My fellow scientist James 'supercollider' provides a useful sketch
of some aims of sequencing bee DNA. I add a few comments.
GM is considerably more complicated than even complex technology
such as nuclear power. If ever there was a policy whose technical basis is
unintelligible to most people, yet whose effects could harm them,
gene-manipulation is it. Gushing enthusiasm devoid of scientific basis
will not do - and should not be posted here, especially from non-members.
I have been startled to find that many of my few attempts to alert
beekeepers on this list to some main concerns about GM have been
suppressed. None of the moderators has declared freedom from vested
interest in the issue, which I happily declare again regarding myself.
Also worth repeating are the main sites http://www.ucsusa.org and
http://www.psrast.org/
James wrote:
> the basic point of the effort is only to use DNA sequences to speed
>identification of particular genes, as if this could supplant genetics as
>we know it.
Well-funded plant-breeder scientists are already using this
technique , termed 'marker-assisted selection', to speed development of
hybrids with high concentrations of particular compounds (Plant Breeding
News 118, 31.10.2000).
Here's a good summary:
CORN GENETICISTS ADVANCE USING BIOTECH TO
SPEED CLASSICAL PLANT BREEDING
September 12, 2001
USDA ARS News Service
Biotechnology, somewhat like the proverbial hare in its contest with
the tortoise, raced speedily to bring forth corn transformed with a
bacterial protein to resist insects. But now the new science is set
to help hasten traditionally slower classical plant breeding to develop
insect-resistant corn breeding lines, without the foreign genes.
For example, through 15 years of work, researchers developed corn
inbred line Mo47, which is renowned for its ability to resist both
first and second generations of the European corn borer. On U.S.
farms, European corn borers are responsible for annual damage and
control costs exceeding $1 billion.
Recently, Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists at Columbia,
Mo., and their University of Missouri colleagues, in three years, used
fast-paced biotechnological tools to find locations of DNA sequences
that confer borer resistance to Mo47. Soon corn geneticists, in a
process called marker-assisted selection, may use the information to
quickly develop improved insect-resistant corn from diverse genetic
resources.
Marker-assisted selection is a way of dealing with the fact that
typically, multiple genes govern a single trait of economic
importance. These genes' locations are called quantitative trait loci
(QTLs). In DNA marker-assisted selection, researchers conduct DNA
tests on corn breeding lines to find out whether they have the most
desired QTLs. Lines that do are used for breeding.
The scientists in Missouri found, on six chromosomes, nine QTLs
associated with Mo47's resistance to first-generation European corn
borer leaf feeding damage. The researchers also found seven QTLs for
resistance to second-generation borer stalk tunneling damage.
ARS geneticist Michael D. McMullen and collegaues in Missouri found,
on six chromosomes, nine QTLs associated with Mo47's resistance to
first-generation European corn borer leaf feeding damage. The
researchers also found seven QTLs for resistance to second-generation
borer stalk tunneling damage.
========
James wrote of this:
> This beats the heck out of current trait-testing
>methods, which are not far removed from those used by
>Gregor Mendel back in the 1800s.
>The value is in being able to SCREEN bees, and avoiding all the
>time-consuming testing one might otherwise be forced to endure.
'Nineteenth-century' does not equal 'inferior', let alone
'supplanted'. Effects of novel synthetic genes on phenotype still have to
be checked in real biology, rather than casually assumed from the Lego
model of biology invented by the gene-jockeys. Selection of organisms for
particular traits is, to an important extent, pegged to the time-scales of
real biology. If you think you've got a better organism, it will have to
be studied for a few generations.
But marker-assisted selection will indeed speed, to some
worthwhile extent, the identification of desirable lines of bee for testing.
>The point is to create a "map", and to locate the genes
>associated with various traits of interest. This has been
>done with the fruit fly (Drosophila), and the results have
>been impressive. Check out http://www.fruitfly.org to
>see just how much one can do with a well-understood
>genome.
I doubt many would see any accomplishments on the front page of
that site. Could we have a summary of how sequencing that fly DNA has
helped?
>The point of the effort is not to manipulate DNA. No one
>will be manipulating DNA to attempt to create a "Super Bee",
>a "Frankenstein Bee", or recreate any of the 1950s Japanese
>monster movies (which were clearly "B Movies").
Several C Movies are currently being run by Monsanto, Syngenta, etc.
>Cloning bees would take skills and equipment beyond the means of
>the typical bee breeder. Cloning is still at best a hit-and-miss undertaking
>even when attempted by well-funded experts. Most cloning attempts don't
>make it out of the petri dish.
That will not stop some enthusiasts from trying - as they have
done with cows, goats & sheep.
> Any commercial bee breeder that tried to
>clone his bees would quickly go bankrupt.
This constraint does not apply to J Celera Venter or hundreds of
other sequencing-enthusiasts.
When the BBC World Service interviewed me on the enormous
venture-capital bubble of DNA sequencing, I stated the 'human genome
project' is a vulgar con-trick. I stand by this condemnation. I see
little reason to feel any more confident of the honey-bee sequencing caper.
Nicholas Wade, one of the most experienced science
journalists, wrote in the New York Times 2y ago that nearly all GM
corporations had yet to win a dollar of revenue, let alone net a profit.
Stock-market ramps up into mid-air are the usual situation. I would be
glad to send details in RTF to anyone who requests direct.
>You can (and should!) support this effort, and you can do so without
>any fear of anything getting out of hand.
I cannot agree with this view, which I consider short-sighted.
Many hazards for bees would be entailed in anything like what has been
attempted so far with gene-manipulation of other animals.
> You haven't seen any giant
>teenage mutant ninja fruit flies buzzing around, and the fruit fly fellows
>are way, way ahead of us.
I agree profoundly that our distasteful subject cannot be long
discussed without adding some humour. However, I would discourage this
kind of slang. To postulate ridiculous scenarios, and then say they
haven't happened yet, is unhelpful.
Mark Chase et 99 proposed, 3y ago, that classification of the
flowering plants should no longer be on the geometry of the flowers but on
DNA sequences in non-coding parts of 3 particular genes. Not only children
but even you & I would be thus prevented from identifying flowering plants
by family in fieldwork. The lotus _Nelumbo nucifera_ was not closely
related to water-lilies as had always been thought - these Kew etc
experts announced by newspaper, and then in a respectable scientific
journal - but to the plane-trees of London.
It is disturbing for outsiders to glimpse the sudden, spectacular
degradations of science by the DNA-fanatics. Please don't blame the
messenger.
That is one glimpse of how the DNA fad has been spinning out of
control. I have yet to see how it can much help beekeeping; and I do not
doubt that some key operatives do, as James denies, intend to apply bee-DNA
sequencing to "improving" bees by inserting artificial genes. This has
been done to soybeans, cotton, potatoes, etc, and attempted with mammals;
why should we believe the power-crazed gene-jockeys will lay off the bees?
The last big NZ govt grant ($500,000) for varroa research went to a
researcher (in a commercial rather than govt-controlled) lab who has since
been speaking warmly if vaguely with beekeepers about his attraction to
gene-manipulation of bees. It is naive to suppose that only
marker-assisted selection will be attempted by such researchers. They
haven't read Genesis 3 lately, if ever. Can we expect better than personal
insults & suppression for those who say 'be afraid; be very afraid'? I
happen to have 3 decades experience saying to that effect about various
dangerous technologies, mainly within my little country; and I have never
been so worried as I am about GM.
R
|
