RE: straight from the(USDA)"horse's mouth"/long

Connie,

This looks like the sterility gene, along with any 'advantageous' gene, is
turned *on* with tetracycline.

  "However, by the same token, you can take that same transgenic seed and
NOT
  treat it with tetracycline--just plant it in the ground without the
  pre-planting treatment.  In that case, the inserted gene will NOT get
turned
  on; the seed will grow a plant, ...."

By extension, that means that, in the first generation, only the pollen
would be capable of escaping and transferring it's genetic heritage into the
next generation.  Those genes would just be extra baggage.  They'd be there,
in genetic heritage, but future generations *wouldn't* be sterile unless the
gene was turned on again - by tetracycline.  The 'advantageous' properties
wouldn't be turned on, either, but that's a whole different story...and the
whole reason for applying 'terminator' technology in the first place.

It also means that the company doesn't have to go to all the cost of
creating hybrids to protect their investment.  If they get a stable genetic
stock, they can reproduce stock easily, leading to cheaper (for them)
production costs all round, except for the tetracycline they use to treat
the seed they sell.  (If 'they' were me, I'd try to make sure that the
'good' genes wouldn't be able to get into pollen...and protect my investment
just that much more.)

My quibbles:

The gentleman's message doesn't seem to take human nature into account...at
least, he seems to assume that the people *wielding* the technology will be
honorable and mistakeproof, with no bad apples in the bunch.  Once the
legislation is enacted, there are fewer barriers to applying a sterility
gene that must be turned off, rather than turned on.  [As *just* one
possible scenario.  PLEASE NOTE:  Those 'evil scientist' possibilities are
there right now, too, but at *least* they are asking for permission to use
the technology...for the moment.  I think I'd rather have them asking for
permission and operating under our open scrutiny rather than creating
genetic 'bathtub gin' in an agricultural speakeasy.]

I also worry because he assumes that the genetic material, the 'carrier'
material as it were, that dominates when the advantageous genes are turned
off are worth disbursing.  Those genes may not be worth much at all, other
than to provide a stable structure for the preferred genes.

Connie, I'm not in any profession, let alone whatever happens to be 'the
profession', but it looks like some members of that profession are already
dabbling in terminator technology.  I think I prefer the restraint of open
oversight to that of semi-hidden machinations.

Regards,

Barb in Southern Indiana  Zone 5/6  dorsett@blueriver.net
   A root is a flower that disdains fame.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE PROPAGATION
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index