What Ag-Biotech Scientists
Don't Usually Talk About In Public
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/ISBreport.htm
GE Methods - 'More an art than a science'

"....due to a lack of understanding of the underlying molecular mechanisms of transgene introduction and integration, plant transformation [by genetic engineering] remains more an art than a science. All of the three main techniques used for plant transformation, Agrobacterium-mediated, protoplast, and particle bombardment transformation, result in unpredictable integration of transgenes. This has led to concerns that transformation might indirectly alter the expression of other genes, resulting in a toxic or allergenic phenotype.... attempts have been made to develop a system for targeted transgene insertion.... however, these efforts have yielded inconsistent results, making them unsuitable for commercial application."
TRANSGENES—BY NO EASY MEANS
Information Systems for Biotechnology News Report, February 2002

".....conventional breeding is limited to the genes (the gene pool) from the same species or closely related species; whereas for genetic modification, genes can be taken from viruses, bacteria, unrelated plants, animals (including humans) and made synthetically..... most [GM plant] gene constructs contain some sequences derived from plant pathogens..."
Dale (John Innes Centre) et al
Transgenic Plant Research 1998, 277 - 285

".......The area of concern specific to viral transgenes [in GM crops] is the potential risks on any interactions between the viral or virus-related sequences being expressed from the transgene and another virus superinfecting that plant. Three main scenarios are usually considered: synergism, recombination and heteroencapsidation..... It is generally considered that recombination plays an important role in the evolution of RNA viruses (see refs. 20—23). Evidence is now forthcoming of recombination between superinfecting viral RNA and RNA expressed from a transgene (24) through the aberrant homologous recombination mechanism. ...... It is difficult to devise detailed protocols for the detection of recombinants produced in the field..... There are several examples of heteroencapsidation in transgenic plants, both between viruses of the same group (27,28), and between unrelated viruses (29). ..... The main question to be addressed is whether the risk on field release of the transgenic plant is significantly more than the risk from the nontransgenic plant .... It is likely that it will take some time for a full risk assessment on the viral transgenic plants to be performed and commercial and other pressures will be very strong for field release..... For small-scale releases, it is relatively easy to design monitoring procedures for analyzing pollen flow into related weed species and for detecting heteroencapsidants or recombinants. This will be much more difficult, if not impossible, for large-scale releases, in which the approach should be to educate farmers and extension service personnel to identify any unusual event that might be associated with transgenic plants. This will be the challenge for the future....."
Hull R. (John Innes Centre)
'Detection of Risks Associated with Coat Protein Transgenics',
Methods in Molecular Biology: Plant Virology Protocols: from Virus Isolation to Transgenic Resistance. New Jersey, Humana Press Inc. 81, 574-555, (1998)

".... the technology is quite radical... it requires the public, actually, to have quite a high level of scientific understanding."
Professor Mike Bevan, John Innes Centre, on GM technology
BBC Farming Today, 22 May 2003

But do the scientists themselves have a high enough level of understanding?

"It's often said that one aspect of GM is not precise, and that is that the inserted gene doesn't go to the same place in the genome each time, and in fact to a degree inserts randomly, and that's true ... what happens in making a new commercial line by GM is you might have 10,000 or more so called 'events', independent insertions, and then those candidate GM lines go through a very rigourous analysis and review by the breeders .... [a] selection process out of which one or two or three events will emerge that have all the desired properties of the original variety plus the new gene inserted and functioning properly and stably. So it's a sieving process..."
Professor Christoper Lamb, Director of the John Innes Centre
BBC Farming Today, 22 May 2003

But how rigorous is this sieving process really?

"Not only does the genetic engineer have little control over this insertion process but many transgenic constructs, or fragments of them, may be inserted simultaneously into the same or different chromosomes.... Not surprisingly this chaotic situation [inherent in the physical process of genetic modification] routinely creates plants which are abnormal in comparison to their conventionally bred counterparts, a fact which is rarely discussed in public by the scientific community. Clearly such genetic aberrations are not desirable. Because of their potentially unwelcome effects, the genetic engineer will then attempt to filter out those plants which are abnormal. Sometimes the abnormalities are visibly obvious. For example, the image below shows seedlings of transgenic tomato plants, where approximately a quarter have a lethal mutation in the form of bleached cotyledons [see web page for photo].... Such obvious adverse mutations can be easily 'weeded' out. But what about the abnormalities that cannot be seen by eye? Very often many of these will go undetected simply because little or no molecular research has been done as to their existence, nature and significance. As a recent paper by scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, (Plant Science 160 (2001) 763–772) points out '...no detailed cytogenetic analysis of transgenic oat plants has been reported. Only a few detailed reports on cytogenetic analysis of transgenic plants [of any kind] have been done...' Cytogenetics is the study of the microscopic structure of chromosomes. The above statement by the scientists at Berkeley represents one of the franker admissions in the published literature of the non-scientific nature of genetic engineering..... The cytogenetic work on the 'particle bombardment' generated transgenic oats at the University of California ....describes the much higher frequency of chromosomal abnormalities in transgenic plants compared with non-transgenic lines... However, even in this rare published study the authors confirm that their methodology only permits quantitation of 'gross changes in chromosomal integrity' and that it is 'also likely that other less visible changes in chromosomal fidelity occur e.g. mutation, methylation polymorphism'.... Does that really matter? The Berkeley paper makes it clear that this ....can have important consequences: 'In transgenic [oat] plants...overall fertility was dramatically reduced by the transformation [i.e. genetic modification] process... The phenomenon of reduced fertility or sterility has also been observed frequently in other transgenic cereals.... sterility and low fertility in abnormal plants are likely related to chromosomal damage or instability of chromosome number during abnormal meiosis...' Plant breeders will claim that such difficulties can be filtered out by testing in the field. A paper published by scientists from the US Department of Agriculture and Monsanto in 1999 concerning transgenic potatoes gives an indication of the process involved in this: '... transformation often changes cultivar yield and quality characteristics that are agronomically important....The gene [introduced through genetic engineering] itself can affect the plant growth and type…. Off-type plants can often be identified among new transformants in tissue culture media by their lack of vigor or by conformational aberrations…. More subtle vigor and growth aberration defects that are not obvious at an earlier stage are often exhibited after plantlets are transferred from soil flats to the field…In our experience with potatoes…[although] growth aberration is usually associated with poor vigor, it does sometimes occur in vigorous lines...' ...So obvious problems are filtered out. Unfortunately, the less obvious are not. This is already clear from the experience with the world's most widely planted GM crop, 'Roundup Ready' soya. Only after commercialisation was it discovered that additional DNA of unknown origin had been inadvertently incorporated within the genome of the new organism. More importantly it is now considered that the process of genetic modification in this case has lead to the disruption of other aspects of the soya plant's functioning resulting in reduced yields for farmers compared to conventionally bred sister lines. Whilst this unwelcome effect may be primarily a problem for soya farmers, who is to say what the long term consequences of such genetic distortions may be in the future for human health in this or any other GM food? Unfortunately, as the Berkeley study indicates, the commercial interests now responsible for funding much of the development of transgenic technology do not have a strong inclination to carry out and publish even the most basic cytogenetic analysis... It is these less visible changes beyond the current analytical capacity of science (or at least science as it is commonly practised), which pose the greatest threat to the long-term sustainability of food and agriculture; firstly because they are difficult to detect; and secondly because their meaning is not yet understood. The fundamental conceptual error made by large parts of the scientific community in this situation is to try to attempt transgenics before achieving competency in genomics . The more genomics is understood the more science will inevitably learn about why the short term excitement over the 'out-of-context' methodologies of transgenics are a recipe for long-term regret. Until then the principal foundation for transgenic technology will continue to be conjecture, not rigorous science."
Tearing Down Biotech's 'Berlin Wall'
The Fundamental Scientific Error of Pursuing Transgenics Before Competency in Genomics
NLPWessex, 4 May 2003

Click here for definitions of some of the technical terms used above and below as defined in: 'A History of Genetically Modified Plants', Paul.F. Lurquin, Columbia University Press 2001 or Henderson's Dictionary of Biological Terms

May 2003

Below is a piece from the biotechnology newsletter ISB NEWS REPORT February 2002 produced at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA. It highlights the primitive nature of the technology used in modern agricultural genetic engineering processes and some of the consequences of the techniques used.

The author is Claire Granger, of the Department of Plant Biology, Carnegie Institution of Washington.

The piece is unusual in that it identifies in a relatively detailed fashion many of the technical problems associated with transgenic technology in plant breeding. These are issues that ag-biotech scientists usually do not like to discuss in public. However, this piece is reproduced in a publication unlikely to be read by the general public.

We have also provided below a previous commentary by NLPWessex on another piece published in ISB NEWS where two scientists from New Zealand raise similar issues, again using explicit language.

The processes used in plant genetic engineering are fundamental to the types of risk generated, just as the processes used to generate electricity from power stations are fundamental to the types of risk encountered - as everyone knows post Chernobyl. The risks associciated with a nuclear power station are radically different to those produced by a hydroelectric plant or wind turbine, even though the purpose of both is to create the same product of electricity. Process is fundamental to the generation of risk.

When nuclear power was first developed it was hailed as the saviour of man's energy needs. The promise was that it would produce energy too cheap to meter. Now the nuclear power industry is the only utlility that the UK government has been able to privatise without huge subsidy because of the long term environmental costs associated with such processes. The most recent Energy White Paper provisionally abandons UK commitments to nuclear energy. It has taken 50 years to arrive at this reversal.

It would be regretable if the mistakes that have been made with nuclear technology were to be repeated with biotechnology. Genetic engineering is the most high risk option within the biotechnology sector which therefore raises the question as to why so much emphasis is being placed on it.

Other biotechnologies such as marker assisted selection have a much more favourable risk-benefit profile. Their potential to contribute to the betterment of world agriculture is much higher, and yet they don't come bundled with the risks associated with the genetic engineering processes that are described below.

BSE was an indicator of how serious things can become when new organisms arise in the environment. Viral and bacterial issues are never far removed from genetic engineering technology, whether it is used for pharamaceutical, military, or agricultural purposes. Most GM crops contain genetic sequences taken from viral or bacterial pathogens.

Combining such elements with the primitive and essentially random methods of current genetic engineering means it can only be a matter of time before such risks are converted into an actual hazard.

NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX
nlpwessex@bigfoot.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex

EXTRACT FROM
http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2002/news02.feb.html#feb0202

INFORMATION SYSTEMS FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY

ISB NEWS REPORT
February 2002

COVERING AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL BIOTECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENTS

PLANT RESEARCH NEWS

TRANSGENES—BY NO EASY MEANS

The current widespread application of genetic engineering to crop species is largely due to the ease of plant transformation. Plant transformation, the process of introducing a foreign or engineered DNA element into the native genome of a plant, has been successfully performed for almost 20 years. However, due to a lack of understanding of the underlying molecular mechanisms of transgene introduction and integration, plant transformation remains more an art than a science. All of the three main techniques used for plant transformation, Agrobacterium-mediated, protoplast, and particle bombardment transformation, result in unpredictable integration of transgenes. This has led to concerns that transformation might indirectly alter the expression of other genes, resulting in a toxic or allergenic phenotype. Fortunately, recent research is expanding our understanding of how introduced genes are integrated at the molecular level during transformation, suggesting strategies for controlling the location and expression of transgenes.

In any plant transformation experiment, the researcher knows that many independent transgenic lines will have to be screened before a line stably expressing a single copy of the transgene is isolated. Frequently, many transgenic plants will contain multiple copies of the transgene, either in the form of tandem repeats at a single locus, or scattered throughout the genome of the plant. This is a problem for two reasons. First, the integration of multiple copies of a transgene has been linked with gene silencing, a poorly understood phenomenon, where the expression of an introduced gene is somehow detected and "shut off" by the plant's cellular machinery. Second, overexpression of the transgene due to multiple copies can prove to be toxic to the plant, leading to poor growth or even no growth. Even if the plant contains only a single copy of the gene, there is no guarantee that it will be expressed correctly. The degree of expression of the transgene can also be determined by the site of insertion, otherwise known as the "positional effect."

The main techniques used for plant transformation can be loosely grouped under two headings: Agrobacterium-mediated transformation and methods that use direct DNA delivery for transformation. Protoplast transformation was the first plant transformation technique developed using direct DNA delivery. In this method, protoplasts derived either directly from plant tissues or from a plant cell suspension culture are induced to take up naked DNA through treatment with membrane permiabilization agents such as polyethylene glycol (PEG) or by electroporation. The method is useful, as it is genotype-independent, but the degree of finesse required for success, along with the high occurrence of spontaneous mutations caused by long periods in tissue culture, restrict the application of the technique to species recalcitrant to other methods of transformation.

A more commonly used method of direct DNA delivery transformation is a method known as microprojectile, particle bombardment, or biolistic transformation. In this method, tiny particles of tungsten or gold are coated with DNA containing the construct of interest. These particles are then "shot" into the plant tissue using gunpowder, gas, compressed air, or other methods of acceleration. The force of the acceleration drives the tiny particles through the wall and membrane of the plant cells, delivering the naked DNA directly into the cells' interiors. The exact mechanism of how the naked DNA then becomes integrated into the plant's genome is unknown, but multiple studies have shown that in the vast majority of cases microprojectile transformation results in the integration of multiple, often rearranged, copies of the transgene. One currently proposed theory suggests that the introduced transgenes are first spliced into arrays by the cells' endogenous machinery before integration into the plant's genome. This theory might partially explain the main drawback of this transformation method—the high occurrence of genetic rearrangements found in recovered transformants.

Another explanation may be found in the results of a study, reported in Theoretical and Applied Genetics, indicating that microprojectile transformation may involve chromosome breakage and re-ligation. In this study, Svitashev et al. characterized transgenic lines of hexaploid oat, using a combination of phenotype, genotype segregation, Southern blot, and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analyses.¹ Six of the 25 transgene loci examined were associated with rearranged chromosomes. Through Southern blot analysis and FISH performed on metaphase chromosomes, evidence of both chromosomal rearrangement and breakage events could be detected. The authors theorize that this may be the result of physical breakage of the host cell's DNA during particle bombardment or, possibly, the integration event itself. However, these results conflict with the data described in a second, more recent paper in the same journal. Jackson et al. studied 13 independent transgenic wheat lines transformed using microprojectile bombardment.² The authors used a high-resolution form of FISH to physically map the location and structure of the integrated transgenes. Although the authors found evidence of large, tandem repeats of the transgenes integrated in the plant's genome, they were unable to detect any chromosomal rearrangements associated with the integrated transgenes. Regardless of the exact nature of the mechanism, it seems clear from the data described in these papers that microprojectile transformation often results in transgenic plants with a complex pattern of transgene integration.

Agrobacterium-mediated transformation, the most widely used method of plant transformation, utilizes the natural ability of the plant pathogen, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, to transfer DNA sequences from a particular segment of an endogenous plasmid within the bacterium to the nuclear genome of the plant. This segment, known as the T-DNA, usually includes one or two genes of interest, as well as a marker gene. This method is widely favored due to its ease of use and low cost. Unfortunately, the restricted host range of the bacterium meant that some dicot and most monocot species were, until recently, incompatible with the technique. However, the development of new, supervirulent forms of the plasmid vector and species-specific pretreatments has led to a dramatic expansion in the number of species transformed using this technique. Another reason for the popularity of this method is that the T-DNA usually seems to integrate in transcriptionally active regions of the plant genome, increasing the likelihood that the transgene will be expressed.

However, it is not uncommon for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation to result in the integration of multiple copies of the transgene in the form of tandem repeats. Tandem repeats resulting from T-DNA insertion have been reported and investigated in a number of crop species. These types of repeats can be difficult to detect by Southern blot, since they tend to integrate at a single location in the plant genome. In a recent paper published in Molecular and General Genetics, Kumar and Fladung reported using rpPCR, a method that utilizes primer pairs oriented in opposite directions, to identify tandem repeats in 45 transgenic aspen and hybrid aspen lines transformed with six different constructs.³ All the transgenic lines were generated through standard Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. In the lines examined, 21% contained multiple repeats of the transgene; however the organization of the repeats consisted of both direct and inverted repeats. Some of the lines were also found to contain "filler" DNA between the repeated T-DNAs, ranging from four to almost 300 base pairs. Interestingly, the authors found that all of the direct repeats contained identical residual right-border repeat sequences. They speculate that this sequence, combined with the mechanism of T-DNA insertion, is responsible for the formation of direct repeats. However, a single mechanism is unlikely to account for all the different repeat structures seen resulting from Agrobacterium-mediated transformation.

Currently, transgene integration into the host genome is essentially random, regardless of the method used to perform the transformation. As a result, attempts have been made to develop a system for targeted transgene insertion, either through the use of scaffold attachment sites or through the introduction of elements of a homologous recombination system, such as the Cre/lox system. To date, however, these efforts have yielded inconsistent results, making them unsuitable for commercial application. Nevertheless, these technologies are making great advances, and it is hoped that, combined with the increasing understanding of the mechanisms of transgene integration, it will soon be possible to precisely and consistently engineer plants to express a single copy of an introduced gene.

Sources

1.  Svitashev S, Ananiev E, Pawlowski WP, and Somers DA. 2000. Association of transgene integration sites with chromosome rearrangements in hexaploid oat. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 100: 872-880.

2.  Jackson SA, Zhang P, Chen WP, Phillips RL, Friebe B, Muthukrishnan S, and Gill BS. 2001. High-resolution structural analysis of biolistic transgene integration into the genome of wheat. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 103: 56-62.

3. Kumar S and Fladung M. 2000. Transgene repeats in aspen: molecular characterisation suggests simultaneous integration of independent T-DNAs into receptive hotspots in the host genome. Molecular and General Genetics 264: 20-28.

Claire Granger
Biologist
alesia_sun@yahoo.com

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmdeception.htm

Population duped by genetic engineers

"...GM techniques which in the precise and targeted way bring in a couple of genes that you know what they do and you know where they are is vastly safer, vast, vastly more controlled than this so-called conventional breeding...."
Sir Robert May, UK Government Chief  Scientist 1995 - 2000, and current President of the Royal Society, UK
(BBC interview 9th March 2000)

July 2001  

The biotechnology sector 'ISB News Report' for July 2001 includes a revealing piece by two biotechnology consultants from New Zealand which by default exposes the degree to which the technical risks associated with genetic engineering have been regularly misrepresented by the scientific community.

Constantly we hear the refrain about how 'precise' genetic engineering is. But this claim is not supported by the facts and many governmental advisers on GM biosafety have been 'taken in' by it.  

The purpose of the New Zealand consultants' report is to highlight possible future technical improvements in order to reduce the lack of precision and control prevalent in current genetic engineering techniques. However, in so doing they reveal in some detail the technical basis for the inherent risks associated with those genetically engineered organisms which have already been approved.  

Below are some of the comments made by the article's authors Kieran Elborough and Zac Hanley in relation to the technology used to create the GMOs that are already being released into the global environment and food chain:

• "Plant biotechnology often requires the use of various imprecise methods of transformation to introduce additional genetic material. These processes cause severe changes to cell metabolism by disrupting existing architectures or by activating defense mechanisms designed to cope with entirely different assaults. Methods that release cells from the restraints of higher orders of hormonal control (i.e., cell culture, a prerequisite for some transformation systems) can cause wholesale and detrimental changes in metabolism via somaclonal variation, as most probably occurred in the examples most frequently cited by the anti-GM movement."
  
  
• "Plants can also prevent the expression of virally introduced genetic material via methylation of DNA, although this can perturb the normal regulation of other genes. Such changes in the chemistry of DNA in turn activate transposons, which propagate throughout the genome with disruptive effects on all systems. This phenomenon can be exploited as a tool for functional genomics but is generally undesirable if a novel plant is to be considered substantially equivalent to an existing food crop."
  
  
• "Undesirable outcomes also arise from the method of DNA introduction (which mimics pathogen attack) or from the random insertion of the transgene into sensitive areas of the genome, often many times per genome. In particular, the effects of imprecise insertion may not manifest themselves in early generations since different DNA error-checking mechanisms are activated during growth, reproduction, embryogenesis, and development."
  
  
• "[Gene] 'silencing' observed in later generations [is] caused by methylation of the transgene, which can occur in more than 50% of the transgenic plants in any one experiment.... the mechanism of methylation silencing activation is unelucidated..."
  
  
• "[Post Transcriptional Gene Silencing] is responsible for the useful genetic modification technique called antisensing .... Antisensing results in reduced expression of the native gene but is an imprecise method of altering gene output.... for example, to increase the storage time of soft fruits such as tomatoes.... contrary to the textbook orthodoxy, the presence and position of introns can affect the outcome of transgenesis considerably."
  
  
• "It is clear from the above discussion that the introduction of novel DNA into a genome involves the concomitant introduction of gene-derived material into other systems, processes, and mechanisms (for example, the introduction of novel protein into the proteome). All such introductions may alter the behavior of the system and, via the multi-level integration of these systems and processes, the whole cell...."
  
  
• ".... the use of transgene elements such as the 35S promoter from Cauliflower Mosaic Virus to force the subjugation of cellular processes to our whim will be seen an unnecessary and inelegant use of power, akin to the proverbial use of a sledgehammer to crack a nut."

However, perhaps the most relevant comment by these authors is their contrastingly different description of the overwhelmingly sophisticated and precise operation of system functioning in natural non-genetically engineered organisms:

• "The finest examples of powerful yet precise control of biological processes are found in living organisms, whose systems, after millions of years of evolution, are well-honed, robust, adaptable, and capable of rapid response, yet are also fail-safe, highly redundant, self-monitoring and -repairing, and subject to both automatic and executive control or veto at multiple levels."

As the authors' piece makes clear it is exactly this evolutionarily necessary precision which is typically absent from the processes of genetic engineering currently being used to modify the world's biological environment. This dangerous combination of scientific ignorance and technological crudity lies at the very heart of an irresponsible and commercially driven genetic engineering stampede which is fuelled by the irresistible lure of monopoly-generating intellectual property rights. It is a stampede which specifically evades even the most primitive consideration of the basic evolutionary context of biological systems.  

If the analysis by Elborough and Hanley is correct (and it is already well supported by peer-reviewed published scientific literature - see footnotes) it is difficult not to come to the conclusion that the general population as a whole - including numerous governmental advisers - has been deliberately deceived by the more influential members of the genetic engineering community.

It seems most likely that this apparent process of deception has been entered into purely to protect investment in an area of infant science whose use in applied technology has at the very least been introduced in a scandalously premature fashion. In reality, however, it is clear that even the basic conceptual thinking underpinning the development of genetic engineering is wholy misguided.  

As part of this process it appears that an attempt has been made to simultaneously dupe both the public and their political representatives - always assuming, that is, that the latter have not been consciously compliant. It can only be a matter of time, however, before those elements of the scientific community which have encouraged such distortions of scientific knowledge are brought to account.  

NATURAL LAW PARTY WESSEX
nlpwessex@bigfoot.com
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex

Footnotes:  

1. Full 'ISB NEWS' July 2001 issue available at http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2001/news01.Jul.html.

2. Related material has also been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals by Europe's leading plant biotechnology laboratory, the John Innes Centre. See: www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmrisk.htm
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/compliance.htm
www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/camv.htm

"In a recent survey of at least thirty companies developing transgenic plants for use in agriculture, all companies observed some transgene instability ........... In a recent study in our laboratory, one hundred Brassica napus [oilseed rape] transgenic lines were produced and half of them displayed unstable or unusual transgene behaviour....."
Dale et al (1998) Transgene expression and stability in Brassica. ACTA Horticulturae 459, 167-171

3. GE methods disturb rice genome: Plant Cell Reports Volume 20 Issue 4 (2001) pp 325-330
http://link.springer.de/link/service/journals/00299/bibs/1020004/10200325.htm

GMOs - Does the British Prime Minister Know What He is Talking About?
European Commission lacks confidence in own GM safety tests
What leading scientists have said about the dangers of genetically modified foods

"The fundamental conceptual error made by large parts of the scientific community in this situation is to try to attempt transgenics before achieving competency in genomics . The more genomics is understood the more science will inevitably learn about why the short term excitement over the 'out-of-context' methodologies of transgenics are a recipe for long-term regret. Until then the principal foundation for transgenic technology will continue to be conjecture, not rigorous science."
Tearing Down Biotech's 'Berlin Wall'
The Fundamental Scientific Error of Pursuing Transgenics Before Competency in Genomics
NLPWessex, 4 May 2003

"GM is only one easily recongnised byproduct of genetic research. The quiet revolution is happening in gene mapping ['genomics'], helping us understand crops better. That is up and running and could have a far greater impact on agriculture.... There really are no downsides, particularly in terms of public perception... [By contrast in the case of GMOs] there are public perception problems and the technology itself is still not optimised, with antibiotic and herbicide resistance genes still needed and bits of bacterial DNA hanging about. Whether that poses any danger is debatable, but it is not desirable."
Professor John Snape, John Innes Centre
'Gene mapping the friendly face of GM technology'
Farmers Weekly, 1 March 2002, p54

"From a scientific perspective, the public argument about genetically-modified organisms, I think, will soon be a thing of the past. The science has moved on and we're now in the genomics era."
Professor Bob Goodman
Former head of research and development at Calgene, creators of the flavr savr tomato, the world's first GM food
Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 18 February 2001

Back To "Tearing Down Biotech's 'Berlin Wall' "