eat. This is why U.S. government regulatory agencies do not evaluate crops on how they were developed, but on their effects on the digestive tracts of animals.
Even after government agencies approve the marketing of a GM crop, consumer acceptance is crucial to its success. The FlavrSavr tomato, for example, was introduced in the 1980s. It ripened later, while in the supermarket, which extended its shelf life while providing an attractive product. However, the developers had focused only on this characteristic, and the tomatoes just did not taste very good. Consumer objection to GM foods also contributed to the FlavrSavr's failure. However, a high-solids GM tomato sold in England before the anti-GM movement began was popular with consumers, largely because it was priced lower than other tomatoes.
The Technique of Genetic Modification
The first step in developing a transgenic plant is to identify a trait in one type of organism that would make a useful characteristic if transferred to the experimental plant. The components of an experiment to create a transgenic plant are the gene of interest, a piece of "vector" DNA that delivers the gene of interest, and a recipient plant cell. Donor genes are often derived from bacteria, and are chosen because they are expected to confer a useful characteristic, such as resistance to a pest or pesticide.
To begin, the donor DNA and vector DNA are cut with the same restriction enzyme. This creates hanging ends that are the same sequence on both of the DNA molecules. Some of the pieces of donor DNA are then joined with vector DNA, forming a recombinant DNA molecule. The vector then introduces the donor DNA into the recipient plant cell, and a new plant is grown.
For plants that have two seed leaves (dicots), a naturally occurring ring of DNA called a Ti plasmid is a commonly used vector. Dicots include sunflowers, tomatoes, cucumbers, squash, beans, tomatoes, potatoes, beets, and soybeans. For monocots, which have one seed leaf, Ti plasmids do not work as gene vectors. Instead, donor DNA is usually delivered as part of a disabled virus, or sent in with a jolt of electricity (electroporation) or with a "gene gun" (particle bombardment). The monocots include the major cereals (corn, wheat, rice, oats, millet, barley, and sorghum).
Transgenesis in plants is technically challenging because the transgene must penetrate the tough cell walls, which are not present in animal cells. Instead of modifying plant genes in the nucleus, a method called transplastomics alters genes in the chloroplast, which is a type of organelle called a plastid. Chloroplasts house the biochemical reactions of photosynthesis. Transplastomics can give high yields of protein products, because cells have many chloroplasts, compared to one nucleus. Another advantage is that altered chloroplast genes are not released in pollen, and therefore cannot fertilize unaltered plants. However, it is difficult to deliver genes into chloroplasts, and expression of the trait is usually limited to leaves. This is obviously not very helpful in a plant whose fruits or tubers are eaten. The technique may be more valuable for introducing resistances than enhancing food qualities. Someday, transplastomics may be used to create "medicinal fruits" or edible vaccines.
Gm Beyond the Laboratory
After genetic modification, the valuable trait must be bred into an agricultural variety. Consider "golden rice," a grain that was given genes from daffodils and a bacterium to confer on it the ability to manufacture beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A. The first golden rice plants were created solely to show that the manipulation worked, and the modification of an entire biochemical pathway took a decade. The plant varieties were not edible, and the production of beta-carotene was low. In early 2002, however, researchers at the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines began using conventional breeding to transfer the ability to produce beta-carotene from the inedible golden rice into edible varieties.
Genetic manipulation of plants can also focus on a particular species' own genes. This is the case for the potato, which has traditionally been difficult to cultivate because edible varieties must have an acceptable taste and texture, yet lack the alkaloid toxins that many natural strains produce. Breeding for so many characteristics is very time-consuming, and this is where genetic manipulation might speed the process. Researchers have identified a group of disease resistance genes on a region of one potato chromosome. The genes provide resistances to various insects, nematode worms, viruses, and Phytophthora infestans, which caused the blight infection that resulted in the nineteenth-century Irish potato famine. Being able to manipulate and transfer these genes will help researchers quickly breed safe and tasty new potato varieties, and perhaps transfer the potato's valuable resistance genes to related plants, such as tomatoes, peppers, and eggplants.
GM crops are widely grown in some countries, but are boycotted in others where many people object to genetic manipulation. As of 2001, 75 percent of all food crops grown in the United States were genetically modified, including 80 percent of soybeans, 68 percent of cotton, and 26 percent of corn crops. Farmers find that GM crops are cheaper to grow because their reliance on pesticides and fertilizer is less and a uniform crop is easier to harvest. Heavy reliance on the same varieties may be dangerous, however, if an environmental condition or disease should arise that targets the variety, but this dilemma also arises in traditional agriculture.
Because GM crop use is so pervasive in the United States, and because regulatory agencies evaluate the chemical composition and biological effects of crops rather than their origin, a consumer would not know that a fruit or vegetable has been genetically modified unless it is so labeled. Some people argue that these practices prevent consumers from having a choice of whether or not to use a genetically modified food."
Bibliography
Fletcher, Liz. "GM Crops Are No Panacea for Poverty." Nature Biotechnology 19, no. 9 (September 2001): 797-798.
Hileman, Bette. "Engineered Corn Poses Small Risk." Chemical and Engineering News 79, no. 38 (September 17, 2001): 11.
Maliga, Pat. "Plastid Engineering Bears Fruit." Nature Biotechnology 19, no. 9 (September 2001): 826-927.
Potrykus, I. "Golden Rice and Beyond." Plant Physiology 123 (March 2001): 1157-1161.
—Ricki Lewis
"Genetically Modified Foods
A genetically modified (GM) food is a plant that has a genetic change in each of its cells that a researcher has introduced. The modification may add a gene from a different species and thereby create a transgenic plant, or it may overexpress or silence a preexisting plant gene. Overexpression is accomplished by altering the promoter region of a gene, which controls how rapidly and in which cells the encoded protein is synthesized, thus directing a plant to manufacture more of a natural product. Conversely, a gene may be "silenced" (directed not to synthesize a protein) through the use of antisense technology, which applies a complementary nucleic acid to messenger RNA, halting expression of the encoded protein.
Genetic Modification in Animals and Plants
Animals have not yet been genetically modified to provide foods. Transgenic animals can, however, produce certain pharmaceuticals, but this approach is still experimental. One possible future use of transgenic animals is to create herds of cattle or sheep that are genetically resistant to developing transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, such as scrapie in sheep and "mad cow disease" in cattle.
Genetic modification in plants produces the same types of changes that result from traditional agricultural techniques, such as controlled breeding. However, genetic modification alters one gene at a time in a controlled manner, and typically has faster results than breeding plants with particular combinations of traits. With standard breeding techniques, it may take a generation to introduce, or remove, a single gene. Breeding a polygenic trait (a trait that involves more than one gene) into apples, which have a generation time of four years, could take two decades or longer.
GM traits that have already been introduced into plants include resistance to insects, insecticides, and herbicides; larger fruits; salt tolerance; slowed ripening; additional nutrients; easier processing; insecticide production; and the ability to take its own nitrogen from the air, lowering reliance on fertilizer. Specific products of genetic manipulation include insect-resistant corn, frost-resistant strawberries, rice that makes beta-carotene (a vitamin precursor), frost and salt-tolerant tomatoes, delayed-ripening pineapples and bananas, canola with a healthier oil profile, and cotton and trees altered to make it easier to process fabric and paper. Some transgenic combinations are strange. Macintosh apples that have been given a gene from a Cecropia moth that encodes an antimicrobial protein, for example, are resistant to a bacterial infection called fire blight.
Regulatory Concerns
Whether a new variety of crop plant presents a hazard to human health depends upon the nature of the trait, not how the plant received that trait. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that a variety of potato obtained through conventional breeding was very toxic, and so it was never developed as a food. However, a potato developed through genetic modification at about the same time did not contain the toxin and was apparently safe to eat. This is why U.S. government regulatory agencies do not evaluate crops on how they were developed, but on their effects on the digestive tracts of animals.
Even after government agencies approve the marketing of a GM crop, consumer acceptance is crucial to its success. The FlavrSavr tomato, for example, was introduced in the 1980s. It ripened later, while in the supermarket, which extended its shelf life while providing an attractive product. However, the developers had focused only on this characteristic, and the tomatoes just did not taste very good. Consumer objection to GM foods also contributed to the FlavrSavr's failure. However, a high-solids GM tomato sold in England before the anti-GM movement began was popular with consumers, largely because it was priced lower than other tomatoes.
The Technique of Genetic Modification
The first step in developing a transgenic plant is to identify a trait in one type of organism that would make a useful characteristic if transferred to the experimental plant. The components of an experiment to create a transgenic plant are the gene of interest, a piece of "vector" DNA that delivers the gene of interest, and a recipient plant cell. Donor genes are often derived from bacteria, and are chosen because they are expected to confer a useful characteristic, such as resistance to a pest or pesticide.
To begin, the donor DNA and vector DNA are cut with the same restriction enzyme. This creates hanging ends that are the same sequence on both of the DNA molecules. Some of the pieces of donor DNA are then joined with vector DNA, forming a recombinant DNA molecule. The vector then introduces the donor DNA into the recipient plant cell, and a new plant is grown.
For plants that have two seed leaves (dicots), a naturally occurring ring of DNA called a Ti plasmid is a commonly used vector. Dicots include sunflowers, tomatoes, cucumbers, squash, beans, tomatoes, potatoes, beets, and soybeans. For monocots, which have one seed leaf, Ti plasmids do not work as gene vectors. Instead, donor DNA is usually delivered as part of a disabled virus, or sent in with a jolt of electricity (electroporation) or with a "gene gun" (particle bombardment). The monocots include the major cereals (corn, wheat, rice, oats, millet, barley, and sorghum).
Transgenesis in plants is technically challenging because the transgene must penetrate the tough cell walls, which are not present in animal cells. Instead of modifying plant genes in the nucleus, a method called transplastomics alters genes in the chloroplast, which is a type of organelle called a plastid. Chloroplasts house the biochemical reactions of photosynthesis. Transplastomics can give high yields of protein products, because cells have many chloroplasts, compared to one nucleus. Another advantage is that altered chloroplast genes are not released in pollen, and therefore cannot fertilize unaltered plants. However, it is difficult to deliver genes into chloroplasts, and expression of the trait is usually limited to leaves. This is obviously not very helpful in a plant whose fruits or tubers are eaten. The technique may be more valuable for introducing resistances than enhancing food qualities. Someday, transplastomics may be used to create "medicinal fruits" or edible vaccines.
Gm Beyond the Laboratory
After genetic modification, the valuable trait must be bred into an agricultural variety. Consider "golden rice," a grain that was given genes from daffodils and a bacterium to confer on it the ability to manufacture beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A. The first golden rice plants were created solely to show that the manipulation worked, and the modification of an entire biochemical pathway took a decade. The plant varieties were not edible, and the production of beta-carotene was low. In early 2002, however, researchers at the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines began using conventional breeding to transfer the ability to produce beta-carotene from the inedible golden rice into edible varieties.
Genetic manipulation of plants can also focus on a particular species' own genes. This is the case for the potato, which has traditionally been difficult to cultivate because edible varieties must have an acceptable taste and texture, yet lack the alkaloid toxins that many natural strains produce. Breeding for so many characteristics is very time-consuming, and this is where genetic manipulation might speed the process. Researchers have identified a group of disease resistance genes on a region of one potato chromosome. The genes provide resistances to various insects, nematode worms, viruses, and Phytophthora infestans, which caused the blight infection that resulted in the nineteenth-century Irish potato famine. Being able to manipulate and transfer these genes will help researchers quickly breed safe and tasty new potato varieties, and perhaps transfer the potato's valuable resistance genes to related plants, such as tomatoes, peppers, and eggplants.
GM crops are widely grown in some countries, but are boycotted in others where many people object to genetic manipulation. As of 2001, 75 percent of all food crops grown in the United States were genetically modified, including 80 percent of soybeans, 68 percent of cotton, and 26 percent of corn crops. Farmers find that GM crops are cheaper to grow because their reliance on pesticides and fertilizer is less and a uniform crop is easier to harvest. Heavy reliance on the same varieties may be dangerous, however, if an environmental condition or disease should arise that targets the variety, but this dilemma also arises in traditional agriculture.
Because GM crop use is so pervasive in the United States, and because regulatory agencies evaluate the chemical composition and biological effects of crops rather than their origin, a consumer would not know that a fruit or vegetable has been genetically modified unless it is so labeled. Some people argue that these practices prevent consumers from having a choice of whether or not to use a genetically modified food."
Bibliography
Fletcher, Liz. "GM Crops Are No Panacea for Poverty." Nature Biotechnology 19, no. 9 (September 2001): 797-798.
Hileman, Bette. "Engineered Corn Poses Small Risk." Chemical and Engineering News 79, no. 38 (September 17, 2001): 11.
Maliga, Pat. "Plastid Engineering Bears Fruit." Nature Biotechnology 19, no. 9 (September 2001): 826-927.
Potrykus, I. "Golden Rice and Beyond." Plant Physiology 123 (March 2001): 1157-1161.
—Ricki Lewis
professordank
Member
And for those extra curious:
I appologize for the length of the last one, sorry.
Genetic engineering, recombinant DNA technology, genetic modification (GM) and gene splicing are terms that are applied to the manipulation of genes, generally implying that the process is outside the organism's natural reproductive process. It involves the isolation, manipulation and reintroduction of DNA into cells or model organisms, usually to express a protein. The aim is to introduce new characteristics or attributes physiologically or physically, such as making a crop resistant to herbicide, introducing a novel trait or enhancing existing ones, or producing a new protein or enzyme. Successful endeavours include the manufacture of human insulin by bacteria, the manufacture of erythropoietin in Chinese hamster ovary cells, and the production of new types of experimental mice such as the OncoMouse (cancer mouse) for research.
Since a protein sequence is specified by a segment of DNA called a gene, novel versions of that protein can be produced by changing the DNA sequence of the gene. There are a number of ways through which this could be achieved. After isolating a section of DNA that includes the gene, the gene or required portion of the gene is cut out. After modification of the sequence if necessary, it may be introduced (spliced) into a different DNA segment or into a vector for transformation into living cells. Daniel Nathans and Hamilton Smith received the 1978 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for their isolation of restriction endonucleases, which are able to cut DNA at specific sites. Together with ligase, which can join fragments of DNA together, restriction enzymes formed the initial basis of recombinant DNA technology.
Conservative groups in the United States have argued genetic engineering is wrong[citation needed], but scientists believe that genetic engineering is essential to help future discoveries[citation needed]. Professor Stephen Hawking defended the genetic enhancing of our species in order to compete with Artificial intelligence.[1]
Applications
The first genetically engineered drug was human insulin, approved by the USA's FDA in 1982. Another early application of genetic engineering was to create human growth hormone as replacement for a drug that was previously extracted from human cadavers. In 1986 the FDA approved the first genetically engineered vaccine for humans, for hepatitis B. Since these early uses of the technology in medicine, the use of GE has expanded to supply many drugs and vaccines.
One of the best known applications of genetic engineering is the creation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
There are potentially momentous biotechnological applications of GM, for example oral vaccines produced naturally in fruit, at very low cost.
A radical ambition of some groups is human enhancement via genetics, eventually by molecular engineering. See also: transhumanism.
Genetic engineering and research
Although there has been a tremendous[1] revolution in the biological sciences in the past twenty years, there is still a great deal that remains to be discovered. The completion of the sequencing of the human genome, as well as the genomes of most agriculturally and scientifically important plants and animals, has increased the possibilities of genetic research immeasurably. Expedient and inexpensive access to comprehensive genetic data has become a reality with billions of sequenced nucleotides already online and annotated.
Now that the rapid sequencing of arbitrarily large genomes has become a simple, if not trivial affair, a much greater challenge will be elucidating function of the extraordinarily complex web of interacting proteins, dubbed the proteome, that constitutes and powers all living things. Genetic modification permits alteration of the primary structure of proteins and has therefore become a powerful tool in analyzing structure-function relationships in protein research. The use of the term "genetic engineering" to describe the experimental genetic modification of whole organisms, however, suggests a level of precision and an understanding of developmental biological principles beyond what has been achieved. Nonetheless, research progress has been made using a wide variety of techniques, including:
* Loss of function, in which an organism is engineered to lack the activity of one or more genes. This allows the experimenter to analyze the defects caused by this mutation, and can be considerably useful in unearthing the function of a gene. It is used especially frequently in developmental biology. A knockout experiment involves the creation and manipulation of a DNA construct in vitro, which, in a simple knockout, consists of a copy of the desired gene which has been slightly altered such as to cripple its function. The construct is then taken up by embryonic stem cells, where the engineered copy of the gene replaces the organism's own gene. These stem cells are injected into blastocysts, which are implanted into surrogate mothers. Another method, useful in organisms such as Drosophila (fruit fly), is to induce mutations in a large population and then screen the progeny for the desired mutation. A similar process can be used in both plants and prokaryotes.
* Gain of function experiments, the logical counterpart of knockouts. These are sometimes performed in conjunction with knockout experiments to more finely establish the function of the desired gene. The process is much the same as that in knockout engineering, except that the construct is designed to increase the function of the gene, usually by providing extra copies of the gene or inducing synthesis of the protein more frequently.
* 'Tracking' experiments, which seek to gain information about the localization and interaction of the desired protein. One way to do this is to replace the wild-type gene with a 'fusion' gene, which is a juxtaposition of the wild-type gene with a reporting element such as Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) that will allow easy visualization of the products of the genetic modification. The manipulation can destroy the function of the gene, creating secondary effects and possibly calling into question the results of the experiment. More sophisticated techniques are now in development that can track protein products without mitigating their function, such as the addition of small sequences which will serve as binding motifs to monoclonal antibodies.
* Expression studies aim to discover where and when specific proteins are produced. In these experiments the DNA sequence before the DNA that codes for a protein, known as a gene's promoter is reintroduced into an organism with the protein coding region replaced by a reporter gene such as GFP or an enzyme that catalyzes the production of a dye. Thus the time and place where a particular protein is produced can be observed. Expression studies can be taken a step further by altering the promoter to find which pieces are crucial for the proper expression of the gene and are actually bound by transcription factor proteins; this process is known as promoter bashing.
Reading list
* British Medical Association (1999). The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health. BMJ Books. ISBN 0-7279-1431-6.
* Donnellan, Craig (2004). Genetic Modification (Issues). Independence Educational Publishers. ISBN 1-86168-288-3.
* Morgan, Sally (2003). Superfoods: Genetic Modification of Foods (Science at the Edge). Heinemann. ISBN 1-4034-4123-5.
* Smiley, Sophie (2005). Genetic Modification: Study Guide (Exploring the Issues). Independence Educational Publishers. ISBN 1-86168-307-3.
* Zaid, A; H.G. Hughes, E. Porceddu, F. Nicholas (2001). Glossary of Biotechnology for Food and Agriculture - A Revised and Augmented Edition of the Glossary of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering. Available in English, French, Spanish and Arabic. Rome, Italy: FAO. ISBN 92-5-104683-2.
I appologize for the length of the last one, sorry.
Genetic engineering, recombinant DNA technology, genetic modification (GM) and gene splicing are terms that are applied to the manipulation of genes, generally implying that the process is outside the organism's natural reproductive process. It involves the isolation, manipulation and reintroduction of DNA into cells or model organisms, usually to express a protein. The aim is to introduce new characteristics or attributes physiologically or physically, such as making a crop resistant to herbicide, introducing a novel trait or enhancing existing ones, or producing a new protein or enzyme. Successful endeavours include the manufacture of human insulin by bacteria, the manufacture of erythropoietin in Chinese hamster ovary cells, and the production of new types of experimental mice such as the OncoMouse (cancer mouse) for research.
Since a protein sequence is specified by a segment of DNA called a gene, novel versions of that protein can be produced by changing the DNA sequence of the gene. There are a number of ways through which this could be achieved. After isolating a section of DNA that includes the gene, the gene or required portion of the gene is cut out. After modification of the sequence if necessary, it may be introduced (spliced) into a different DNA segment or into a vector for transformation into living cells. Daniel Nathans and Hamilton Smith received the 1978 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for their isolation of restriction endonucleases, which are able to cut DNA at specific sites. Together with ligase, which can join fragments of DNA together, restriction enzymes formed the initial basis of recombinant DNA technology.
Conservative groups in the United States have argued genetic engineering is wrong[citation needed], but scientists believe that genetic engineering is essential to help future discoveries[citation needed]. Professor Stephen Hawking defended the genetic enhancing of our species in order to compete with Artificial intelligence.[1]
Applications
The first genetically engineered drug was human insulin, approved by the USA's FDA in 1982. Another early application of genetic engineering was to create human growth hormone as replacement for a drug that was previously extracted from human cadavers. In 1986 the FDA approved the first genetically engineered vaccine for humans, for hepatitis B. Since these early uses of the technology in medicine, the use of GE has expanded to supply many drugs and vaccines.
One of the best known applications of genetic engineering is the creation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
There are potentially momentous biotechnological applications of GM, for example oral vaccines produced naturally in fruit, at very low cost.
A radical ambition of some groups is human enhancement via genetics, eventually by molecular engineering. See also: transhumanism.
Genetic engineering and research
Although there has been a tremendous[1] revolution in the biological sciences in the past twenty years, there is still a great deal that remains to be discovered. The completion of the sequencing of the human genome, as well as the genomes of most agriculturally and scientifically important plants and animals, has increased the possibilities of genetic research immeasurably. Expedient and inexpensive access to comprehensive genetic data has become a reality with billions of sequenced nucleotides already online and annotated.
Now that the rapid sequencing of arbitrarily large genomes has become a simple, if not trivial affair, a much greater challenge will be elucidating function of the extraordinarily complex web of interacting proteins, dubbed the proteome, that constitutes and powers all living things. Genetic modification permits alteration of the primary structure of proteins and has therefore become a powerful tool in analyzing structure-function relationships in protein research. The use of the term "genetic engineering" to describe the experimental genetic modification of whole organisms, however, suggests a level of precision and an understanding of developmental biological principles beyond what has been achieved. Nonetheless, research progress has been made using a wide variety of techniques, including:
* Loss of function, in which an organism is engineered to lack the activity of one or more genes. This allows the experimenter to analyze the defects caused by this mutation, and can be considerably useful in unearthing the function of a gene. It is used especially frequently in developmental biology. A knockout experiment involves the creation and manipulation of a DNA construct in vitro, which, in a simple knockout, consists of a copy of the desired gene which has been slightly altered such as to cripple its function. The construct is then taken up by embryonic stem cells, where the engineered copy of the gene replaces the organism's own gene. These stem cells are injected into blastocysts, which are implanted into surrogate mothers. Another method, useful in organisms such as Drosophila (fruit fly), is to induce mutations in a large population and then screen the progeny for the desired mutation. A similar process can be used in both plants and prokaryotes.
* Gain of function experiments, the logical counterpart of knockouts. These are sometimes performed in conjunction with knockout experiments to more finely establish the function of the desired gene. The process is much the same as that in knockout engineering, except that the construct is designed to increase the function of the gene, usually by providing extra copies of the gene or inducing synthesis of the protein more frequently.
* 'Tracking' experiments, which seek to gain information about the localization and interaction of the desired protein. One way to do this is to replace the wild-type gene with a 'fusion' gene, which is a juxtaposition of the wild-type gene with a reporting element such as Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) that will allow easy visualization of the products of the genetic modification. The manipulation can destroy the function of the gene, creating secondary effects and possibly calling into question the results of the experiment. More sophisticated techniques are now in development that can track protein products without mitigating their function, such as the addition of small sequences which will serve as binding motifs to monoclonal antibodies.
* Expression studies aim to discover where and when specific proteins are produced. In these experiments the DNA sequence before the DNA that codes for a protein, known as a gene's promoter is reintroduced into an organism with the protein coding region replaced by a reporter gene such as GFP or an enzyme that catalyzes the production of a dye. Thus the time and place where a particular protein is produced can be observed. Expression studies can be taken a step further by altering the promoter to find which pieces are crucial for the proper expression of the gene and are actually bound by transcription factor proteins; this process is known as promoter bashing.
Reading list
* British Medical Association (1999). The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and Health. BMJ Books. ISBN 0-7279-1431-6.
* Donnellan, Craig (2004). Genetic Modification (Issues). Independence Educational Publishers. ISBN 1-86168-288-3.
* Morgan, Sally (2003). Superfoods: Genetic Modification of Foods (Science at the Edge). Heinemann. ISBN 1-4034-4123-5.
* Smiley, Sophie (2005). Genetic Modification: Study Guide (Exploring the Issues). Independence Educational Publishers. ISBN 1-86168-307-3.
* Zaid, A; H.G. Hughes, E. Porceddu, F. Nicholas (2001). Glossary of Biotechnology for Food and Agriculture - A Revised and Augmented Edition of the Glossary of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering. Available in English, French, Spanish and Arabic. Rome, Italy: FAO. ISBN 92-5-104683-2.
Professor, for what I know GMOs are used mainly for 2 things:
1) Increasing plant resistance to herbicides, so that you can give your crop a huge amount of them.
2) Creating seeds that only germinates once (i.e. the offspring is sterile and you can't make your own seeds). This way you must buy them again every time, and the GMOs makers can "patent" their variety.
I consider both of these as really negative, for obvious reasons.
...What's the problem: isn't the naturally grown/bred cannabis plant strong enough for you?
I don't think we need any more herbicides / sterile seeds or patented DNAs...
1) Increasing plant resistance to herbicides, so that you can give your crop a huge amount of them.
2) Creating seeds that only germinates once (i.e. the offspring is sterile and you can't make your own seeds). This way you must buy them again every time, and the GMOs makers can "patent" their variety.
I consider both of these as really negative, for obvious reasons.
...What's the problem: isn't the naturally grown/bred cannabis plant strong enough for you?
I don't think we need any more herbicides / sterile seeds or patented DNAs...
GMO is for scientists who want to cut out the breeding of plants or splice genetics from one plant to another. A good example in North America is Round-up Ready crops such as corn and soybean. It cuts down on breeding time because you just insert the genes you want rather than do countless parent selections and in my opinion is useless unless you want to grow one crop that makes you big money and there is a problem affecting it currently. Some have tried doing GMO corn that fixes it's own nitrogen from a bean plant but it didn't pan out as far as I know.
GMO is for lazy bastards in my opinion but if you want to use or consume those products that is your choice and I could care less unless something interferes with my crops such as Skunkman said.
GMO is for lazy bastards in my opinion but if you want to use or consume those products that is your choice and I could care less unless something interferes with my crops such as Skunkman said.
professordank
Member
The use of GM for herbicidal and patenting reasons I myself deem deplorable, and I blieve that proper lableing should be implemented so that the concerned can have a choice. I'm also not denying that aspects of GM are unacceptable. However, my little post clearly states that altered chloroplast genes are not released in pollen. This may limit the amount of engineering that one may inflict on the plant, but there are only a few things I would change anyway. These are disease and insect resistense, coloration, and potency. I don't think you can change the potency with transplastomics, but pest resistence would probably be attainable. And for all those hippie types out there, I would never consider making pot transgenic unless the benefits far out way the consequences, i.e. I would not splice animal genes into pot but other pot could be a possibility. The exageration of certain genes would most likely suffice as marijuana is already pest resistent to an extent. And as far as etrusco is concerned, it is potent enough for me, but what about cancer and aids patients that need more of the active ingredient for greater relief. Also hash makers and commercial growers might totally be delighted to have a strain that produces an ungodly amount of buds and trichs.
Furthermore, if you have eaten food that you have not personally grown, and I know a lot of you have, you have probably consumed GM food. Are you still alive? I think yes because otherwise you wouldn't be able to bitch at me about pollen. GM foods are here to stay, whether anyone likes it or not. If your gonna post about GM here, at least read the other posts; otherwise I would rather people go back to talking about tissue culture, it seems to be a safer topic; and sadly I don't think the maturity levels permit the proper discussion of GM here. If you are genuinly interested in talking about GM and its practical and safer uses or are a biologist that can explain to me why GM pot engineered in the way I have suggested would be extremely unhealthy then by all means PM me.
Furthermore, if you have eaten food that you have not personally grown, and I know a lot of you have, you have probably consumed GM food. Are you still alive? I think yes because otherwise you wouldn't be able to bitch at me about pollen. GM foods are here to stay, whether anyone likes it or not. If your gonna post about GM here, at least read the other posts; otherwise I would rather people go back to talking about tissue culture, it seems to be a safer topic; and sadly I don't think the maturity levels permit the proper discussion of GM here. If you are genuinly interested in talking about GM and its practical and safer uses or are a biologist that can explain to me why GM pot engineered in the way I have suggested would be extremely unhealthy then by all means PM me.
Professordank,
I have zero confidence in you preventing any GM Cannabis plants from allowing GM genes to escape, I don't even think you have thought about potential problems, wise up. How do you prevent a GM male Cannabis plant from spreading its GM pollen with GM genes?
Let me put it a way you can understand, how would you like someone making changes you did not want to your Cannabis lines or seeds? How do you think GM Cannabis can be grown without the males GM pollen blowing miles and miles? And making seeds with GM genes in any nearby Cannabis plants all unknown to the small cannabis grower nearby who hands the GM seeds out. Whoops!!
GM Cannabis is a stupid idea, with many potential problems and very, very, few advantages over traditional plants. If you GM Cannabis, a wind pollinated plant, the GM genes will escape.
THE QUESTION IS DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE ME USE GM CANNABIS OR TO EAT GM FOODS? I SAY NO, IT IS MY DECISION.
-SamS
I have zero confidence in you preventing any GM Cannabis plants from allowing GM genes to escape, I don't even think you have thought about potential problems, wise up. How do you prevent a GM male Cannabis plant from spreading its GM pollen with GM genes?
Let me put it a way you can understand, how would you like someone making changes you did not want to your Cannabis lines or seeds? How do you think GM Cannabis can be grown without the males GM pollen blowing miles and miles? And making seeds with GM genes in any nearby Cannabis plants all unknown to the small cannabis grower nearby who hands the GM seeds out. Whoops!!
GM Cannabis is a stupid idea, with many potential problems and very, very, few advantages over traditional plants. If you GM Cannabis, a wind pollinated plant, the GM genes will escape.
THE QUESTION IS DO YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE ME USE GM CANNABIS OR TO EAT GM FOODS? I SAY NO, IT IS MY DECISION.
-SamS
Last edited:
I'm not taking any sides in this matter, but why would gm pollen spread any more than the conventional strain's pollen? You don't hear people complaining about hemp pollinating their plants and there is A WAY more hemp growing in the world than there will ever be of gm ganja.
It's a scary thought though.. governments spraying genetically manipulated 0% thc pollen on peoples crops. It sounds so easy that it makes me wonder if they're planning it already.
It's a scary thought though.. governments spraying genetically manipulated 0% thc pollen on peoples crops. It sounds so easy that it makes me wonder if they're planning it already.
D
Dalaihempy
Science is the concerted human effort to understand, or to understand better, the history of the natural world and how the natural world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding1. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural processes under controlled conditions.
Well science has been part of cannbis once man started to grow it breed it and study it .
GM is not science IMO its playing god all ready were seeing GM crops breeding with non GM crops and excaping so called field tests we have GM samon escaping breeding with wild samon and the damage is done and theres no turning back.
GM crops from what i have read on and seen on Tv documentrys are week and far superia to the non GM vertions.
Well science has been part of cannbis once man started to grow it breed it and study it .
GM is not science IMO its playing god all ready were seeing GM crops breeding with non GM crops and excaping so called field tests we have GM samon escaping breeding with wild samon and the damage is done and theres no turning back.
GM crops from what i have read on and seen on Tv documentrys are week and far superia to the non GM vertions.
D
Dalaihempy
GM Products: Benefits and Controversies
Benefits
Crops
Enhanced taste and quality
Reduced maturation time
Increased nutrients, yields, and stress tolerance
Improved resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides
New products and growing techniques
Animals
Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency
Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk
Improved animal health and diagnostic methods
Environment
"Friendly" bioherbicides and bioinsecticides
Conservation of soil, water, and energy
Bioprocessing for forestry products
Better natural waste management
More efficient processing
Society
Increased food security for growing populations
Controversies
Safety
Potential human health impact: allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects Potential environmental impact: unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
Access and Intellectual Property
Domination of world food production by a few companies
Increasing dependence on Industralized nations by developing countries
Biopiracy—foreign exploitation of natural resources
Ethics
Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa
Stress for animal
Labeling
Not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United States)
Mixing GM crops with non-GM confounds labeling attempts
Society
New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries
Benefits
Crops
Enhanced taste and quality
Reduced maturation time
Increased nutrients, yields, and stress tolerance
Improved resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides
New products and growing techniques
Animals
Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency
Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk
Improved animal health and diagnostic methods
Environment
"Friendly" bioherbicides and bioinsecticides
Conservation of soil, water, and energy
Bioprocessing for forestry products
Better natural waste management
More efficient processing
Society
Increased food security for growing populations
Controversies
Safety
Potential human health impact: allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects Potential environmental impact: unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
Access and Intellectual Property
Domination of world food production by a few companies
Increasing dependence on Industralized nations by developing countries
Biopiracy—foreign exploitation of natural resources
Ethics
Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa
Stress for animal
Labeling
Not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United States)
Mixing GM crops with non-GM confounds labeling attempts
Society
New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries
G
Guest
Ortho a name we all have heard, developed a corn plant that you must use Ortho's proprietary chemicals on or it will die. That is corporate science.Crap like that must be battled on every front. Patented plants will make us pay them to grow plants.
D
Dalaihempy
heres some intresting stuff i found sceary .
Revealed: Shocking new evidence of the dangers of GM crops
Genetically modified strains have contaminated two-thirds of all crops in US
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
07 March 2004
More than two-thirds of conventional crops in the United States are
now contaminated with genetically modified material - dooming
organic agriculture and posing a severe future risk to health - a
new report concludes.
http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/in070304.txt
http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,775531,00.html
GM trial ruined by rogue gene strain
Paul Brown, environment correspondent
The Guardian, Friday August 16, 2002
Seed sown in GM trials over the past three years has been contaminated
with controversial antibiotic genes which went undetected by government
inspectors.
Embarrassed officials admitted yesterday that there had
been a "serious breach" of regulations and that the seed company,
Aventis, was under investigation and could be prosecuted if found to
have broken licence conditions.
http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/gu160802.txt
GENETIC POLLUTION
December 9, 2001
The New York Times
Michael Pollan
The way we think about and deal with pollution has
always been governed by the straightforward rules of chemistry. You clean
the stuff up or let it fade with time. But what do you do
about a form of pollution that behaves instead according to the rules of
biology? Such a pollutant would have the ability to copy itself over and
over again, so that its impact on the environment would increase with time
rather than diminish. Now you're talking about a problem with, quite
literally, a life of its own.
This year, the idea of genetic pollution - the idea, that is, that the
genes of genetically modified organisms might end up in places we didn't
want them to go - became a reality. In September the Mexican government
announced that genes engineered into corn had somehow found their way
into ancient maize varieties grown there - this despite the fact that
genetically modified corn seed has not been approved for sale in Mexico.
http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/ny091201.txt
Crops which have been Genetically Modified to contain their own insecticide, such as Bt, cause insects to become resistant to the insecticide.
Genetically Modified plants may crossbreed with wild species to produce "superweeds", which cannot be eliminated using standard herbicides.
Study Reveals First Evidence that GM Superweeds Exist
Steve Connor, Independent (UK), 10 Oct. 2003
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=451733
Cross-pollination between GM plants and their wild relatives is
inevitable and could create hybrid superweeds resistant to the most
powerful weedkillers, according to the first national study of how genes
pass from crops to weeds.
Its findings will raise concerns about the impact of GM crops. Next week
the results will be published of farm-scale trials which have studied the
impact on the countryside of three types of crop.
http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/in101003.txt
Revealed: Shocking new evidence of the dangers of GM crops
Genetically modified strains have contaminated two-thirds of all crops in US
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
07 March 2004
More than two-thirds of conventional crops in the United States are
now contaminated with genetically modified material - dooming
organic agriculture and posing a severe future risk to health - a
new report concludes.
http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/in070304.txt
http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,775531,00.html
GM trial ruined by rogue gene strain
Paul Brown, environment correspondent
The Guardian, Friday August 16, 2002
Seed sown in GM trials over the past three years has been contaminated
with controversial antibiotic genes which went undetected by government
inspectors.
Embarrassed officials admitted yesterday that there had
been a "serious breach" of regulations and that the seed company,
Aventis, was under investigation and could be prosecuted if found to
have broken licence conditions.
http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/gu160802.txt
GENETIC POLLUTION
December 9, 2001
The New York Times
Michael Pollan
The way we think about and deal with pollution has
always been governed by the straightforward rules of chemistry. You clean
the stuff up or let it fade with time. But what do you do
about a form of pollution that behaves instead according to the rules of
biology? Such a pollutant would have the ability to copy itself over and
over again, so that its impact on the environment would increase with time
rather than diminish. Now you're talking about a problem with, quite
literally, a life of its own.
This year, the idea of genetic pollution - the idea, that is, that the
genes of genetically modified organisms might end up in places we didn't
want them to go - became a reality. In September the Mexican government
announced that genes engineered into corn had somehow found their way
into ancient maize varieties grown there - this despite the fact that
genetically modified corn seed has not been approved for sale in Mexico.
http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/ny091201.txt
Crops which have been Genetically Modified to contain their own insecticide, such as Bt, cause insects to become resistant to the insecticide.
Genetically Modified plants may crossbreed with wild species to produce "superweeds", which cannot be eliminated using standard herbicides.
Study Reveals First Evidence that GM Superweeds Exist
Steve Connor, Independent (UK), 10 Oct. 2003
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=451733
Cross-pollination between GM plants and their wild relatives is
inevitable and could create hybrid superweeds resistant to the most
powerful weedkillers, according to the first national study of how genes
pass from crops to weeds.
Its findings will raise concerns about the impact of GM crops. Next week
the results will be published of farm-scale trials which have studied the
impact on the countryside of three types of crop.
http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/in101003.txt
med_breeder
Active member
The laws will effect the future of cannabis.
70 years of demonizing this weed has caused it to become so potent.
If coffee was illegal, in a few decades breeders could produce coffee with 50% caffiene level!
much has been acheived since 1937, but so much more is possible. Given a more lax legal climate, this plant could be taken in any direction. If it were legal the number of seeds germinated would sky rocket. Every seed popped, is a chance to discovery that scary 50% THC plant, or that sativa that matures in 4 weeks!
It's a numbers game, the more plants in existance, the odd rise of favorable trait that could be expressed.
peace
70 years of demonizing this weed has caused it to become so potent.
If coffee was illegal, in a few decades breeders could produce coffee with 50% caffiene level!
much has been acheived since 1937, but so much more is possible. Given a more lax legal climate, this plant could be taken in any direction. If it were legal the number of seeds germinated would sky rocket. Every seed popped, is a chance to discovery that scary 50% THC plant, or that sativa that matures in 4 weeks!
It's a numbers game, the more plants in existance, the odd rise of favorable trait that could be expressed.
peace
Soft Smoke
Member
the Genie is already out of that bottle folks. You may not want or desire GM products, but you're going to get them anyway. Let me give you two scenarios:
#! The Feds
After decades of futility in the War on Drugs, the feds turn to science. A genetic researcher at XYZ university has mapped the DNA structure of Cannabis, coca, and poppy plants. A modified pollen will be sprayed during bllom seasons and contaminate the various production fields throughout the world. Via various vectors, the modified DNA will spread over the next decade to 90% of producing areas in the world. These modified plants will be genetically identical to the "normal" without the ability to produce the psychedelic chemicals prized by drug traffickers.
OR
#2 The Producers
In the next inevitable step towards producing the next big thing in designer drugs, an independent research lab in Thailand; purportedly under contract to a Columbian Druglord, has announced a major breakthrough. With the new advances in genetic mapping and Recombinant DNA, the scientists have created a strain of "Super Cannabis". This modified marijuana produces twice the flowers in half the time of normal marijuan as weel as having a higher average THC content. Opium plants are next on their list with the goal of increasing the resinous output per plant to amazing levels. The lead scientist was quoted as stating the "the sky is really the limit here. You want glow in the dark bud with so much resin it drips and THC at about 50%...you got it! For the right price of course!"
Sooner or later the DNA mapping process will be perfected and the technology widespread enough that the commercial drug interests will acquire and use it for their benefit. Or the Feds with use it to **** everybody.
Sooner or later.
Peace,
SS
#! The Feds
After decades of futility in the War on Drugs, the feds turn to science. A genetic researcher at XYZ university has mapped the DNA structure of Cannabis, coca, and poppy plants. A modified pollen will be sprayed during bllom seasons and contaminate the various production fields throughout the world. Via various vectors, the modified DNA will spread over the next decade to 90% of producing areas in the world. These modified plants will be genetically identical to the "normal" without the ability to produce the psychedelic chemicals prized by drug traffickers.
OR
#2 The Producers
In the next inevitable step towards producing the next big thing in designer drugs, an independent research lab in Thailand; purportedly under contract to a Columbian Druglord, has announced a major breakthrough. With the new advances in genetic mapping and Recombinant DNA, the scientists have created a strain of "Super Cannabis". This modified marijuana produces twice the flowers in half the time of normal marijuan as weel as having a higher average THC content. Opium plants are next on their list with the goal of increasing the resinous output per plant to amazing levels. The lead scientist was quoted as stating the "the sky is really the limit here. You want glow in the dark bud with so much resin it drips and THC at about 50%...you got it! For the right price of course!"
Sooner or later the DNA mapping process will be perfected and the technology widespread enough that the commercial drug interests will acquire and use it for their benefit. Or the Feds with use it to **** everybody.
Sooner or later.
Peace,
SS
B
Bluebeard
Well, personally I feel transgenic technologies when applied to real world crop production is a doomed industry. The stock prices of corporations specializing in such matters is falling every day with a new large batch of bankruptcies every year. There are several reasons for this. Primarily because there is simply not enough tangible results being produced to justify the investment required. The other factor is that genome mapping is becoming cheaper, almost every day, which can be applied to classical breeding techniques through the process of genetic screening of seeds and individual plants. This not only allows for running huge numbers never before seen, before even one seed is germinated.
The effect of environmental variations on phenotype really complicates classical breeding projects, since phenotype is really the only thing that breeders have to go on. Giving the breeder the ability to look straight at genotype allows them to bypass much of the complexity which lies between the genes and their physical expression, such as environmental variations and different genes relying on the same resource pools to allow for their expression. "Smart Breeding" (the use of a mapped genome combined with genetic screening) also gives breeders the abilities to create new traits, never before seen in a species, without any genetic modification whatsoever, simply by combining genes in ways the never would have occurred otherwise. For example, the sentinel corn variety which was bred under completely natural conditions, but using an open source, mapped genome, producing a variety which turns bright red when it needs irrigation, limiting the amount of water wasted unnecessarily.
Transgenic processes however, can have detrimental effects on seemingly unrelated traits. The most insidious of all of the characteristics of transgenic crops is the fact that the process by which the genes are inserted into the sequence allows them to be easily "picked up" by viruses and bacteria and then spread to other species. In the last year, transgenic technologies claimed its first human casualty, in a female patient whose cancer possessed a patented sequence used in food crops, which appears to have been picked up in her digestive tract by on of the many viruses or bacteria present. The primary function of viruses is to inject dna into the cells of their host, which is probably the cause of how this patented sequence infected this victim. This technology can effect more than just humans, spreading transgenic genes for sterility among various species in a fragile ecosystem, or various types of environmental, pest or pathogen resistance, to either pathogens or other plant species setting ecosystems off balance are merely a few of the many possible situations where they can cause damage.
With Cannabis, part of the problem is that the surface has barely been scratched in terms of how much the species can be improved. With cannabis, male selection is crucial to improvement, and within our community there is a complete lack of any sort of quantifiable technique to measure male desirability, and very little experimentation is being done to achieve this. I hope to help move this a little further ahead with an upcoming article in treating yourself magazine on the art of male selection. The techniques we have discovered appear to produce significant improvement in every line they have been tested in thus far, although more testing needs to be done on lines from a diverse type of origins, such as feral, wild, and lines which have improved or maintained both under sun and hps. I dont think we can should even begin to discuss the use of gmo in cannabis until we start to learn what the species is capable of with properly selected males. Then, we can go on to genome mapping and then if there is still something we really need from the species can look at genetic modification, but that is highly unlikely.
It is kind of interesting that poor, Coca farmers in Bolivia with no formal education, managed to breed a variety of coca which is completely resistant to roundup/glyphosate. The resistance to roundup was so extreme that this variety (bolivian negro) had to be tested for the presence of genes which monsanto developed for roundup resistant soybeans and tested negative. It is also supposed to be an extremely good yielding and potent variety. Pretty impressive, to say the least.
It is also worth noting that I have nothing against the use of transgenic technologies in laboratories and in situations such as the production of chemicals and pharmaceuticals, as well as the production of energy and fuels such as methane and octane which seems very promising.
The effect of environmental variations on phenotype really complicates classical breeding projects, since phenotype is really the only thing that breeders have to go on. Giving the breeder the ability to look straight at genotype allows them to bypass much of the complexity which lies between the genes and their physical expression, such as environmental variations and different genes relying on the same resource pools to allow for their expression. "Smart Breeding" (the use of a mapped genome combined with genetic screening) also gives breeders the abilities to create new traits, never before seen in a species, without any genetic modification whatsoever, simply by combining genes in ways the never would have occurred otherwise. For example, the sentinel corn variety which was bred under completely natural conditions, but using an open source, mapped genome, producing a variety which turns bright red when it needs irrigation, limiting the amount of water wasted unnecessarily.
Transgenic processes however, can have detrimental effects on seemingly unrelated traits. The most insidious of all of the characteristics of transgenic crops is the fact that the process by which the genes are inserted into the sequence allows them to be easily "picked up" by viruses and bacteria and then spread to other species. In the last year, transgenic technologies claimed its first human casualty, in a female patient whose cancer possessed a patented sequence used in food crops, which appears to have been picked up in her digestive tract by on of the many viruses or bacteria present. The primary function of viruses is to inject dna into the cells of their host, which is probably the cause of how this patented sequence infected this victim. This technology can effect more than just humans, spreading transgenic genes for sterility among various species in a fragile ecosystem, or various types of environmental, pest or pathogen resistance, to either pathogens or other plant species setting ecosystems off balance are merely a few of the many possible situations where they can cause damage.
With Cannabis, part of the problem is that the surface has barely been scratched in terms of how much the species can be improved. With cannabis, male selection is crucial to improvement, and within our community there is a complete lack of any sort of quantifiable technique to measure male desirability, and very little experimentation is being done to achieve this. I hope to help move this a little further ahead with an upcoming article in treating yourself magazine on the art of male selection. The techniques we have discovered appear to produce significant improvement in every line they have been tested in thus far, although more testing needs to be done on lines from a diverse type of origins, such as feral, wild, and lines which have improved or maintained both under sun and hps. I dont think we can should even begin to discuss the use of gmo in cannabis until we start to learn what the species is capable of with properly selected males. Then, we can go on to genome mapping and then if there is still something we really need from the species can look at genetic modification, but that is highly unlikely.
It is kind of interesting that poor, Coca farmers in Bolivia with no formal education, managed to breed a variety of coca which is completely resistant to roundup/glyphosate. The resistance to roundup was so extreme that this variety (bolivian negro) had to be tested for the presence of genes which monsanto developed for roundup resistant soybeans and tested negative. It is also supposed to be an extremely good yielding and potent variety. Pretty impressive, to say the least.
It is also worth noting that I have nothing against the use of transgenic technologies in laboratories and in situations such as the production of chemicals and pharmaceuticals, as well as the production of energy and fuels such as methane and octane which seems very promising.
Last edited:
G
Guest
Sam_Skunkman said:
Your a good man Sam
btw found this on GM tomatoes
Bionetonline said:
^^^^^^ professordank
stick with natural stuff.Lil off topic but they need to unlock the human brain before they unlock anything else ... have fun
Last edited:
EasyBakeIndica
Member
Here's an article about scientists using radiation to bring out new plant varieties:
http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=68602
http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=68602
Godzillava
New member
All very interesting I have to say.
debating this is like trying to stop the tide. There are millions of starving mouths to feed who do not care if something is organic or not. Ethiopia and much of Africa. Asia, everywhere people are hungry. Organic is a luxury for the rich. Rather than getting caught up in the WORD organic or paranoia about specific things, try to help steer the world to a realistic destination. Middle of the road. Some pesticides, some GMO, but not ALL pesticides or GMO's.
