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  August 2008

SCIENCE-FOR-THE-PEOPLE August 2008

Subject:

an oldie but ...

From:

Robt Mann <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:28:56 +1200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (109 lines)

	... can I claim goodie?



	P.R. LANGUAGE-SABOTAGE PROMOTES GENE-TAMPERING

				L R B Mann
					Aug 2001

  	Almost every significant public utterance from the 
gene-tampering trade has been massaged, morphed, varnished and warped 
by the depraved trade of mercenary deception  -  PR.  Last time I 
heard, Monsanto had a couple dozen PR operatives.
	The very term 'genetic modification', adopted by the Minister 
for the Environment for the name of the Royal Commission, is 
deceitful.  Some student should trace its origin (a decade ago).  The 
earlier term, 'genetic engineering', while tending to ingratiate 
gene-splicing by the implication that the processes amount to a 
technology planned for foreseeable effects (a lie), has the weakness 
- from the viewpoint of the PR twister - of subtly menacing 
overtones.  'Modification' mollifies the image; it resonates better 
with the principal lie that the artificial gene-splicings developed 
just this past couple of decades are no more than speeded-up natural 
processes.  Having established this newer, gentler term 
'modification', the PR liars then crooned soothingly "genetic 
modification has been going on for centuries, in the form of 
conventional breeding", which they had not tried on back in the 
mid-1970s when gene-splicing was invented and came under some ethical 
scrutiny in New Scientist  and a few other scientific magazines.
	But going back to 'engineering' will not go far enough. 
Uncontrolled insertions of spliced 'constructs' of synthetic DNA 
"copied" from various kingdoms of organisms and from virus genes can 
be called technology only at the risk of insulting proper 
technologies such as comprise actual engineering. 
	One step further back, let us reconsider the first word in 
the PR labels for these novel drastic gene-tamperings: 'genetic'. 
The organisms created are, in many cases, of unknown genetic 
propensities; it is not known how many, if any, generations they can 
breed, and there is good reason to believe they will not breed true. 
Furthermore, their genomes are likely to emanate infectious pathogens 
e.g.  novel virus with modified cauliflower mosaic virus promoter 
causing horizontal gene transfer to mammals including man.  Of 
course, the ultimate in anti-genetic engineering would be the fabled 
'Terminator' seed -  not yet real, but under development in the labs 
of Monsanto and other corporations  -  sterile if the parent crop's 
seed was treated with a specified chemical.  But even current 
gene-jiggered soya, maize, oilseed rape, and cotton (the main 
gene-tampered crop plants so far) have novel properties which can 
hardly be called genetic.  The lab-produced seed expresses the 
transgenes so as to biosynthesize an insecticide throughout the 
plant, or an enzyme which confers resistance to a particular 
herbicide (e.g.  one which is the main money-spinner of the 
corporation selling the herbicide-resistant line of gene-jiggered 
seed).  Sure, transgenes are expressed; but genetics as she is known 
is scarcely involved.  Nothing is intended to be inherited, in the 
commercial scenario protected by perverted patent law.  Genetic 
pollution is expected (as the Frankenseed purveyors refuse to admit), 
but no worthwhile genetics.  What is engineered is not genetics but 
-  for a few years  -  profits for the gene-tamperers. 
	It cannot be too often mentioned that benefits are not 
expected, nor are they emerging, for the farmers, or the consumers, 
or the distributors, of Frankenfood.  To foist on all these sectors 
ill-tested, possibly poisonous food must rank as one of the more 
vicious triumphs of the mercenary deceivers.

	The pollution of thought by PR has confused many who should 
know better.  For instance, the Royal Society of NZ has become a main 
propagandist for gene-tampering.  The RSNZ colluded with Monsanto, 
subsidised by government funds, in a 'private trust' called 
'GenepoolŪ' to maintain a thoroughly deceitful website and a series 
of 'seminars' around the country with admission fees high enought to 
keep out ordinary citizens.  The then PresRSNZ, a leading physician, 
wrote on behalf of the RSNZ about the Showa Denko GE-tryptophan 
disaster thus: "Rare cases of EMS were known before the introduction 
of the genetically engineered bacterium, which further supports the 
hypothesis that EMS is not due to the genetic engineering event." 
An exact analogue of that argument would run: "Rare cases of 
seal-limb were known before the introduction of thalidomide, which 
further supports the hypothesis that seal-limb is not due to 
thalidomide."  Misleading illogic abounds as never before in the 
'debate' around gene-tampering.
	Auckland university teacher of marketing Dr Judy Motion has 
carefully studied the role of PR in the King Salmon caper, a field 
trial of gene-jiggered salmon in tanks (near Blenheim) with 
inadequate exit filters.  The Royal Commission was told of this 
expert but failed to subpoena her; they didn't really want to know 
about the Liberian-registered company, owned by Koreans, which sued 
for 'defamation' the only member of Parliament who has been talking 
much sense on gene-tampering, Jeanette Fitzsimons  -  for giving the 
media leaked PR advice to King Salmon by a PR agent who also ran 
'Genepool'. 
	The most neutral, informative, widely intelligible term for 
rDNA techniques is gene-splicing.  True, it has a certain unsolemn 
vernacular style to it; but it is far less misleading than either of 
the main PR terms 'genetic engineering' and 'genetic modification'. 
Of course, for polemical purposes one resorts to 'gene-tampering' or 
'gene-jiggering'; but I think the normal term, with minimal 
tendentiousness, should be 'gene-splicing'. 
	'Gene manipulation' may be one of the most widely suitable 
terms, somewhat less neutral than 'gene-splicing' but far less 
deceptive than either 'genetic engineering' or 'genetic modification'.

	Can we look fw to a counterattack by, say, 'gene gentling' or 
'gene caressing'?  And then perhaps 'heritage fondling' ?    :-}

R

---

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

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