Quote:
|
Evolution is a self-checking mechanism. If we circumvent it, then we run the risk of creating damage to the organism itself.
|
Well damage
is the self-checking mechanism. If an organism is damaged, then there's nothing to worry about because it won't pass its genes on as efficiently as undamaged organisms. And if it's not damaged, then there's also nothing to worry about because no harm has been done. Neither selective breeding nor genetic engineering can bypass natural selection, which
is the self-checking mechanism referred to here.
So again: I don't see the problem. I'm not aware of any evidence that genetic engineering "damages" organisms any more than traditional genetic modification that people have been using for millenia. In fact the same argument could be made: if the fear is that "new gene combinations must be monitored because they can damage the organism" then that would imply that a simple cross between two individuals can cause far more damage than a single gene transfer, by a factor of millions. That's because a cross mixes 10s of thousands of genes, while a single gene transfer is just one out of 10s of thousands.
The fear may be slightly different here (damage to the organism rather than damage to people) but it to my knowledge it's equally without any basis in biological fact.
Quote:
|
Researchers have created organisms that will have severe consequences if they are released from the lab and/or are not maintained under careful control.
|
Examples? Why would genetic engineering be any riskier than traditional selective breeding? People were worried 30 years ago by new strains of E. coli that were produced by traditional means: just plate them out over and over again on antibiotics and eventually an antibiotic resistant strain will appear naturally and take over the colony. Nowadays these technologies seem quaint, but at the time people were just as afraid of them as they are now of the new technologies.