GENTECH archive

[Index][Thread]

Re: orange high



On 13 Nov 98  11:47:04, you wrote:

>The cannabis gene in Florida oranges also set me thinking... I'd like
>to pose a question which I hope the knowledgeable on this list will
>have the patience to answer:
>
First let me make it clear that I do *not* consider myself amongst
those that may justly be called knowledgeable on this list as my field
of work is nuclear medicine and not genetic engineering.

I will however comment on your posting with a/my  personal opinion.

>If an evil mind had the typical facilities for making transgenic
>plants, what are, say, the three most evil things he can do?
>
The answer is simple (in my mind). I don't even need three guesses as
to " the three most evil things he can do". There can be only on "evil
thing".  MISUSE !

Knowledge is not evil in my humble opinion. The misuse of knowledge
however certainly is! To "know" how to apply GE technology and the
possibilities that follow is not wrong. HOW these possibilities are
applied however is a different matter.

In fact this has just brought to mind the lyrics of an old song
("Epitaph" by King Crimson) :

Between the iron gates of fate,
The seeds of time were sown,
And watered by the deeds of those
Who know and who are known;
Knowledge is a deadly friend
When no one sets the rules.
The fate of all mankind I see
Is in the hands of fools.

Confusion will be my epitaph.
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it we can all sit back and laugh.
But I fear tomorrow I'll be crying,

An example: To "correct" diseased genetic code and thus "cure"
thalasemia is not wrong. To create new species of plants by GE
tinkering wth the objective of increasing corporation profits (see
Monsanto - terminator gene / Roundup resistant soya etc) is evil.

Regarding the "orange high" , : I do not consider it the work of an
"evil mind". The reason for which Prof. Nanofsky created the
THC-containing oranges were very clear. To quote from the relative
article :

(Nanofsky) first set on a pet project that he hoped would "dissolve
irrational legislation with a solid dose of reason."

He neither exploited his creation for financial gain nor anything of
that sort.. He set out to make a point. Succeeded. And that was the
end of it.

To add another personal opinion regarding cannabis. Scientifically
speaking and from a medical point of view I will ask you this: 

Whatis it that makes the use of cannabis illegal when there are so
many far more toxic and certainly more (health) damaging but legal
substances being sold all over the world. I refer to two of the most
common ones, tobacco and alcohol. Both can and do kill but both are
legal.

I also refer you to an interestin Editorial titled  "Dangerous habits"
published in the latest issue of  The Lancet. It can me read at:

http://www.thelancet.com/newlancet/reg/issues/vol352no9140/body.editorial1565.html

Interesting reading....

>Roberto Verzola
>Alternate Member
>National Biosafety Committee
>   of the Philippines
>

Dr. Costas Giannakenas MD
Dept. of Nuclear Medicine
Reg. Univ. Hospital of Patras
26500 - Patras - -Greece
Email : cgian@med.upatras.gr  (OR)

PS: My apologies to all for this long(ish) posting. Saturday morning
and my mind is wandering down philosophical channels :-)



Follow-Ups: References: