Gavin Ramsay quoth:
>Robt Mann comments on the the most powerful tool yet devised my man, DNA
>sequencing

        This ranking of tool powers I'd not heard of; how is it done?


> Furthermore, this would appear to inevitably
>lead to GM bees

        Now contrast that with what he says soon afterward:


>Genome sequencing has nothing to do with creating GM bees, and everything to
>do with understanding how bees work.

        No-one except Gavin had suggested bee-DNA sequencing would
"inevitably lead to GM bees", so he would appear to be contradicting
himself.


>we
>shouldn't go there in case the information encourages big business (lured by
>the prospects of making enormous fortunes from the beekeeping industry?!)
>into making GM bees?

        This is an argument nobody had advanced; but thanx for mentioning
it, because if we may judge by the behaviour of 'big business' so far wrt
GM-plants, what Gavin says intending irony should be taken on the level.


>I hadn't heard that someone wanted to sequence the bee genome, but if they
>do, and if they will permit wide use of that information, I applaud it.

        This is the first constructive remark from Gavin  -  and one which
I applaud.  Secret science compounds the difficulties inherent in GM, so
yes let's require from the start that any results be promptly pubd.  The
UK-USA 'public' human DNA sequencing has met this condition throughout; J
Celera Venter pointedly did not.
        But, while I agree with Gavin that any bee DNA sequences should be
published, I repeat there's no foreseeable good they could be used for.
Pure science they might be (tho' junk, as I've pointed out  -  with
dishonest oversimplification in the slogan The Big Four Rule OK); but
applied ?   not likely.


> OK then, here we are back to GM-bashing!

        Who was ever 'GM-bashing'??  A few of us have offered reasoning,
and suggested URLs; it is mischievous, and false, to call this
'GM-bashing'.  And, I would suggest, provocative; therefore I wonder
whether the moderators should let this sort of stuff onto our list.


> (Or just plain trolling?)

        I won't be the only one unfamiliar with this jargon.
        Again I appeal for discussion *on the level* regarding GM.  It is
too important to be treated as just an arena for slang & loose abuse.  Let
us say what we mean.


>  I thought that we were going to leave this topic alone.

        Since when?
        Let's keep clear who initiated what.  An anonymous contributor
brought up the idea of sequencing bee-DNA.  I responded by expressing an
opinion on the implication that this could do us good.  Sequencing is
intimately, irretrievably tied up with splicing synthetic genes into living
organisms, so bee-DNA sequencing deserves to be watched v carefully.  I
still see no reason to do it.

        BTW am I to believe that manners such as Gavin displayed from a
British address have actually jumped the Atlantic, or is he just a
transient in the Mother Country   ;-}

R