GENTECH archive

[Index][Thread]

[Fwd: Re US FDA and turning point, archive 2386, 2387]





François Dubreuil a écrit :

> Well my comments include transforming animals in factories of human organs.
> They include the idea that better than producing genetic food for expanding
> population it would be better cheaper and less risky to try to curb the rate of
> expansion of that population. And it has been proven that sending girls to school
> was a very effective and cheap way to do so.
>
> I don't like the fact that in its present form genetic engineering works for more
> wealth and power concentration.
> I have explained this concentration works in 2 ways. First because patents allow to
> gather gene banks in one place create one "product" patent it in one place and sell
> it everywhere.
> Second because this concentration is further reinforced by the legitimate desire to
> control the risks of gene pollution that these technics imply. I have told you
> several times that though I have little objection to BT maize and other products, I
> resist the herbicid (defoliant) resistant species. These new plants may spread in
> the environment genes that give a very high selective advantage to plants that
> would like to grow in our fields. I don't believe Monsanto or anyone in the agro
> industrie as the financial ability to cover the damage that would be caused if new
> pests become resistant to their herbicid because of GE technology.
>
> I do believe that values are shaped outside of science but I m not at all reassured
> by this "not something that may appear in a foreseable future". There is no sign
> that in a foreseable future the scienttific community may agree to a form of self
> control.
>
> I understand that as a scientific you may fear any form of control over your right
> to search, but I can tell you that there is very little chance that people will let
> scientist have an open agenda in trying to know the knowledge that many of us would
> prefer not to know.
>
> TO me science here is forcing us to manage a knowledge we have not asked for, it is
> the same as a man showing his penis to a little girl or to leave this image of
> immaturity as if someone is telling you the man you are about to hire is gay and
> has aids. You did not want to know it, now you know it may blur your judgement.
>
> as far as science and violence I can assure you that science with its cold scalpel
> in itself is violent especially towards any other form of outlook on life and
> towards all the myths we may cherish andwhich structure our life.
>
> The idea that I may have a patent on say a genetic resistance to a disease that has
> been paid by thousands of life and that I will not have to retribute those I stole
> the information from or at such a low price this challenge my values if you want to
> know.
>
> Rick Roush a écrit :
>
> > >Herve wrote:
> > >you wrote about the turnpoint ad :
> > >>(1) The FDA has not been forced to claim anything.
> > >
> > >Then it is more serious and we can even not forgive. have a look at
> > >http://www.gene.ch:80/gentech/1999/May-Jun/msg00333.html.
> >
> > What Ligotti doesn't mention in this web posting (but is shown in Chemical
> > and Engineering News from 13 December) is that the letters and memos that
> > are reported to show dissension in the FDA are now at least 7 years old and
> > come from the early days of the agency sorting out what it would do.  Do
> > you still believe everything that you believed 7 years ago?  Perhaps you
> > do, but most people are prepared to change their minds as new evidence
> > emerges, as has happened for the GMO crop registrations.  In the
> > mid-1970's, virtually all geneticists agreed that genetic engineering had
> > risks and instituted the now famous Asilomar moratorium. Within a few
> > years, with the benefit of more information, it was agreed that the risks
> > were over-rated, and now almost no geneticists would argue that the vast
> > majority of experiments banned in 1975 are risky.
> >
> > >Do not you acknowledge that microbiology has already done
> > >such chimeras ?
> >
> > Rick replies: No
> >
> > >>Rick wrote:
> > >>How do we begin to quantify the size or weight of a lie to judge which are
> > >>ok and which aren't?
> > >
> > >>Herve wrote:
> > >The prototype of the error of the scientist. When I say two things are
> > >different, I donot claim that the difference may be measurable.
> >
> > Rick replies:
> > And how then can you say objectively that one is greater than the other?  I
> > suffer from the desire of scientists to be objective, but I don't find that
> > to be an error.
> >
> > Herve wrote
> > >I won't answer more on this point. If you do not understand, re-read my
> > >e-mails or ask to some friend to explain to you. this point was clear in my
> > >first post.
> >
> > Rick replies:  I think I understand you very clearly.  I just don't believe it.
> >
> > >Herve wrote:
> > >Moreover, please stop refering to french. Science
> > >works on a reductionnist model also in france OK. I have never thought that
> > >the fact that I was french could make this right for me !
> >
> > Rick replies: Sorry, Herve, this was not meant to be negative. It simply
> > occurred to me that the first example that came to mind was Pasteur, in a
> > brilliant piece of work, and struck me as a coincidence that I was writing
> > to France.
> >
> > >Herve wrote:
> > >Once again, I hate biotechs not specially because they are american,
> > >but for the principle.
> > >By the way, biotech are as much european (and also french) as american.
> > >Does it convince you that I'm not fighting against americans  but for a
> > >principle ?
> >
> > Herve: I am struck less by whether you see this as American or not, but
> > that you "hate" biotech.  I am convinced that for you, and I suspect many
> > others on this list, this is an emotional reaction, and not objective.
> >
> > Rick continues:
> >
> > I thank François Dubreuil for complimenting my ability to stay calm in all
> > this.
> >
> > François, I believe that you are at least partly correct in arguing that
> > the real objection to genetic engineering  comes from the fact that it
> > is presented as a progress and yet appears to many as leading no where.
> > Still, I am alarmed by the suggestion "what is our world going to look like
> > if we keep on letting scientists freely investigate it ?"  How would you
> > stop investigation?  We have had despots try in the past, to no good end.
> > People, whether we call them scientists or not, are intensely curious.
> >
> > I will defend some GE crops, but share the same reservations as most or all
> > people on this list about  genetically enhancing humans, and I suspect the
> > vast majority of scientists would agree with us.  Fortunately, anything
> > beyond a modest ability to cure some diseases lies beyond anyone's
> > forseeable technical
> > abilities.
> >
> > However, I don't believe that scientific progress is challenging the very
> > values we have. I see it our students. Their values are shaped by their
> > families and friends, not by science. Science will continue to operate
> > within those values, and legislation will insure that no renegade
> > scientists will differ from this path. Violence on film and print,
> > especially towards women, is far more a threat to values than science.
> >
> > Rick
> >
> > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > The address for any administrative command like unsubscribe,
> > subscribe or help is:
> >
> >               GENTECH-REQUEST@gen.free.de
> >
> > The searchable WWW list archive is available at
> >
> >               http://www.gene.ch/archives.html