Indeed, there is a slipping trend in science education over here. What started me asking this question was an article I read on the BBC website, and it explained how the environmental fascists demonised GM crops saying they would have an adverse effect on us and the environment, and I'm sure from your point of view it hasn't. The only problem with GM crops is the monopoly held by the supplier, which farmers feel will limit their farming to just what the suppiler wants. I don't under stand how we are able to use genetic engineering to help create medicine to cure our sick yet they take up arms when use genetic engineering to help feed our hungry. 

Can't answer for Nuclear Power, but being in the biological sciences I can possibly give you an answer related to some people's reluctance to GM food. 

 

 I am neither a proponent of GM nor an opponent of GM.  The best seed/food/product should be used regardless of where it came from in whatever situation.  If the natural species is better at growing in lets say a temperate environment, use it.  However, if GM is better in arid/dry regions use that.  Thus, I am pretty much impartial on the matter.

 

There are several arguments I have heard against GM food.  I do not know specifically of their validity, just reciting what I have heard and read from various places.  I am going to explain the legitimate criticisms first. 

 

Reason One: SAFETY

When gene theory was first discovered and flourished and people really started messing with genetics it was generally believed that one gene = one trait protein/function/trait (I am going to substitute the word "allele" here from now on for ease of typing).  It has come to be known, and largely by accident, that one gene does NOT necessarily mean one allele.  Multiple genes could be used for one allele and just as easily one gene could significantly effect multiple alleles.  This brings into question GM's safety.  It is one thing to cross pollenate/cross bread various crops "naturally."  A potentially harmful trait would, most likely, not be reproductively successful in the cross breading and be quashed by a safe product.  When you start messing with individual genes in a lab and then cross them over to the field you can never be absolutely certain of what you get.  Biological systems, and especially genetics, are insanely convulated and interrelated.  Even when a biologist is "certain" of something, he/she never really is %100 sure because there is always that one time when something went wrong for no apparant reason. 

 

So that long paragraph states that there is a fear that GM crops could potentially bring harmful effects to us and we would not know until too late.  This is mostly a long-term fear as everything is tested.  Short term effects like a new toxin in wheat or what not would be detected and the product thrown out.  In comparison, a small animal protein or something that could transfer from the ingested wheat to our genetic code and cause some harm to the functioning of an organ over time could easily not be detected (note, thats not based off of anything, just a random example).

 

2. Reason Two: EFFICACY

I know of at least one study that has been published recently which shows a GM crop compared to its wild-type originator.  In every metric the wild-type seed was superior despite the GM crops supposed superiority.  This wasnt a failed seed, it was a marketed product supposedly better than the original.  Many people wonder why go through the added cost of obtaining this GM seed when the originals are superior. 

 

3.  Reason Three: ECONOMICS

The way GM seed works in the state is you buy it every year and then plant it.  Doesnt sound like much, but with natural seed the farmer simply retains some of his crop for replanting.  There is no need to rebuy seed every, single, year because after your harvest your set for next year.  Thus, while some GM products are cheaper than their natural cousins (I dont mean "Organic Food" either) on the whole they are more expensive because Farmer John must rebuy his seed every growing season.

 

Those are three legitmate reasons for people to object to GM.  Its all down to cost-benefits really.  For many GM products the benefits do not supercede their costs either real (Efficacy/Economics) or potential (genetic damage, etc.).

 

Of course, there is always your stupid asswhole who says we are interfering with God/Allah/Random Deity, but that argument isnt worth the breath used to expel it.  No, not because you shouldn't believe that, you can believe what you want.  The argument is absolutely dumb because we have been interfering with Gods will since the first farmer crossbread his tall, but pest vulnerable wheat with his short, but pest resilient wheat to yield a moderately tall, moderately pest resilient wheat.

 

So their are some reasons why some people are reluctant to make the jump to GM.

Reason One: SAFETY

When gene theory was first discovered and flourished and people really started messing with genetics it was generally believed that one gene = one trait protein/function/trait (I am going to substitute the word "allele" here from now on for ease of typing).  It has come to be known, and largely by accident, that one gene does NOT necessarily mean one allele.  Multiple genes could be used for one allele and just as easily one gene could significantly effect multiple alleles.  This brings into question GM's safety.  It is one thing to cross pollenate/cross bread various crops "naturally."  A potentially harmful trait would, most likely, not be reproductively successful in the cross breading and be quashed by a safe product.  When you start messing with individual genes in a lab and then cross them over to the field you can never be absolutely certain of what you get.  Biological systems, and especially genetics, are insanely convulated and interrelated.  Even when a biologist is "certain" of something, he/she never really is %100 sure because there is always that one time when something went wrong for no apparent reason. 

Indeed.  I would not put my full backing behind GM products unless it was on a per-seed basis after numerous long-term trials.  Genetics is stupidly complex.  Genetic codes of plants are also generally larger than animals (odd eh?) and filled with genetic detritus.  You never know what might activate some of that ancient DNA thats partial or, for the moment, non-functional.  Just think, every virus that ever infects you has the potential of implanting itself into your genetic code.  Some of those can get into your gametes which means you WILL pass some of that genetic code to your offspring.  Mulitply this millions of years and you will see why genes are such a pain in the ass to predict.  The degree of information contained in them is absolutely enormous especially when you factor in the stuff that appears non-functional.  Mutations can activate genes, disable genes, change function, add new functions and so on and so forth.  I do not believe that we should stop research out of fear, but I dont approve of the rapid pace of GM utilization in the U.S. given the lack of significant long-range testing.  The possibilities are both highly encouraging and highly disquieting. 

I'd argue that the UK is no more or less scared of these two things than most other western nations, though the US has been far more accepting of GM crops from what I can tell from this side of the Atlantic. This is, perhaps, balanced, or out weighed by the UKs far more accepting line on genetic manipulation of people... or at least embryos etc. In fact we probably have some of the more permissive laws in the west on that issue.

I think that as the level of science and technological understanding has decreased in the public arena, and in the education system, increasingly fewer and fewer people are equipped to make informed judgments on these matters. I'd cite the broadsheet's as an example of how low science reporting is. Ben Goldacre in the Guardian holds that paper to account nearly as frequently as the Daily Wail.

Perhaps the difference is that people see GM and Nuclear as directly impacting them, where as messing around with the inside of cell nuclei to make 'cybrids' or whatever is one step removed and done only by the people in white coats.

As convoluted as genetics is the basic science behind it is rather straightforward.  Its a bit like chess: learning to play is one thing, becoming an expert is quite another.  Genetic manipulation of human DNA is possible now.  Unintended consequences and what happens behind these changes are what is unknown and harmful.  Right now all we can do is fumble with the building blocks.  We cannot create the DNA from scratch, the egg from scratch, grow the egg, etc.  As I said before with what genes actually govern, we have determined to an amazing extent what SOME genes do.  But we do not know what all genes do.  Nor do we know in how many processes they are all involved or their role in these processes.  Take a look at the genetic variants that predispose people to cancer for a taste of the complexity involved.  

What you might be wondering about also is cloning.  We have not figured out how to actually "clone" people or anything for that matter.  On the news when they speak of "cloning" goats or sheep or what not its not cloning as is pictured or talked about in movies.  It resembles artificial insemination more than movie cloning.  I read that article and the other cloning articles a good while ago so the details escape me.  However, my best description is that they take an egg from a female sheep then extract the DNA from it.  Adult DNA from the host sheep is then inserted into the egg.  The sheep is then inseminated with this egg and growth takes place as normal.

To date, as far as I personally know, all cloning of animals has followed this process.  Their are huge problems with this in terms of the life of the cloned animal.  Any genetic damage sustained in that adult DNA is replicated into EVERY SINGLE CELL of the new animal.  Attenuation, which is essentially the aging of DNA (google it) also poses a problem.  There are others as well that involve mitochondrial DNA and other things.  True solutions to these problems have yet to be found.  

we CAN create DNA from scratch, but not in the sizes necessary to build a human genome or anything.  You can actually  design/request your own genetic primer for PCR and other such procedures.  You order it and you receive a little tube containing your primers.

While I dont know of course about their black projects or if they even have black projects that are genetically oriented most of genetics is purely open source.  Since it started out as a pure science any discovery of note was published pretty quickly.  

As a chemist the complexity of DNA and proteins is nothing new to me, we are talking about molecules with a molar mass of 50Kg were are basically chemical programs thus there is alot of room for error, too much room in most people's opinion, but I get the feeling that research into this field is being stamped out here, infact many scientists are heading to the US. I understand the coation observed when releasing a product on the commercial market, but to kill off the research is a bad idea in my opinion. Like WC said a natural crop seemed to outclass the GM crop, however the possibility is that the GM crop will survive in conditions that would not susstain the natural crop, this is something we need to look at in the face of a changing environment. But we have been conducting genetic minipulation on an idustrial scale for over 50 years now, surely we know enough from all this experience some of the negative effects and are able to transplant this knoweldge when it comes to the GM crop industry and research. Appently GM crops require less fertilizers/insectasides/herb which should save money while lowering the ammount of chemicals released into the enviroment, something that might be helpful when one looks at the up coming EU legislation on the use of agro-chemicals.

 

As for nuclear power, I think it is because we are all scared shitless of another Chernobyl basically. But looking at this from a realistic point of view nuclear powerstations have a set lifespan of several decades, but really I think it could work as a stop gap untill we find a better way to meet our energy needs, the problem with "green" power at the moment is the lack of efficentcy, comapre the ammount of energy which the sun emmits on a sqaure metre of the Earth's surface and compare that to the ammount of electrcity produced by a current generation solar-eletric pannel and there really is a big defficet, this is being worked on however, but not in time to slove the current energy demands.

Those two sections are called Introns and Exons.  Introns are generically non-coding (appear non-functional) strands of DNA.  When mRNA and tRNA are created the Introns are excluded, so they contain only the Exons.  The Exons are the coding strands as they contain the genes that govern our alleles.  It was once generally assumed that the Introns served no purpose.  However recent research has shown they have a purpose, but no one is really sure what that is (or was...).  A couple of theories are floating around about how they could exist to preserve the structure and shape of the DNA molecule and aid in its folding, or they could be remnants of when we were wee little prokaryotes.  They are known to contain lots of old information as well that, as far as we can tell, is there because...well...it hasn't gone yet.

Introns also contain old DNA from vestigial organs or processes as well as some ancient viruses.  I truly wish I remembered the statistic from my text book but it is estimated that every human has several hundred old viruses embedded in his or her DNA that is simply inactivated due to some mutation or the machinery it used is gone or some other reason.  Truly fascinating stuff.

It is technically possible for a mutation to reactivate it insofar as if a mutation happened at that exact point of a mutation that deactivated it, or an old virus that existed received a mutation which changed how it worked and brought it out of dormancy  Of course the odds are quite long but they are still there, hence the risks associated with inserting random mammalian or another animal genes into crops: we do not know for sure how they will react with our current genes OR our old ones.  

To Chem,

I agree with you in that it is foolish to press out a science because of fear.  However, precautions should be taken.  In that case where the GM crop was outclassed by its origin I believe the GM crop WAS meant to be a hardier species and the test was in a more nominal environment so in that conclusion the study was a bit...disingenuous.  However, the company was at fault as well because they themselves marketed their seed as superior in all environments.  Both sides had an agenda.  I for one would like to see it redone in the environment the seed was originally designed for.

In any case, even with 50 years of research one still cannot dismiss the risk.  If biology and my familial history riddled with cancer (my wifes side mostly, but my side is not immune) has taught me one thing, its that every single person is unique.  Medicine, sickness, and potential disease react differently in large part to their genetics.  Many drugs and diseases are specific to particular cells, proteins, and other compounds in the body.  One, tiny, seemingly insignificant change can mean the difference between a nasty bought of the flu and a day long runny nose.  Sure, 50 years sounds like a lot, but with each new little meddle of the genetic code of a product introduces another potential aggressor.  Its not just that one thing as well, it could interact with previous changes and modifications that were once previously harmless.  Thus, we are caught in a bit of a bind.  I don't think any amount of testing will truly be able to say that, %100 of the time a specific GM crop will result in a negative consequence small or large because the scope of human genetic variation is so great.  What must be determined is what degree of risk are we willing to accept?  

GM crops can, and I am sure that they will eventually, serve an extremely valuable purpose in providing efficient food-crops to otherwise poor or non arable land.  If one is facing starvation in the short term or undetermined genetic consequences in the long-term than I for one would eat the food and deal with the consequences.  This point however should still be after significant testing.  Plants are resilient, cross pollination is shockingly easy, and man-kind has always been good at mating and propagating genes, good or bad.  It would be unwise of us to make these plants willy nilly with little discipline and propagate something which puts the entire race at risk due to damage to our food supply.  Mother nature dislikes being under control and will rebel given the slightest space.  

I get over excited when I get to talk about things related to my profession and my typing goes down hill.  

On a related note: a quick google search trying to find some examples of ancient viruses affecting us today came up with a study in 2004 which found that the onset of multiple sclerosis could be assisted by a vulnerability created by an ancient virus embedded in our DNA.  

I agree science with out discipline can only lead to disaster, and there is now way to be 100% sure, a margin of error must be left. But the thing with genetic mutation occurring in a negative way can seem to happen without anything new added to the system, I am the first in my family to have a server nut allergy, although I also carry my grandfathers allergy towards penicillin. I'm sure if we looked hard enough we could find the root cause. Adding something new to this giant equation probably wont help matters like you said, as a chemist we only look at the individual amino acids or side chains thus we have a narrow view, so I adhere to you knowledge of the subject. I'm sure this is being done but if we study animals such as mice, who are able to produce multiple generations in a short time we should be able to spot inherent genetic if defects.

Its quite possible to determine the effects and side effects.  The problem is the sheer scope and size of the genome.  It just takes a LOT of work.  Plus, especially with how technical genetics is, you have to study a broad subject from a narrow view of individual chains and side molecules and then extrapolate those results to the larger picture.  The time consuming part of this is that until you study an individual gene extensively you simply don't know what it creates and what all it is involved in so, in a sense, its like putting together a blank puzzle that won't show a picture until its finished or one section is complete.  Sure, the pieces might fit, but you dont know if the picture makes sense until you can see the entire system. 

 

I know in Cancer Biology there is a gene, I think its P53, but I could be wrong as its been a while, that was once thought to cause cancer.  It is now known to actually play a huge role in preventing cancer.  When mutations in this gene cause it to be non-functional or change its function it makes it much easier for cancer to grow.  With P53 though is a network of at least 4 other genes that serve in related functions with controlled cell death (apoptosis) , replication, cell aging, etc.  It took us a while to figure this all out because with each new gene we discovered and researched our grand picture we thought existed changed.  Its a truly fascinating subject.  Will we achieve a point where we could reasonably accurately predict or determine what would be a long-range genetic threat?  I certainly think so, it will just take a long time.