Re: comments on an ad of the turnpoint project
- To: Herve.LEMEUR@math.u-psud.fr, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: comments on an ad of the turnpoint project
- From: "H J Deelstra" <H.J.Deelstra@bioledu.rug.nl>
- Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 13:25:55 MET
- In-reply-to: <199912151045.LAA17471@lan43.LANORS.MATUPS>
- Organization: RuG Onderwijs Biologie
- Priority: normal
- Resent-From: email@example.com
> >Well, everything I read about this subject stated that the mouse
> >was specially bred to lack an immune system. (This is a very
> >commonly used laboratory strain of mice).
> So do I.
> >Because 'nature is
> >involved' it wouldn't fall under your definition of genetic engineering.
> You mean GE cannot be when nature is involved ?
> For me, nature is involved also in pollution
> and I do not consider pollution as nature !
> Sorry, I've not understood your post.
Could you please provide me with your defenition of genetic
What on this mouse is genetically engineered? As far as I know
this mouse was created by repeated crossing (conventional
breeding) and not by modern GE techniques (hence 'the
intelligence of nature is involved' and persons like P. Ligotti would
not object to the resulting organism)