Thursday, July 5, 2012

Cisgenics and Tails Wagging Dogs

Imagine my joy when I realized that I had been cited in the latest piece of anti-GMO propaganda.

Right on page 20, first column!!  The section discusses cisgenic and intragenic technologies.  I've been reasonably vocal about these technologies in the past, mostly because by adopting them scientists almost accept and validate the incorrect opinion that there is something wrong with transgenic technology. This is the exact quotation lifted from the Biofortified website, as it appears in GMO Myths and Truths:

A couple of points.  I do find it delightful that they find my point valid.  Certainly it is the first time they have ever accepted any evidence, hypothesis, conclusion, idea or interpretation that I've offered.  For as long as I can remember I've been held up as a dupe of Monsanto, Pepsico, the Trilateral Commission or Black Rock that was not to be trusted.

Somehow they find credibility in my statement above. Hmm.

What is their goal?  They know that the public is much more accepting of an apple gene in an apple, a bean gene in a bean, etc.  The public gets a little hinkey when scientists put bacterial genes in plants or fish genes in fruits.  The agenda of "Myths and Truths" is to distort the truth about transgenics, then show that transgenic and cisgenic are the same thing.

Do I care?  No.  In my estimation the two processes are both safe, both effective and quite similar.  I stand firmly by my quotation.

The only other major issue is that cisgenic technology may enjoy a much easier time passing through regulatory processes.  After all, it is a gene from a species expressed within the same species.  That's what breeders do all the time.

In my little opinion I do not think cisgenics technologies would exist if there was no opposition to transgenic technology.  I don't think that any scientist would take the side track to more difficult engineering if it was not to appeal to public concerns or ease through regulation.

No comments: