From: Damien Broderick (thespike@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Feb 05 2003 - 11:21:43 MST
Anders Sandberg said:
> This is revealing. Note that the nature article simply shows that one
> idea doesn't work, but the newspaper (and subject line here) turns it
> into a danger message - it didn't work, so there is a risk!
I have to disagree. It's not just that one more or less random attempt
failed to work. The reason it didn't work is revealing, showing a failure
mode that might almost inevitably occur in a whole class of GM
interventions.
< Once you know there is traffic from the crop to the wild you know you are
going to have a certain level of contamination through pollen. >
Note the comment at the end, trying to counter the perceived
scare-mongering:
< But a senior lecturer at Melbourne University's Botany School, Edward
Newbigin, said that although the rate was not zero, it was "not going to be
measurable".
While the foreign gene infected one seed in 16,000, only one seed in about
10,000 made it to a neighbouring non-GM field. This was a total rate of one
seed in 160 million, he said. >
I don't know how many seeds get sown in any given planting season. I can
imagine it might be more than that. And Dr Newbigin didn't say, `Oh, of
course they'll now abandon this failed approach.' He seems to imply that the
risk is acceptably small, which is only a relevant comment if the method is
likely to be used, no?
Damien Broderick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 05 2003 - 11:24:07 MST