Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-13-2013, 01:24 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,916,116 times
Reputation: 15038

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
Yes, it includes any critter that has been genetically modified.
This reminds me of a conversation a childhood friend had with his father who was a Dept of Ag chemist. He was asking his father about the benefits of organic gardening, his father replied that all gardening was carbon based and thus was by definition organic. So, again, depending on one's definition of genetic modification, all domestic animals are the product of genetic modification unless there is some other form of science going on when one breeds an animal to produce a specific genetic result.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-13-2013, 01:27 PM
 
Location: texas
9,127 posts, read 7,910,799 times
Reputation: 2385
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Does that include pigs that excrete less phosphorus or cows that expel less methane? Frankly depending on how you define genetic modification most domesticated animals would come under that heading.
Im waiting for GMO boneless cows.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 01:28 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,350,771 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
This reminds me of a conversation a childhood friend had with his father who was a Dept of Ag chemist. He was asking his father about the benefits of organic gardening, his father replied that all gardening was carbon based and thus was by definition organic. So, again, depending on one's definition of genetic modification, all domestic animals are the product of genetic modification unless there is some other form of science going on when one breeds an animal to produce a specific genetic result.
You are mistaken, as usual. In this context genetically modified means the actual genes were manipulated by humans. It has absolutely nothing to do with breeding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
17,823 posts, read 23,350,771 times
Reputation: 6541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones View Post
Im waiting for GMO boneless cows.
LOL! Herding them might be a problem.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 01:41 PM
 
1,111 posts, read 1,726,369 times
Reputation: 725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
I do not have that much of a problem with GM plants, but I draw the line at GM critters. It is one thing to make a plant more resistant to disease, but it is entirely different to make a critter bigger or grow faster.

For example, the GM Atlantic salmon are bigger than their natural cousins because they have been modified to grow all year long, instead of just during the Spring like natural salmon. They are also much less physically fit (soft, mushy flesh), and more susceptible to parasites and other diseases than their natural cousins.

That is why Alaska has banned not only farmed fish, but also GM fish. Alaska only sells wild, natural salmon. Accept no substitutes!
And the wild Pacific Salmon have been "Fukushima'ed". Pacific tuna has 15 times the acceptable limits.

I still buy wild Atlantic Tuna and Salmon when I can find it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 01:51 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 63,862,710 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwynedd1 View Post
I thought I told you to take the mulligan. Don't expect any more charity from me for such a silly, thoughtless remark.
Your opinion on what I should do is something i'm not really concerned with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 01:52 PM
 
8,091 posts, read 5,887,821 times
Reputation: 1578
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
From what I am reading that would be the case. Isolating a gene is not the same as creating one. However it would appear that altering a particular gene to "create" a new one would be patentable.

The Supreme Court long ago ruled that an inventor who discovers a phenomenon in nature, or figures out a “law of nature,” cannot get an exclusive right to use or sell that by obtaining a patent from the federal government. Natural phenomena are the basic tools with which every would-be inventor starts, so locking up the right to use them in a monopoly held by a specific patent owner will frustrate others who might want to look for new ways to interpret that phenomena, the Court has said.
Opinion recap: No patent on natural gene work : SCOTUSblog

This is the loophole.

of course, what does it boil down to?

Interpretation.

The dollar will win out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 02:13 PM
 
1,102 posts, read 1,852,876 times
Reputation: 1140
Antonin Scalia Does Not Believe in Molecular Biology
Justice Antonin Scalia agrees with his fellow Supreme Court justices that naturally occurring genes can't be patented. Where he appears to differ: The existence of genes, the basic science of genetics, molecular biology, and evolution. He just dissented from all of the above.

Today, the court found in favor of the Association for Molecular Pathology in a case about the legality of patenting genes, ruling 9-0 that while synthetic genes may be patented, those extracted from the human body may not.

Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion, which was joined by Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsberg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan. But not Scalia. While he voted with the majority, he wrote his own concurrence to make abundantly clear that he did not agree with the parts of Thomas' opinion that recited the basic, sound, and undeniable fundamentals of molecular biology.

While he "joins the judgment of the court," Scalia wrote, he won't sign on to "Part I–A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology." Why? Because he can't "affirm those details on [his] own knowledge or even [his] own belief."

So what is Part I-A? Sounds like some pretty out-there stuff. It begins: "Genes form the basis for hereditary traits in living organisms." It holds that genes are "encoded as DNA, which takes the shape of the familiar 'double helix,'" and describes the chemical structures of DNA. It tells, in basic terms, what DNA is and how it works, ending with: "the study of genetics can lead to valuable medical breakthroughs." It literally makes no other claims—it is a dry recitation of genetic science. High-school-level stuff.

Scalia can't fully join his fellow justices because he doesn't believe in genes.

Here's the text of Scalia's concurrence:

I join the judgment of the Court, and all of its opinion except Part I–A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology. I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief. It suffices for me to affirm, having studied the opinions below and the expert briefs presented here, that the portion of DNA isolated from its natural state sought to be patented is identical to that portion of the DNA in its natural state; and that complementary DNA (cDNA) is a synthetic creation not normally present in nature.

Here's the text of part I-A:

Genes form the basis for hereditary traits in living organisms. See generally Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, 702 F. Supp. 2d 181, 192–211 (SDNY 2010). The human genome consists of approximately 22,000 genes packed into 23 pairs of chromosomes. Each gene is encoded as DNA, which takes the shape of the familiar “double helix” that Doctors James Watson and Francis Crick first described in 1953. Each “cross-bar” in the DNA helix consists of two chemically joined nucleotides. The possible nucleotides are adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G), each of which binds naturally with another nucleotide: A pairs with T; C pairs with G. The nucleotide cross-bars are chemically connected to a sugar-phosphate backbone that forms the outside framework of the DNA helix. Sequences of DNA nucleotides contain the information necessary to create strings of amino acids, which in turn are used in the body to build proteins. Only some DNA nucleotides, however, code for amino acids; these nucleotides are known as “exons.” Nucleotides that do not code for amino acids, in contrast, are known as “introns.”

Creation of proteins from DNA involves two principal steps, known as transcription and translation. In transcription, the bonds between DNA nucleotides separate, and the DNA helix unwinds into two single strands. A single strand is used as a template to create a complementary ribonucleic acid (RNA) strand. The nucleotides on the DNA strand pair naturally with their counterparts, with the exception that RNA uses the nucleotide base uracil (U) instead of thymine (T). Transcription results in a single strand RNA molecule, known as pre-RNA, whose nucleotides form an inverse image of the DNA strand from which it was created. Pre-RNA still contains nucleotides corresponding to both the exons and introns in the DNA molecule. The pre-RNA is then naturally “spliced” by the physical removal of the introns. The resulting product is a strand of RNA that contains nucleotides corresponding only to the exons from the original DNA strand. The exons-only strand is known as messenger RNA (mRNA), which creates amino acids through translation. In translation, cellular structures known as ribosomes read each set of three nucleotides, known as codons, in the mRNA. Each codon either tells the ribosomes which of the 20 possible amino acids to synthesize or provides a stop signal that ends amino acid production.

DNA’s informational sequences and the processes that create mRNA, amino acids, and proteins occur naturally within cells. Scientists can, however, extract DNA from cells using well known laboratory methods. These methods allow scientists to isolate specific segments of DNA— for instance, a particular gene or part of a gene—which can then be further studied, manipulated, or used. It is also possible to create DNA synthetically through processes similarly well known in the field of genetics. One such method begins with an mRNA molecule and uses the natural bonding properties of nucleotides to create a new, synthetic DNA molecule. The result is the inverse of the mRNA’s inverse image of the original DNA, with one important distinction: Because the natural creation of mRNA involves splicing that removes introns, the synthetic DNA created from mRNA also contains only the exon sequences. This synthetic DNA created in the laboratory from mRNA is known as complementary DNA (cDNA).

Changes in the genetic sequence are called mutations. Mutations can be as small as the alteration of a single nucleotide—a change affecting only one letter in the genetic code. Such small-scale changes can produce an entirely different amino acid or can end protein production altogether. Large changes, involving the deletion, rearrangement, or duplication of hundreds or even millions of nucleotides, can result in the elimination, misplacement, or duplication of entire genes. Some mutations are harmless, but others can cause disease or increase the risk of disease. As a result, the study of genetics can lead to valuable medical breakthroughs.


The entire opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-398_8njq.pdf



Antonin Scalia Does Not Believe in Molecular Biology
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 02:22 PM
 
8,091 posts, read 5,887,821 times
Reputation: 1578
Quote:
Originally Posted by nifear View Post
Antonin Scalia Does Not Believe in Molecular Biology
Justice Antonin Scalia agrees with his fellow Supreme Court justices that naturally occurring genes can't be patented. Where he appears to differ: The existence of genes, the basic science of genetics, molecular biology, and evolution. He just dissented from all of the above.

Today, the court found in favor of the Association for Molecular Pathology in a case about the legality of patenting genes, ruling 9-0 that while synthetic genes may be patented, those extracted from the human body may not.

Clarence Thomas wrote the opinion, which was joined by Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsberg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan. But not Scalia. While he voted with the majority, he wrote his own concurrence to make abundantly clear that he did not agree with the parts of Thomas' opinion that recited the basic, sound, and undeniable fundamentals of molecular biology.

While he "joins the judgment of the court," Scalia wrote, he won't sign on to "Part I–A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology." Why? Because he can't "affirm those details on [his] own knowledge or even [his] own belief."

So what is Part I-A? Sounds like some pretty out-there stuff. It begins: "Genes form the basis for hereditary traits in living organisms." It holds that genes are "encoded as DNA, which takes the shape of the familiar 'double helix,'" and describes the chemical structures of DNA. It tells, in basic terms, what DNA is and how it works, ending with: "the study of genetics can lead to valuable medical breakthroughs." It literally makes no other claims—it is a dry recitation of genetic science. High-school-level stuff.

Scalia can't fully join his fellow justices because he doesn't believe in genes.

Here's the text of Scalia's concurrence:

I join the judgment of the Court, and all of its opinion except Part I–A and some portions of the rest of the opinion going into fine details of molecular biology. I am unable to affirm those details on my own knowledge or even my own belief. It suffices for me to affirm, having studied the opinions below and the expert briefs presented here, that the portion of DNA isolated from its natural state sought to be patented is identical to that portion of the DNA in its natural state; and that complementary DNA (cDNA) is a synthetic creation not normally present in nature.

Here's the text of part I-A:

Genes form the basis for hereditary traits in living organisms. See generally Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, 702 F. Supp. 2d 181, 192–211 (SDNY 2010). The human genome consists of approximately 22,000 genes packed into 23 pairs of chromosomes. Each gene is encoded as DNA, which takes the shape of the familiar “double helix” that Doctors James Watson and Francis Crick first described in 1953. Each “cross-bar” in the DNA helix consists of two chemically joined nucleotides. The possible nucleotides are adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G), each of which binds naturally with another nucleotide: A pairs with T; C pairs with G. The nucleotide cross-bars are chemically connected to a sugar-phosphate backbone that forms the outside framework of the DNA helix. Sequences of DNA nucleotides contain the information necessary to create strings of amino acids, which in turn are used in the body to build proteins. Only some DNA nucleotides, however, code for amino acids; these nucleotides are known as “exons.” Nucleotides that do not code for amino acids, in contrast, are known as “introns.”

Creation of proteins from DNA involves two principal steps, known as transcription and translation. In transcription, the bonds between DNA nucleotides separate, and the DNA helix unwinds into two single strands. A single strand is used as a template to create a complementary ribonucleic acid (RNA) strand. The nucleotides on the DNA strand pair naturally with their counterparts, with the exception that RNA uses the nucleotide base uracil (U) instead of thymine (T). Transcription results in a single strand RNA molecule, known as pre-RNA, whose nucleotides form an inverse image of the DNA strand from which it was created. Pre-RNA still contains nucleotides corresponding to both the exons and introns in the DNA molecule. The pre-RNA is then naturally “spliced” by the physical removal of the introns. The resulting product is a strand of RNA that contains nucleotides corresponding only to the exons from the original DNA strand. The exons-only strand is known as messenger RNA (mRNA), which creates amino acids through translation. In translation, cellular structures known as ribosomes read each set of three nucleotides, known as codons, in the mRNA. Each codon either tells the ribosomes which of the 20 possible amino acids to synthesize or provides a stop signal that ends amino acid production.

DNA’s informational sequences and the processes that create mRNA, amino acids, and proteins occur naturally within cells. Scientists can, however, extract DNA from cells using well known laboratory methods. These methods allow scientists to isolate specific segments of DNA— for instance, a particular gene or part of a gene—which can then be further studied, manipulated, or used. It is also possible to create DNA synthetically through processes similarly well known in the field of genetics. One such method begins with an mRNA molecule and uses the natural bonding properties of nucleotides to create a new, synthetic DNA molecule. The result is the inverse of the mRNA’s inverse image of the original DNA, with one important distinction: Because the natural creation of mRNA involves splicing that removes introns, the synthetic DNA created from mRNA also contains only the exon sequences. This synthetic DNA created in the laboratory from mRNA is known as complementary DNA (cDNA).

Changes in the genetic sequence are called mutations. Mutations can be as small as the alteration of a single nucleotide—a change affecting only one letter in the genetic code. Such small-scale changes can produce an entirely different amino acid or can end protein production altogether. Large changes, involving the deletion, rearrangement, or duplication of hundreds or even millions of nucleotides, can result in the elimination, misplacement, or duplication of entire genes. Some mutations are harmless, but others can cause disease or increase the risk of disease. As a result, the study of genetics can lead to valuable medical breakthroughs.


The entire opinion: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...2-398_8njq.pdf



Antonin Scalia Does Not Believe in Molecular Biology
Now, do you give Scalia credit for being 100% brutally honest? or do you want to call him an idiot?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-13-2013, 02:31 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 36,916,116 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch View Post
You are mistaken, as usual. In this context genetically modified means the actual genes were manipulated by humans. It has absolutely nothing to do with breeding.


I am not wrong because the argument is based upon how one defines the words genetic, and engineering. If you want to confine the definition to the direct manipulation of genomic structures, fine, but genetic engineering is just as valid a definition for what takes place in selective breeding.

Now go stamp your feet somewhere else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top