View Poll Results: Your vote on this proposal would be?

Voters
44. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    9 20.45%
  • no

    25 56.82%
  • no, but I would vote yes on labeling

    8 18.18%
  • undecided

    2 4.55%
Page 6 of 23 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 224

Thread: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

  1. #51
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    virginia
    Last Seen
    04-01-13 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    16,881
    Blog Entries
    19

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    i work in molecular biology, and have also worked in food safety research. we aren't trying to kill you. scientists are trying to make corn grow in very dry environments, and to prevent pests from decimating crops.

    i'm all for thoroughly testing any new kind of crop for safety. as for outright banning, though, not at all. that would be dumb.

    just out of curiosity, though, what's your science background?
    Hey man, look what you guys did to the tomato.

  2. #52
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    i work in molecular biology, and have also worked in food safety research. we aren't trying to kill you. scientists are trying to make corn grow in very dry environments, and to prevent pests from decimating crops.

    i'm all for thoroughly testing any new kind of crop for safety. as for outright banning, though, not at all. that would be dumb.

    just out of curiosity, though, what's your science background?
    Well first of all Felix at the molecular level I happen to be a very complicated body of work just as you are, and you know what they say, 'know thy self' etc...
    I am running short on time today though but 'I'll be back'. while I'm away why not read up on terminator gene technology:

    Genetic use restriction technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology
    Genetic use restriction technology (GURT), colloquially known as terminator technology or suicide seeds, is the name given to proposed methods for restricting ...

    Terminator Technology for Transgenic Crops
    filebox.vt.edu/cals/cses/chagedor/terminator.html
    The technology in the patent could be applied in a number of ways. But in general, it involves three steps: Scientists add terminator genes to a crop. The seed ...
    Monsanto Terminator Technology -- Worldwide Famine & Starvation
    Monsanto Terminator Technology -- Worldwide Famine & Starvation
    With Monsanto's terminator technology, they will sell seeds to farmers to plant crops. ... If the technology is transmitted through recessive genes, we could see ...

    Also maybe study these notes, they are also by the numbers


  3. #53
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,078

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    Well first of all Felix at the molecular level I happen to be a very complicated body of work just as you are, and you know what they say, 'know thy self' etc...
    I am running short on time today though but 'I'll be back'. while I'm away why not read up on terminator gene technology:

    Genetic use restriction technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology
    Genetic use restriction technology (GURT), colloquially known as terminator technology or suicide seeds, is the name given to proposed methods for restricting ...

    Terminator Technology for Transgenic Crops
    filebox.vt.edu/cals/cses/chagedor/terminator.html
    The technology in the patent could be applied in a number of ways. But in general, it involves three steps: Scientists add terminator genes to a crop. The seed ...
    Monsanto Terminator Technology -- Worldwide Famine & Starvation
    Monsanto Terminator Technology -- Worldwide Famine & Starvation
    With Monsanto's terminator technology, they will sell seeds to farmers to plant crops. ... If the technology is transmitted through recessive genes, we could see ...

    Also maybe study these notes, they are also by the numbers

    so, basically, you have no formal background in science or very little, yet you want to ban all research involving genetic modification. you realize that you'd effectively shut down all subcloning, and along with it, the entire biotech / research industry in your state, right?

    i'm sorry, that's simply too foolish of an idea to debate. additionally, i don't read conspiracy blogs, so don't expect me to respond to any blog links that you might be preparing to post. pubmed is a good resource for peer-reviewed, legitimate articles, though.

    if you'd like to talk about tweaking the regulatory / oversight process for any modified food product, i'm fine with that. all food products should be thoroughly tested for safety, and new crops should also be studied by independent entities. i would love a job like that.

  4. #54
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    Well I'm glad your confident, can be a healthy thing, but should try to be correct because it helps to...
    The USA defines 'insects' separately from 'animals', thus laws need to be written accordingly...see endangered species act for standing example

    ps...please learn definition of organism...thank you<3
    Current legal definitions are totally and utterly inadequate for properly handling the technologies of biotechnology. This bill was not written by anyone even vaguely familiar with the field and is filled with loopholes.

    For the purposes of this ACT, the terms "genetically engineered" and "genetically modified" shall mean the scientific alteration of the structure of genetic material in a living organism, and or the technology of preparing recombinant DNA in vitro by cutting up DNA molecules and splicing together fragments from more than one organism.
    That definition is complete garbage. You could easily get around the whole thing simply by modifying the organism in the wild which not not qualify for "in vitro". "fragments from more than one organism" doesn't cover synthetic DNA or reverse transcriptase from an RNA template. Viruses don't count as "living organisms".

    Bottom line, you don't understand enough about the field to even come close to being able to reasonably regulate it.

  5. #55
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    Harry, I said nothing about 'right' or 'wrong' either for that mater, this is your terminology.
    Nature simply inherently has all the numbers to work with and we simply as of yet don't.
    The proposal posted here simply forces science where profit motives have supplanted such.
    If you were really a fan of the 'facts' and science then you would surely be in support of this proposal because it demands such before allowing the 'not ready for prime time' biotech players to bungle the gene pool much as other profit motivated 'experts' in other sectors have handled the economy etc for example.
    Finally Harry, to that bit you keep parroting at the end of every post...you force me to then feed you crackers...I only wield the all powerful quote of destiny again because you have brought such on yourself...I did attempt mercy and reconciliation as I am required, but that seems to have failed...I know the Occam's Razor like blade of the quote of destiny is devastating, but don't fight the urge to continue even if it is just involuntary conditioned reflex of the nervous system, much like a decapitated snakes head will still bite even though oxygen has been cut off from the brain, or how its heart will still beat and the body will still coil and strike out in reflex up to a day after its beheading.
    Yes, you keep parroting the same crap.
    No I'm not going to change my position based on "nature has all the numbers, we don't."

    The information you keep posting is arbitrary, at best.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  6. #56
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    I usually hold off on wielding the quote of destiny, but in this case I will make an exception because all but for the above poster clearly call for being dispatched with prejudice and forthwith, therefore you have sealed your own fate and I must admit I love the smell of biotech defenders in the late afternoon...smells like...victory lol...
    I have found that to wield the all powerful Rumsfeld quote of destiny proves the undeniable point much like a simple decapitation or like game over in the video game debate version...once wielded not even the top Monsanto et al scientists can argue against the simple fatal truth of it and even Einstein would in all likelihood argue in defense of its simple equation logic with respect to not having all the numbers to the equations of life itself let alone its symbiotic nature and the possibly devastating chain reactive effects this technology could unleash as we allow the corps/gov to General Custer us all forward redesigning and privatizing the gene pool (we all swim in and come from) for profit...the quote of destiny is awesome and should only be used if ready to behead your opponent. Sometimes its useful to draw your opponent out far enough so as to be naked for their beheading and you folks are there and bare back...
    "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
    Donald Rumsfeld




    To the one undecided poster I suggest researching some down this red road:
    Pirate Television - Thomas Linzey & Katherine Davies: Who Has The Right? - YouTube
    " Published on Mar 7, 2012

    Expanding the rights of individuals, communities, and nature as a key strategy for sustainability. The rights over a person's genes, tissues, and environmental health is near to non-existent. Over 20% of human genome is patented by corporations and universities. Toxic trespass is a condition where human tissues contain unwanted toxins via unregulated food supply, water supply, air conditions and environmental factors. Lead in blood, mercury in hair, and contamination in mother's milk are examples of toxic trespass. As of now we do not have the right to a healthy environmental living condition. The current activism is not working to stop environmental problems. Although environmental law firms have judicial victories, most permits that were fought against end up being reestablished. Many established environmental issues should be seen as human rights issues."
    You have a way with literary ability, yet you lack absolutely any knowledge of genetic engineering. Leave the science to the scientists.

  7. #57
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Hiding from new technology is a step backwards that we shouldn't take. Not that genetic engineering of crops is a new technology anymore. This sounds like the result of a bunch of ignorant yuppies and their love for organic produce.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  8. #58
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    01-22-17 @ 09:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    4,136

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by DNAprotection View Post
    Well first of all Felix at the molecular level I happen to be a very complicated body of work just as you are, and you know what they say, 'know thy self' etc...
    I am running short on time today though but 'I'll be back'. while I'm away why not read up on terminator gene technology:

    Genetic use restriction technology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology
    Genetic use restriction technology (GURT), colloquially known as terminator technology or suicide seeds, is the name given to proposed methods for restricting ...

    Terminator Technology for Transgenic Crops
    filebox.vt.edu/cals/cses/chagedor/terminator.html
    The technology in the patent could be applied in a number of ways. But in general, it involves three steps: Scientists add terminator genes to a crop. The seed ...
    Monsanto Terminator Technology -- Worldwide Famine & Starvation
    Monsanto Terminator Technology -- Worldwide Famine & Starvation
    With Monsanto's terminator technology, they will sell seeds to farmers to plant crops. ... If the technology is transmitted through recessive genes, we could see ...

    Also maybe study these notes, they are also by the numbers

    "In 1999, Monsanto pledged not to commercialize terminator technology, and has kept that pledge on its website to the present day.[97][101] The Delta and Pine Land Company intended to commercialize the technology,[96] but D&PL was acquired by Monsanto in 2007.[102]"

    Monsanto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  9. #59
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by Helix View Post
    so, basically, you have no formal background in science or very little, yet you want to ban all research involving genetic modification. you realize that you'd effectively shut down all subcloning, and along with it, the entire biotech / research industry in your state, right?

    i'm sorry, that's simply too foolish of an idea to debate. additionally, i don't read conspiracy blogs, so don't expect me to respond to any blog links that you might be preparing to post. pubmed is a good resource for peer-reviewed, legitimate articles, though.

    if you'd like to talk about tweaking the regulatory / oversight process for any modified food product, i'm fine with that. all food products should be thoroughly tested for safety, and new crops should also be studied by independent entities. i would love a job like that.
    Oh Felix, someone as 'educated' as you should at least be able to read don't ya think?
    Try reading sec 3(c) because it contradicts your assumptive conclusions about banning research.
    In fact the proposal demands the science be complete by the very nature of the restrictions it provides.

  10. #60
    User DNAprotection's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    cali
    Last Seen
    04-19-13 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    85

    Re: The DNA Protection Act of 2013

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    Current legal definitions are totally and utterly inadequate for properly handling the technologies of biotechnology. This bill was not written by anyone even vaguely familiar with the field and is filled with loopholes.



    That definition is complete garbage. You could easily get around the whole thing simply by modifying the organism in the wild which not not qualify for "in vitro". "fragments from more than one organism" doesn't cover synthetic DNA or reverse transcriptase from an RNA template. Viruses don't count as "living organisms".

    Bottom line, you don't understand enough about the field to even come close to being able to reasonably regulate it.
    Ok so first on another post you incorrectly write that the proposal would ban all research and now your writing that the wording is not strong enough and full of loop holes?
    lol...make up your mind...don't be like the squirrel who keeps running back and forth in indecision when a car is racing towards you...just pick a direction and run...
    Seriously then, if its so get around-able then whats the problem?
    You said your against banning and restriction so apparently this proposal according to you would be no problem to over come from Monsanto et al's perspective right?
    Well then why be against it?
    Why not give folks the opportunity to learn about the topic?
    People assume much about this topic and I've noticed that usually such is incorrect, like Harry's notion of hybrids = GEO or Felix (who claims works in the field) lumping insects with 'animals' with regard to the laws in the USA...I could go on but it should be clear that folks have a lot to learn about this critical issue.

Page 6 of 23 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •