GENTECH archive


Re: The turning point project, archive 2364

Dear Rick,

>Doesn't the ad in fact state "This is an actual photo of a genetically
>engineered mouse with a human ear on its back."?


>If the ad had really honestly intended to recognise your distinction,
>wouldn't a more correct wording have been, "an actual photo of an ear grown
>from human cells on a mouse was genetically engineered" ?
>In fact, hasn't the photo caption been cleverly worded to remain arguably
>technically correct when challenged, but to persuade most readers to
>believe something else?

Yes, but the difference between the "reality" and the wording is much 
smaller than the one in ads from biotechs that claim GMO are strictly
identical to normal plants.
Do not you agree ?

Moreover, they often claim GMO are identical, because they are equivalent
and they are equivalent bvecause they are substantially equivalent ?

All three approximations  that should not be allowed to those who claim they
are Scientists who promote dialog without a priori.

>Isn't it true that in fact the ear isn't a human ear?

roughly false : it was an "ear grown from human cells"
as you say yourself !

>Isn't it true that contrary to the implication of the ad, the mouse was not
>created by a biotechnology company but by university researchers who do not
>intend to genetically engineer anything, but were looking for a new medical

YEAH !! and this proves (if it was still needed to prove it) that
university are in the very same job as biotechs ! I think public
scientists should  think of it before major troubles !

>Isn't it true that the mouse photo was used to create an emotional response
>among the readers even though it had nothing really to do with the text of
>the ad?

As true as any information : you have to strike and you have X $ and basta.

>Never mind the rest of the misleading statements in the ad.
>Herve, I can't believe that you are defending such sophistry.

Yet, I am.

Moreover, the use of this GM mouse for saying that we are looking for
cures to diseases is more misleading than the ad of turnpoint.

I've been said that gene therapy had provided very few improvement of
orphan diseases (translation of the french designation for rare diseases).
On the contrary, it has been very much used by the gene lobby to raise funds to 
conquer this new (brave) world  of genetics.

That's why I pretend that these arguments of therapies is VERY misleading
and the scientists who work in this field should recognize that they are 
utilitarized for the gene lobby to increase its power through  patents and so