

Who's Afraid of Synthetic Biology?  - cwan
http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/25/whos-afraid-of-synthetic-biolo

======
teilo
From the article: "Better medicines, carbon neutral fuels, cheaper food, and a
cleaner environment—who could be against that? Well, quite a few people, as it
turns out."

That is begging the question. No one is opposed to these things. This is
exactly equivalent to arguing against those who are opposed to nuclear power:
"You are for pollution and opposed to clean energy."

Sorry, but the possibility of great advances for humanity in any given field,
does not, in and of itself, cancel out the real dangers involved, nor negate
the arguments of those who urge caution.

Do not get me wrong. I am a big proponent of nuclear energy, and also think
that bioengineering has huge potential, but let's not use hyperbole to stifle
legitimate debate, and label any opposition as hysterical hand-wringing. It's
a rather unreasonable argument for Reason.

------
plesn
I find this article not only strongly biased (both in the presentation of the
actors of the debate and in the poor addressing of the arguments themself) but
also completely missing the core of the debate.

Opponents are depicted as driven by their "fears" (of accidental or voluntary
release of dangerous synthetic organisms). Whereas propoents have a "goal" (to
produce efficient and clean products, and even to clean our current ecological
situation). One of the opposing organism, the ETC group, is described as an
"anti-technology group" even if its position is basically presented as people
wanting to think before acting. More, on ETC website I am reading:
"developments of technologies useful to the poor and marginalized".

The "fears" of the opponents are not stated as groundless as they are not
negated, but solutions are presented in the second part of the article:
synthetic organisms would not be dangerous because it's too early, we survived
extinctions related to movements of organisms caused by humans, and because
synthetic organisms could be watermarked and controlled with chemical
deficiencies. First one is not even logic, second one is saying that
retroaction is not useful in the process until we are not dead, and the third
one, well, what about voluntary leaks, evolution. Well, maybe I've seen to
much science fiction.

But in the end, this article is just poor because it hides its position in the
debate behind "it's science!" and just doesn't address the true political
questions appearing with each technology: who will control it and towards
which end? Obvously, discussing patents and interests of Venter and associates
(which happen to be... Exxon Mobile or BP...) should definitively be out of
the discussion scope, just like the irony of the way the try to surf the "bio-
ecologial" wave: "look ma, we're going to repair damages we've made and make
$$"

------
JoeAltmaier
Nature is inventing new bugs every day. Humans genetically craft new plants
and animals all the time, the old-fashioned way, by crossbreeding. Now we can
do it without random side-effects. It can actually be safer.

~~~
locopati
Random side-effects are a part of reality. It's dangerous to assume that
corporations deploying GM technology: a) have accounted for dangerous side-
effects, b) are concerned about anything beyond the bottom line.

For example, Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM technology leaks into the wild via
pollen such that Monsanto brings charges against farmers who didn't plant GM
grain because they are using Monsanto technology without paying fees to
Monsanto (<http://www.percyschmeiser.com/conflict.htm>).

And, for further consideration, Monsanto has had plans to develop seedless
technology so that the farmer would always have to buy their seeds from
Monsanto - what if that got into the wild?

This is one corporation. I don't see how we can monitor them all adequately to
prevent a colossal problem. And all it will take is one big mistake (see BP
and the Gulf of Mexico).

Still think the gain is worth the risk?

~~~
DanHulton
Wait, wait.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but how would "seedless technology"
get "into the wild?" I mean, wouldn't it be totally incapable of doing that,
by definition?

