LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Archives


SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE@LIST.UVM.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE Home

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE  November 2003

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE November 2003

Subject:

MannGram®: Big M at it again?

From:

Robt Mann <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Science for the People Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 10 Nov 2003 20:25:39 +1200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (138 lines)

MannGram®: Big M at it again?
9-11-03


                 Big M at it again?

http://www.enn.com/news/10-29-2003/s_9860.asp
Monsanto working on soybean with less harmful fats

         - Agri-chemical company Monsanto says it is developing soybeans
with less harmful trans- and saturated fats to coincide with new government
labeling requirements on packaged foods in 2006.


Comment:
        We can fairly safely assume such pharmaphytos, pharmapseudicals,
nutraceuticals, etc have been under development by Monsanto, and several
other large chemical companies, and some small startup corporations, lately
pouring billions down the gene-tampering rathole.  This latest fantasy
seems to conform to a commercial  pattern lately become distressingly
common:
gene-jockeys
*  declare a need (e.g AAT to treat lung diseases {PPL corp} )
*  suggest a GM-method to supply the 'needed' material, e.g slap synthetic
AAT genes into sheep embryos
*  assert the hoped-for protein will be OK  e.g  rhAAT will be
'substantially equivalent' to genuine hAAT   -  assuming proteins made by
this radical method of mutagenesis will be exactly like the real human
protein that is 'needed'
*  project a huge market, and huge price, for the 'needed' product
*  lure in venture-drongos, mesmerising them with chants
        e.g  The Big Four Rule OK
               One Gene One Protein
               One Protein One Trait  -  and a commercial one at that
               Primary Structure Dictates Tertiary  -  well, that's close
enough for jazz, tho' we may have to go to yeast like the GM-insulin firms
               One Trait One Billion
               Ein DNA Ein Fuhrer
               The double helix, although irrelevant to primary-structure
DNA scrambling, works like a charm to quell criticism.  Slap it into the
corporate logo  -  and patent the bastard while we're about it.  What a
trademark!  We are talking IP, IT, IDIOCY here!  Uphold "the" double helix
as a sign, a talisman!  It numbs their brains!
               Slap in your synthetic DNA cassette anywhere; if something
like the desired new protein is biosynthesised by a surviving target cell,
bingo!  that's practically all it takes for marketability
              OK, we admit there'll be regulatory hoops to buy our way
thru; but we can handle them
               The old Industrial Biotest® top team who certified Roundup®
as OK is out of jail now; they or others will sell us 'results' of analyses
for any chemicals you like in the phytopseudical  -  certifying
Substantially Equivalent® even if their own amino-acid figures do show a
significant difference
                We can market lo-fat, or Heart Foundation-endorsed
cis-fats, or other healthier lipids  to the chronically obese.  (This
market will open among the numerous obese Kiwis already sold Xenical by
direct TV ads  -  the quacks are signing on big there  -  to prevent
absorption of lipids !   We're discussing with the concept teams at
Bechtel, etc the sewage-works upgrades for New Zealand.)
                Back at the lab, we're working on  -  no, make that
'looking at'  -  bigger cassettes encoding not only better geometric
isomers of fatty acids but also omega-6, lipoate, and suaver vitamin
A uptake which the WHO will endorse.  We expect to get Fergie to front the
TV ads.  We are talking kmpetitiv'ty here!


               On the basis of bullshit on that approximate paradigm,
gene-jockeys order up bulk enzyme kits (firms supplying lab gear for GM may
well be the only commercial winners in the GM fad, to date) to indulge
their lust for life-creation.  I wonder how many of the movers & shakers
have thought much about the ecological significance of their expts.  I
would like to learn how many of them acknowledge any validity in Genesis 3
(i.e the Fall).

        GM PR routinely asserts that gene-jiggering is based on good
science.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The top experts
critical of GM are very respected scientists  -  many on www.psrast.org  -
in the Henry Kendall UCS tradition, but less organised.  David Schubert's
one page in Nat Biotech Oct 2002) would alone serve to justify vastly more
caution before letting GMOs loose.  David S Williams of UCSD, Patrick Brown
of UCD, Garth Cooper of U Auckland, and many others are accomplished
gene-jockeys who hope for benefits from carefully contained GMOs but warn
that current gene-tampering 'technologies' are far too crude for
predictable traits.  Richard Strohman continues to pub in Nat Biotech sound
science implying severe unpredictability in gene-tampering.   Margaret
Mellon & Jane Rissler at www.ucsusa.org continue the Kendall tradition of
reliable scientific criticism.  Other biochemists such as myself, tho'
never actual gene-jockeys, apply their experience in technology assessment
to gene-jiggering.  The reasoning of these experts is ignored by the
'scientists' and propagandists  -  sometimes the same agent  -
spearheading the selling of the GM fad.  The good science is almost
entirely restricted to the critics of gene-tampering.  Such creative
developments as PCR among gene-jiggerers get incorporated within an
intellectual brothel.
        A major confusing cross-current arises with the media misuse of the
GM issue as a vehicle for politicians whom they favour ideologically.  In
New Zealand, any assertive woman can get presented as an expert critic of
GM, even if she has a degree in French & Music, or no degree at all and
doesn't know a nucleic acid from a protein (Pres 'GE-Free NZ').  Fake
experts thus dominate the info flow to the public, not only the PR agents
for the GM trade but also anti-GM politicians incapable of discussing the
matter.
        Novel pathogens of humans or main economic plants are real threats
from many current gene-jiggering methods.  This 'technology', generally,
poses ecological hazards worse than nuclear winter  -  and perhaps
longer-lasting.  Yet the main scientific advisory bodies of nations hosting
incubi like Monsanto have endorsed GM in its early crude versions, have
failed to point out the hazards, drastically understated the risks, and
vilified scientists e.g Pusztai, Ewen for science-based warnings.

        This 'gram is liable to be used by hostile parties.  I expect any
who intend to imply in any legal process any fault in this memo to identify
themselves within a reasonable time.  Indeed I challenge them to let the
list know at least an outline of any disagreements.  I say nothing
controversial, but in stressing the neglect of science, and of ethics, by
the GM trade, I condemn especially the sudden, drastic degradation of
science by gene-jiggerers, an accusation that may not have occurred to some
of them, so they are likely to be shocked by my suggestion.  All I can do
is to invite them into the ostensibly less predictable waters of proper
science, and more widely of truth and respect for nature.
        One of the greatest human intellectual creations, science  -
unifying at its best the principled atheist with the devout explorer in an
implied code of truth-telling  -  has become dominated this past couple
decade by PR, the mercenary trade of deliberate deceit.  And some of the
main PR agents are also gene-tamperers, e.g Conner.  Such agents should be
ineligible for licensing to conduct dangerous processes involving GMOs.
        Back to the 1970s: lab containment was a main concern soon after
the invention of gene-splicing for insertable cassettes.  The Royal
Commission recommended a review of containment in NZ
but the govt fails to set up such a review.  An agent like Conner who can
persist in drastically misleading the public is likely to feel containment
is absurd, and unlikely to conduct properly a 'conditional release'.  Such
expts as he desires with GM-potatoes should not be entrusted to this man
who fed GM-potatoes to conferees in Nelson a half-decade ago, and has I
fear not arranged medical follow-up of those test humans.
        So let's have that review of containment, please.  And can we have
known experts on it, rather than GM-faddists?

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
May 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UVM.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager