Over the years I have been breeding plants and I have been praised and cursed for it by others. I enjoy true species and hope to keep them pure and safe in nature and in collections. But for me unable to collect new species and rare plants the next best thing was to breed plants that I was after or interested in. In doing so I have breed some very interesting things that have served the purposes I was looking for. I don't think of myself as a person who creates plants, or as one person put it that I am playing god. I looked at it more like a dating service for plants that I provided. It's hard for some people to grasp but plants are dyeing to have sex and in doing so many can interbreed with others. It happen in some cases naturally and if the hybrid is around for a few thousand or million years is most likely looked on as a new species.
Now for gene modification or genetically engineered plants and animals. The main thing with this that does not settle well with me is that it is unnatural. A jellyfish or human could never pass their genes onto a plant naturally. In breeding if the cross is not possible the hybrid seedlings will not form their genes will just not work with each other and it causes an abortion of the cross. Sometimes producing berries that hold no seed.
In gene modification the specific gene or genes are forced into the cells of the plant. In on case I though truly interesting the gene taken from a fire fly was put into a orchid. The orchid grew up normally but would glow in the dark and produced a light glowing look in the leaves the flowers and the roots. Their has been tons of other genetically mortified plants and animals other than this but as far as I know this was the first ornamentally made plant. The potential for future plants really could be amazing things like truly hardy possibly ever green tropical plants. Imagine if all the grass would glow in the dark. Resistance to bug disease and the possibilities are really endless. On the other hand many of these modified genes can be transferred through sex. So if you modify one plant or animal and it breeds with another this trait can be passed on and on.
All in all I think in the near future our plants may start having a completely different look that we may not be use to or prepared for. I sure their are people completely opposed of scientist messing with nature this way and people who can see the good in their work. I am on the fence on this on and I am not sure if any one person will really have much control over what will happen either way. It the technology is their someone will mess with it.
So would be interesting to see what others thing of this. I read a article today on how scientist were planning to modify a plant that will glow blue to green and survive on Mars. To help pave the way for humans. This stuff sounds science fiction but it maybe closer than we thing.
Plant breeding and Gene modification
The Sci/Fi factor is indeed interesting,however the main objective for companies,like Monsanto, is to eliminate "public domain".
I'm not a huge fan of messing with nature like that--we never seem to really understand the consequences of the things we do until many years later, and often the consequences turn out to be bad. If the modified genes couldn't be accidentally passed on, then maybe it would just be a neat cool thing to have glow in the dark orchids, but since they can be passed on, the next thing you know all our food crops will be glowing in the dark and then they'll discover that glow in the dark things cause cancer or something like that. I'm all for hybridizing to make pretty new plants, but I don't like the idea of sticking animal genes into plants, I think it'll cause trouble down the road in some way that they don't anticipate.
I hesitate to comment here.....but I will. I work in this field, I in fact work in transgenics as a graduate student. I am very familiar with the luciferase gene, originally isolated from fireflies and now used as a molecular and cellular marker in genetic research everyday. I work with another marker as well called green fluorescent protein, originally isolated from jellyfish. These are extremely useful in research settings and have allowed the abandonment of more dangerous protocols such as those that use radioactivity. For this I am thankful.
My work is in animals, and we are looking to create large animal models for disease research. Such manipulations such as glowing fish and orchids in my opinion is ridiculous and degrades true research. Unfortunately it also makes money and private companies will do what it takes in order to get more dollars. Please don't mix up important academic research with these 'inventions'.
As with all research there are great possibilities with transgenics, and there are also a lot of questions to be answered. I can only hope that those who work in these fields do so responsibly. If anyone has any questions, please feel free to ask. I am by no means an expert but I can help.
:) Kim
Brian,
I have been watching this field for years now. As much as anything, to me these "easy" modifications feel like cheating. Your work is honest and time-honored. It is as much art as science. Your personal aesthetics shape the result of your work, and because you have performed the cross-polination, raised the plant embryos/done the tissue culture yourself, you have earned your results in a way that would be familiar with the great great great grandfather of your work, Gregor Mendel.
On the other hand, someone coating gold particles with snippets of DNA from a completely unrelated organism and firing them into germ cells is cold, inorganic, violent even, and disconnected from any relationship to feeling, or art. As Kim points out, the stunts done in the name of invention, the odd colored fish, the glowing bunny, these are parlor tricks. Some of these parlor tricks may find their way into our ornamental plants, but I for one prefer plants that arise from the time-honored traditions.
As for staple plants, the work being done to create plants that manufacture vaccines http://www.monsanto.co.uk/news/ukshowlib.phtml?uid=9668 , http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/359A8F3A-FBA2-4F1C-AB3E-39D04E84C375/ , plants that manufacture medications http://www.biotech-weblog.com/50226711/monoclonal_antibodies_against_cancer_from_genetically_engineered_tobacco.php , that have highly enhanced nutritional benefit http://www.goldenrice.org/ , that can tolerate extreme environments http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov02/trehalose_stress.hrs.html , these don't hit the headlines the same way as engineered photogenic sideshow freak flowers, but they are of much more importance, and at least in my mind they help demonstrate the true value of this science.
Brian, although I'm certain you do good solid horticultural science (I'm one of many groupies -- I always read your posts in here,) I see you as more of an artist in the way you shape the plants you help bring into being. I respect you far more than I respect someone who can make a Glofish http://www.glofish.com/ .
-Joe
Joe I thank you for your flattering comments on my breeding and work. For some reason breeding plants seems to be what I was ment to do. I am not sure how to explain it other than that. From the first time I had a understanding of how breeding and hybridizing plants worked I have become completely fascinated with it.
Now this new science has come along and in away I am drawn to look into it. It seems to work in similar ways but on a very extreme measure. As one person put it breeding plants is like finding to compatible mates who are willing to breed. Then compared this science as forced breeding were they never would mate naturally and are forced to combine, their exact words was rape.
I have to say I am one of these people who would buy a glow in the dark plant not to mention the fish out of pure curiosity. This technology is very powerful Amazing and Absolutely scary. I just don't believe most people are aware of what this technology really is. I am not sure if I have completely grasped what it is. Having the ability to manipulate organisms so dramatically just seems unbelievable. I am not sure if the good will out way the bad yet. I am sure we will find out soon as this field seems to be growing extremely fast. I am just wondering how far it will go. I just recently read were a mouse had been modified with the genes of a chicken and human. I am amazed at how easy it seems this can be done.
As interesting as this science is, I hardly think we'll be seeing glow in the dark lettuce or broccoli on the produce shelves anytime soon.
Man is greedy by nature, and given the advances of technology today, there is always going to be someone who will want to capitalize on the good AND bad of experimentation. Man always finds a way to abusive everything.
Maybe the lyrics of "Lucy in the sky with diamonds" aren't so far fteched after all.
I wholeheartedly agree with Joe.....I highly respect people such as yourself Brian that take the time to implement breeding programs and who work hard on it. Thank you for your efforts and contributions. Your plants are gorgeous, and nothing substitutes genuine hard work.
Actually, making a glowing fish isn't that hard....I make glowing cells all the time! Of course for research purposes, the glowing tells me that the cells are expressing another gene that I am working with. It is still cool though, I always like to look at them. The coolest thing I've ever done was work with muscle cells that will differentiate into tubes in culture and twitch. I had green twitching tubes....that had a high gee-whiz factor. But these are all done in a research context.
And here is something to make you think......everyone who takes a cutting from a plant and propagates it to make another plant....you are cloning!
But seriously, Brian...you are absolutely right, it can be scary. Unfortunately I think a lot of people out there think only about whether they can do these things rather than IF they should.
:) Kim
Having been doing aroid breeding since the late 1970s, this field is very familiar to me. I can't tell you how many science fiction stories I've read where one of the ideas involved genetic manipulation of the transgenic kind. Like it or not, that technology is here and will be showing up in the market.
Actually, I believe that anything that can be done successfully in a lab is probably happening in nature already in some manner or form. How can I say that about transgenics? Well, when a bacteriophage injects a piece of foreign viral DNA into a bacterium, that is a natural analogue to someone in a lab firing a piece of genetic material into a cell. Bacteriophages are fascinating, almost like little transgenic machines, but not man-made. Check this link; scroll down a little and watch the animation:
http://www.microbiologybytes.com/virology/Phages.html
The bacteriophage method is just so much more elegant and, of course, natural. The day will come when the genetic artists of today, like Brian and myself, will be able to use something like a bacteriophage to put DNA from one plant cell into another plant cell. I, myself, would like a red flowered Spathiphyllum, or a variegated orange-leaved Philodendron selloum. I have other ideas about what I'd produce; ask Brian, I've shown him!
LariAnn Garner
Folks, this technology is a bit farther along than I thought! Seems you can contract with a company to build a custom gene delivery vector for your use in research. For example, I could have them make a special one to deliver the gene or genes of my choice to cells in a TC line I might already have established in my lab. This is without any firing of DNA into cells. Check it out:
http://lentigen.com/technology/vectors
What is a little scary is that this technology is based on the HIV-1 viral envelope. Sound familiar? Makes you wonder if in the early days someone made one with a gene to deactivate the human immune system, and then it got away from them . . .
LariAnn
I'm not sure they would sell it to people for use for plants, it sounds like it's more for things like drug development, etc. If you read the safety page, you're supposed to only work with it in a biosafety level 2 lab, and I'm guessing most TC labs aren't at that level. So I wouldn't mess with it.
I've just contacted the company to see if in fact they do make vectors for plant research. I will report what they tell me. BTW, they have stock vectors for the luciferase bioluminescence gene and for several other fluorescent reporter proteins, including green, red, and yellow! You can obtain them "off the shelf" for $299 to $349 each!
The glow in the dark orchid, it seems, is nothing more than one of the outer bands in a coming storm.
LariAnn
Beyond the gee whiz factor, transgenics will be how we produce a true blue rose. There are areas where the science will impact us directly, in the short term.
LariAnn brings up an good point about viral vectors. Human beings have an enormous amount of DNA from viruses and bacteria in our genome http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/07/science/07virus.html . Every time we're infected by a virus (a small machine-like piece of life that injects its DNA or RNA into our cells, essentially hijacking the metabolism of a cell to form copies of itself) some snippets may be left behind. If the virus infects a germ cell in human gonads, those snippets can be passed on to offspring, and become part of the greater human genome.
My understanding is that the process can work both ways, that occasionally a viral vector may pick up an odd, small gene from its host. If copies containing this gene are passed on to a host of a different species, we get things like bird flu, http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ops/hsc-scen-3_bird-flu.htm . We can also get gene transfer via viral vectors (lots of V's there) between completely separate species.
Nature does it already, but nature has made the process difficult. We're making it easy. An example of where this technology, if implemented hastily, can get out of control is StarLink, http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/issues/starlink.html . Unfortunately with this process becoming so common and so easy to do it's no longer a question of whether or not Frankenplants (or critters) arise, it's only a matter of time. I personally believe that if a thing is possible, someone somewhere will do it, just for the sake of doing it.
This is where a sensible middle ground comes in. On one side we have the folks who are having hysterical fits about any type of genetic modification (what would they think if they knew we do GM all the time, with chemicals like colchicine, especially in the ornamental plant trade. As someone else pointed out, we *clone* too!!!) On the other side we have showboating artists making green glowing bunnies. The path to be charted lies towards the center, between the opposing sides, with morals and values used to balance the true worth of the experiments against their potential impact to our world, and to the created organism, and with plenty of precautions taken to contain the results.
It's a great big bright and scary future in store for us, and it's just around the corner. My bet is it will not be as bad as our worst fears, nor as good as our best hopes, but somewhere in between. That's also my hope.
-Joe
P.S. Somewhere along the line, art will come into play. That's when we'll start seeing beautiful, original created organisms (plants) that fill specific niches in the modern garden that nature has been slow to accomodate, the glowing plants, the everblooming brightly-colored fragrant plants, -30F hardy "tropicals", edible plants with new flavors, new nutritional value, and new growing habits, etc.
Yes....these vectors are already out there. I use them every day in my research. The most popular method now for integrating genes is through the use of viral vectors. This is what I do for my graduate research. In my case it is a lentiviral vector, not an HIV-based retroviral one, but it does the same basic thing. It allows the gene of interest to be integrated into the host genome. These vectors are specifically designed to be non-replicative, that is they cannot replicate the virus they come from on their own. They can only replicate and become infective if transfected into the cell with other vectors carrying the packaging genes that they are lacking. Then the virus is harvested from these cells and used to infect other cells. It can infect and integrate the DNA, but cannot use the host to replicate it's genome, so the gene gets integrated and nothing more. This is getting a bit high-tech probably for most people here.....sorry. There is quite a bit of controversy with their use right now in mammalian research because of the fear that these viruses will somehow find a way to replicate without these necessary genes. Although doubtful, I never underestimate nature so I think the concern is a valid one. That is why so much research is being done right now.
Yes, you would need to have an approved BL2 lab in order to work with these, and I don't recommend doing so unless you have proper training. These viruses, if handled improperly, can infect you when they are replicating. Since there is no way of knowing where the gene will be integrated into the genome, this could have serious health effects. I do not know your expertise in this area but if you have never done anything with viral vectors, I strongly suggest training prior to ordering anything. You would also need the other proper packaging vectors and cells in order to make infective virus.
yes, there are a ton of biotech companies out there trying to make researchers lives a bit easier by custom making vectors, but at a price. Most of us cannot afford that and go about making them ourselves. As I said before, I do this everyday. But with the goal of making animal models for disease, not high-tech fluorescent plants or animals.
Kim
LariAnn and Blue_eyes, it's good to have your knowledge and experience in here contributing to this discussion! I'm reminded how diverse we the users of DG are!
:)
-Joe
DESIGN YOUR OWN LENTIVIRAL VECTOR NOW!??!?! Wow. A convenient online form.
That is one of the more alarming things I have seen lately. I realize this is limited. Still.
-Joe
...Biological warfare testing comes to mind on the HV-1 comment. Oops! Sorry human race.. (we'll just tell them (us) it was monkies and homosexuals). Honestly, I CAN and will live without a glowing orchid. Or an orange variegated philo if we're injecting lightening bugs to get one(sorry LariAnn), but I can buy Prince of Orange philo, not variegated but orange, no crossing of Species there.. I like weird unique plants, but I won't support something that could have an adverse impact on the world without conclusive studies. Global warming would certainly be a factor. I don't think that a study of the ultimate ecological affect would be or even could ever be conclusive.. for one, we seem to have these "accidents" (HV-1 that we know about) .. How do you factor that in? It's impossible. If it's done naturally, mammal or insects cross breeding with plants, without the help of human minds or hands, it would occur gradually, something as gradual as evolution of reptiles from water to land or vice versa. I say leave it plant to plant. Human to human. Mammal to Mammal. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it and more. Brings to mind Little Shop of Horrors. Feed me, Feed me! Anybody working on a talking plant? (There's a spider mite on my 4th leaf from the top on the east side, AuntB - get it off!)
Well, all of my ideas for new plants involve plant to plant genetics, not mixing animals and plants. I remember one of the first studies I read about that involved genetic tampering was an attempt to fuse a mouse nucleus with a human nucleus within one cell. It worked, but as each generation of cells was produced, most of the human genetic material was lost in the shuffle so in the end, there was not what I would call a true mouse-human hybrid at all. The mouse cells simply had one to several human chromosomes, but that's all. As far as I know, a mouse was never produced from any of these cells.
Here's a link for the technically-minded:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=392452
Here's another one that might be a bit scary:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E5DA1738F934A15752C1A9649C8B63
Of course, that was very early work and there is no telling what secret labs might have been up to since then. I would think that if some kind of bizarre success was achieved, it would end up being placed under the "national security" cover of silence and none of us will ever know unless one of the beasts escapes some day.
As for me, I'm still wielding my pollen brush and growing on seeds produced the old fashioned way!
LariAnn
Ah! That's what I'm talkin' about! I suspect there are things going on that we will never know, or at least know the truth about. That is scary. I'm going back to the garden... it's peaceful there. I too, appreciate the diverse group we have here in DG - thx everybody!
Bring on the 4 legged chicken! I'm starvin...
Seriously though thinking of my impending doom... i read somewhere about a huge meteor heading this way in 30 years!
Does anyone know about this?
Mike
Did I read, "4 legged chicken"? Check out "Animal 57" at this link:
http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/media/kfc.html
At least I'm a vegetarian!
LariAnn
I used to be a veggie... i needed a job when in college so hey Mcd's takes on Veggies so there i go... then whoops it smelt so good! lol
Anyway about this meteor.. anyone know about it?
Mike
There is an asteroid that's going to pass pretty close (but not too dangerously close based on current predictions) sometime in the not too distant future (next 10-20 yrs?). Then a decade or so later, the same asteroid will pass by earth again, and depending on how our gravitational pull affects its course the first time it comes by, it might be in a position to hit us the 2nd time around. I'm not sure on the exact dates for the two passes, if you do some googling for near earth objects and asteroids you'll probably find some info. Anyway I know the first time it comes by there's not supposed to be too much chance of it hitting us (but it's supposed to get close enough that it'll be between the earth and the moon, and to me that sounds a little too close for comfort!)
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/ . You're talking about Apophis, 2004 MN4. On the Torino scale of 0 - 10, 0 being "nothing to see here, move along" and 10 being "spend the kids' college fund, max out the third mortgage, tell off your boss and the in-laws, rent a Lambhorghini, and throw a big party" Apophis is a 0. Knowing that, Apophis is at the *top* of the list of damaging impact risks, but its cumulative chances are 1 in 45,000.
http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm will give you comparable odds for other deaths. I'm more likely to die under the wheel of a crazed Amish-man wrecklessly operating his buggy than we are of even being *hit* by this rock. :) I'd go to Amish country tomorrow for any good reason.
Besides which, it's only 250 meters wide. It would only ruin someone's day if it fell within a kilometer or two of them. Even an ocean impact would make a negligible wave. :)
-Joe
Now the Torino scale hits my laguage button! lol
I'm sure the story i heard it was bigger and a definate hit! The news can over exagerate stuff sometimes though. It didn't give much details as it was into the fact that an english company was making something for the rocket thats was going to check it out in 10 years!
Like thats the story im in to!
Anyway about these chickens..... i'm still hungry.
I could pick up some chickens over in Amish country, assuming I don't get run over. Bring along zome Heinz Pickle, I'll throw in some sweet corn, we'll have a barbequeue. :)
Here's a fun site for anyone interested in doomsday by impact http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects . Man did this thread get off topic. :(
-Joe
I agree, joegee! Brian! Brian? Did you see where you're thread has gone to the chickens?
Gone to the dogs! Well chicken doesn't taste like dog i can honestly tell you that!
I knew I was going to hear some strange feed back from this thread but never expected the chickens and doomsday asteroids combined with glowing plants. This is by far the most scifi post I have been apart of LOL.
Speaking of sci-fi, did y'all know that the Reptilians of Orion are quite fond of humans? The word is that we taste like chicken!
This message was edited Oct 4, 2007 7:27 PM
LOL, maybe not so chickeny if WE were growing a mouse ear... It is a sensitive issue, (your original post, Brian) and maybe it's just "natural" (no pun intended) that we lighten the subject. It is food for serious contemplation, and that doesn't taste like chicken!
I heard from someone once that human tastes simliar to crocidile meat. I suppose it depends what cuts we are having. Also the age of the meat and if its been cooked properly or just over a camping stove!
Does anyone know of a good cook book..lol
I would love to sell glowing plants...
Larousse Gastronomique goes as far as squirrels. The cooking method is similar (they say) to rats. I decline the taste testing.
You know, the topic would have been science fiction up until the mid 90's. To me it seems natural that its discussion would still stimulate flights of fancy.
Back on topic, to me to engineer or not to engineer boils down to ethics. Where ethics cannot be trusted to prevent hazardous experimentation, in my mind international treaties and international agencies set up to enforce them need to come into play. This technology, along with true nanotechnology (nano- as a suffix is overapplied) is as potentially damaging to the planet as is the misapplication of atomic energy. We have the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to oversee international nuclear energy programs. Perhaps we need an International Bioengineering Agency, created by treaty, to oversee international genetic experiments?
Not to be too much of an alarmist, but the scary thing, for me, is that the cat is already out of the bag. This technology has proliferated in ways that far exceed atomic proliferation. We're playing catch-up. There are countries that will never be able to split an atom as a weapon, but have far fewer restrictions than those in the west that have no problem allowing experiments to take place that could produce uncurable plagues, or would horrify the average westerner. Far worse than human cloning, imagine a created human subspecies, maybe a true humanzee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanzee , with reduced intellectual capacity, increased strength, and a strong will to obey, as a slave race.
The future of this science, for me, is far scarier than palm trees glowing cheerfully through an Ohio blizzard. We're likely to see its impact first in medicine, in the plant and pet trades, but it will eventually touch us profoundly as a species when we can do more than reliably change plants and animals and cure our own genetic diseases, we can tamper with our own biology.
And there's no re-winding the tape. The rudimentary technology is in place, and it is being advanced worldwide.
-Joe