From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Wed Feb 05 2003 - 13:03:41 MST
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 12:21:43PM -0600, Damien Broderick wrote:
> 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.
Sure. But there are many possible GM interventions; genetic regulation
is a fertile field. For example, adding promotors to the genes that
causes them to excise themselves ("exorcist technology" as ETC dubbed
it) in the pollen seems to be a practical way of reducing the chance of
spreading enormously.
> < 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?
I doubt your interpretation about that the method is likely to be used
since he defended it that way. If you had spent a lot of time on a
project that didn't pan out, would you say that it was all bad or would
you say that it *nearly* worked?
But I agree that it is a somewhat lame attempt at avoiding GM fears.
People will indeed figure out that once chance in 160 million means a
lot, and given the use of the precautionary principle to mean "if there
is any risk, forget about it" even a small chance would be seen as too
risky.
There are acceptable risks, but they have to be explained more carefully
than "the risk is so small that you don't need to worry".
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Feb 05 2003 - 13:02:09 MST