The GMO argument like so many things now seems to be divided into "Best thing since sliced bread" or "Bringer of the end of the world" camps. Not understanding the deep details I would like to see more nuanced debate. What are the actual and potential risk, and what are the actual and potential benefits.
On the risk side, GMO proponents like to argue that the technology is safe because we haven't found any ill effects. But what they are really saying is that we haven't found any so far. I remember studying genetics and being told about junk DNA, even Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA’s double-helical structure, suspected it was “little better than junk.” Since then this opinion has changed. We find out new things about DNA all the time, it is now thought that previous generations experiences can change decedents. Reading the recent articles about Chinese scientists using CRISPR to modifying embryos they started with 86, 71 survived, and 28 were successfully spliced, not really a precise operation. With this in mind I find anyone who says there is no risk is not being intellectually honest. The question that comes up is what are the chances that we are Marie Curie working with something that ultimately harms us?
In terms of assessing benefits I like to take the example of X-ray technology. From the 1920s to the 1970s a machine known as a shoe-fitting fluoroscope was used to see if shoes fit feet (especially children's feet). With the growing understanding of the harmful effects of radiation these machines were phased out, although never banned. That doesn't mean we don't x-ray people, we do, if you break a bone or go to the dentist the benefit of diagnosing the injury or cavity is considered to outweigh the damage from the radiation. For people in Western nations with plentiful food supplies the macro scale benefits of GMO seem limited, we weren't starving to death or going blind before GMOs. However if my family and friends were going blind due to Vitamin A deficiency the benefits would weigh more heavily on my opinion.
I don't claim to be an expert in this area but am interested in being provided with a more neutral analysis to help me form an opinion.
The inventor, David Hall, is an interesting guy. He started off making subwoofers and among other things he invented the 3D Lidar system used by the winners (and second place) of the DARPA Urban Challenge. Also used in the Google self driving car.
On the risk side, GMO proponents like to argue that the technology is safe because we haven't found any ill effects. But what they are really saying is that we haven't found any so far. I remember studying genetics and being told about junk DNA, even Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA’s double-helical structure, suspected it was “little better than junk.” Since then this opinion has changed. We find out new things about DNA all the time, it is now thought that previous generations experiences can change decedents. Reading the recent articles about Chinese scientists using CRISPR to modifying embryos they started with 86, 71 survived, and 28 were successfully spliced, not really a precise operation. With this in mind I find anyone who says there is no risk is not being intellectually honest. The question that comes up is what are the chances that we are Marie Curie working with something that ultimately harms us?
In terms of assessing benefits I like to take the example of X-ray technology. From the 1920s to the 1970s a machine known as a shoe-fitting fluoroscope was used to see if shoes fit feet (especially children's feet). With the growing understanding of the harmful effects of radiation these machines were phased out, although never banned. That doesn't mean we don't x-ray people, we do, if you break a bone or go to the dentist the benefit of diagnosing the injury or cavity is considered to outweigh the damage from the radiation. For people in Western nations with plentiful food supplies the macro scale benefits of GMO seem limited, we weren't starving to death or going blind before GMOs. However if my family and friends were going blind due to Vitamin A deficiency the benefits would weigh more heavily on my opinion.
I don't claim to be an expert in this area but am interested in being provided with a more neutral analysis to help me form an opinion.