The kan-r gene that is used as a marker in some GMO events originates as a mutation in E. coli. There are trillions of E. coli bacteria in my intestines and perhaps a few hundred of them have a kan-r mutation at any time. The chance that a bacterium in my gut will acquire a kan-r gene from food is infinitesimally smaller than the chance that it will acquire the same gene from a natural mutation. But it would be the same gene anyway. Like carrying coals to Newcastle.

* Here’s a definition of theory used in the scientific sense, it probably doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Let me add that there is another layer of “protection”:

Resistance to WHICH antibiotics? Obviously, for the “selection” to work, the UN-transformed cells must be killed by the antibiotic. If the cells being transformed are mammalian, I would prefer to think I’ll never be exposed to the “antibiotic” that kills them! Kanamycin is used medically (surprizing!), but there are also other “antibiotics” for which resistance serves as a selectable marker. The article suggests herbicide (= plant-specific antibiotic) resistance…. If a bactrerium accidentally got a gene for resistance to G418 or glyphosate, who cares? It was probably insensitive in the first place, so would receive no selective advantage, and low likelihood of persistance or further transfer…. Even resistance to kanamycin is not really a big deal: only if the strain posessing the resistance gets an advantage (and therefore spreads) and also persists, CAN there be a problem. It only gets an advantage if the antibiotic is in its environment, suppressing competition.

Besides, many of these antibiotics come from organisms that are themselves resistant to their own products; resistance is already out there!

Grumble.

Outside of genetic engineering, for every drug, car, plane, bridge, etc, there are many failed versions that are shown to be dangerous far before they get to consumers. Ironically, biotech traits that have been deregulated have not resulted in any unexpected problems while there are sadly many cases where a product that was thought to be safe resulted in illness, injury, or death. Does this mean that drugs and bridges are more dangerous than biotechnology? Is producing drugs and bridges, the outcome of which is unknown and that may result in many deaths, stupid, reckless, and insane?

It is true that genetically modified organisms may present additional risks because they can reproduce while a badly designed bridge or a drug that harms more than heals can not. That’s why regulation on biotechnology is far more strict than for any other product of research or engineering. Strangely (and potentially dangerously), there is no regulation of novel traits in plants, animals, and microorganisms that are produced with non-biotech methods including breeding and mutagenesis, even though there are examples of unintended results occurring, such as celery that burns the skin of the people harvesting it due to accidentally increased psoralens during breeding.

Every human activity has risk. That is why each product of research and engineering needs to be carefully analyzed – risk can be evaluated, compared to other risks, and in many cases mitigated. In the case of bridges, each design must be evaluated. Some will be safe while others will not. Does that fact that some bridges are dangerous mean that we shouldn’t make any of them? Just like bridges, each biotech trait must be evaluated individually, with some like the mouse virus and the soybean with brazil nut allergen being found to have too high a risk to be released while others are found to be low risk.

The precautionary principle fails because we can never be 100% sure that something will be safe. If we followed the precautionary principle consistently, we wouldn’t have anything from biotech to bridges.

In one of the _GMOs = Scary_ movies I saw one time there was a scientist that was supposedly fighting the good fight, trying to show how how awful this gene transfer thing was going to be. So I took down his name and went looking for his publications. The first one I found was: Lack of detectable DNA uptake by bacterial gut isolates grown in vitro and by Acinetobacter baylyi colonizing rodents in vivo. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17961488 ) Umm…ok then. Not the impression I got from that movie…but thanks for trying.

To mix and match genes across genus, phyla and kingdom and believe one has any idea the outcome is hubristic in the extreme. To release such self propagating organisms into the wild is stupid, reckless and insane.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by dbribs: GMOs could render important antibiotics worthless http://bit.ly/aeCwGf...

“Isn’t it interesting how two incompatible claims are made – that nature does not move genes between species (therefore GE is wrong) and that any genes you put in a plant will start spreading from species to species?”

Ha! That was my thought exactly. Mmmmmm! Love it when I can have my cake and eat it too.