| | 23.07.2002 02:31
go for it
| | haha | vedg - 23.07.2002 16:08
Supercool!
| | Verstand van actievoerders? | Mark Metzelaar - 23.07.2002 22:34
Prachtig dat er actie gevoerd wordt tegen ongewenste effecten van bepaalde ontwikkelingen in wetenschap en techniek.
Het technisch en wetenschappelijk niveau waarop actie wordt gevoerd, komt op mij nogal onder de maat over.
Genetische manipulatie kan op een positieve wijze gebruikt worden, net als dat op een negatieve wijze gebruikt kan worden.
Veelal wordt er een soort propagandische hetzeterm van gemaakt dat genetische manipulatie slecht is.
Via soortgelijke manipulatie hebben wij onze graansoorten die multploide zijn en het voor de mens mogelijk maken om graan te verbouwen en te eten zonder extreem hoge kosten en effectiever gebruik van landbouwgrond en andere productiemiddelen.
Ik kan zo tal van zaken opnoemen waarbij genetische manipulatie tot gezondere producten voor de bevolking kan leiden, zonder duidelijke negatieve effecten voor het milieu.
Verzoek dan ook aan actievoerend Nederland om te stoppen met deze leugenachtige propagandistische actievoering.
Reageer aub vooral inhoudelijk op HOE er genetische manipulatie plaatsvindt en hoe de methode per geval wel of niet gewenst is en hoe het beter kan.
Groeten, Mark
| | wetenschappelijk niveau | Clara - 23.07.2002 23:50
Dear Mark,
I am not sure what kind of scientific debate you want, but if you look at the debates about science and technology, and especially about biotechnology and genetic engineering you will see that these debates are on several scientific and interdisciplinary levels.
There are environmental and feminist science critics, there are environmental, agricultural and socio-economic debates about agriculture and agricultural research, there are numerous debate about food prodcution and the best way to deal with hunger, there are discussions about medical research and about reproduction technologies.
There are purely scientific debates in the scientific community, grass roots organisations, farmers-scientist networks, and UN-organisations, to name just a few, and they take place both internationally and within the Netherlands, and they have so for about 15 years now.
However I got the impression that you might have missed most of this, and I cannot cover all of this for you in one go here, but if you have a look at the websites of the different organistions in the Netherlands, you will find the debates you are apparently looking for.
Unfortunately I have to disappoint you in your belief that there are numerous examples for healthier food through genetic manipulation. So far nearly all GMOs for plants and fish are for a more efficient industrialised farming. There a _no_ GMOs for healthier food, and the experiences show that there are nearly no positive effects for the environment, especially the well promoted herbicide resistant crops tend to need higher amounts of herbicides, and certainly more than organic farming.
On the other hand the effects on biodiversity and agro-biodiversity for example are so negative that especially African countries take a lot of political measures keep GMOs out of their countries.
Together with potential negative health effects, this led countries like Zambia and Zimbabwe to refuse GM crops offered to them by the USA as food aid - and the political and scientific levels of international conferences (not at least the one on biodiversity and biosafety in Den Haag in April) show that those politicians taking these hard decisions know what they are talking about.
| | reactie op clara | Mark Metzelaar - 24.07.2002 22:51
Hello Clara,
I'm aware of negative effects of biotechnology.
Especially industry can use them in inproprer ways, if there not discussed by consumer organisations.
But genetic engineering also can be used for healthy omega-6 (fishy) oils in vegatable crops.
This is only one example.
In the case of modified soja, if the slightly hazardous compound is only in the skin, you can peel it of and no problem at all, even not for potentially sensitive/allergic people. Ofcourse one also has to think about the possible effects on ecosystems around the crops and methods to save them if neccesary.
Many people use genetic engineering as something bad, but genetic engineering itself isn't.
The way it is used can be (and many times in practie is) bad, as its used by compagnies only interested in their profits.
With some influance from consumer and other organisations, the genetic engineering could be used in a proper way.
Regards, Mark
| | some influence from consumers... | Clara - 25.07.2002 00:17
Dear Mark,
good that you are interested in genetic engineering, but your view on the power structures is a bit too naive for this debate.
Consumer and environmental have been trying to get appropriate influence for the last 15 years, and if you look at the actual world politics on genetic engineering you will find that even the influence of some 150 countries is not often enough.
Just to give you two very short examples: The USA are refusing to sign the Convention on Biological Diversity and thereby also the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, that regulates the trade with GMOs and for example the documentaion on GMOs that an importing country can ask for.
Within the USA, there is no labelling on any GM products, given consumers not even a chance to know what they are buying.
Europe is meanwhile still trying to uphold a de-facto moratorium against the introduction of new commercial GMOs in Europe, but chances are high that the new Dutch Government will go against it.
And a last one: it has now been confiremed, that in Mexico, in one of the centres of origin of maize, wild maize has been contaminated with GM maize, probalby from food imports.
Maybe you can start information like from
 http://www.greenpeace.org
They have some pieces for beginners on the topic.
Good luck with it.
| | Re: influence from customers | Mark Metzelaar - 26.07.2002 18:20
Yes, I'm aware of that, and you're right.
In a country like the Netherlands, universities could be reached for other than pure commercial reasons.
They even have budgets for pure scientific research without any practical purpose, so why not for this?
But the Dutch consumerorganisation "consumentenbond" had their time in the '70-ties and lost their spirit quite a long time ago.
And some actiongroups only saying that the genetic engineering itself is bad.
But in my opinion the powers behind are often bad.
A positive power could be strong consumer- and environmetal-organisations, that talk about the ways genetic engineering can be used in a proper way for both consumer and environment.
For the USA, I'm sure you're right: the company power is high overthere.
All the best, Mark
| | dear clara, | laurens - 28.07.2002 22:51
good that you are interested in genetic engineering, but your view on NGO's is a bit too naive for this debate. Please check some non-subjective sites/BOOKS about the subject. (clicking links on the greenpeace-site will not lead to objective information). Mark's vision on the subject is that of people not blinded by ideology.
Be not against it, question it!
(a kitchen-knife can be used to kill, we don't ban knifes...)
A mistake often made is that of GENERALIZATION.
| | @laurens | clara - 28.07.2002 23:51
I wasn't rying to give the best objective information, but something easy accesible for beginners on the subject.
For my view on NGOs and their possible impact on genetic engineering: having been engaged on the topic for more than 12 years now both as a scientist, but especially as member of NGOs on that issue, I know quite well were the areas where consumers and environmental orgnaisation can have an impact.
NGOs worldwide have been discussing all of those issues and still are discussion those issues and alternatives.
However, after years of questioning, I suppose one has the right to come to a position in favour or against it.
| |
Website: