ingegneria genetica e ibridazioni convenzionali

["AlessandroGimona"<agimona@libero.it>]

Cari tutti,
posto questo riassunto di lettere scritte da scienziati nel campo medico 
,al  NY times riguardo ad un articolo apparso in quel quotidiano.

e' interessante notare come come i 'cauti' portino argomenti pertinenti 
alla loro disciplina mentre il 'medical director dell' American Council 
on Science and Health' usi argomenti che non pertengono alla medicina, 
ma riguardano la disciplina 'food security' (le biotecnologie sfameranno 
il mondo), in cui presumibilmente non e' un esperto, e che non sono 
supportati da evidenza, secondo gli esperti nel settore.

Per gli interessati segnalo che e' stato aggiunto un nuovo 
approfondimento al dossier sdi Peacelink sugli OGM. Questo spiega 
in dettaglio l'affermazione della lettera di  Rob Carlson (Berkley) 

"Few genes are "known quantities" and the process of introducing a 
foreign  gene into an organism produces uncertainty about both the 
gene's function  and the function of the DNA into which it is inserted."

vedi 

http://www.peacelink.it/tematiche/ecologia/manipola.html
http://www.peacelink.it/tematiche/ecologia/link1bis.html

spero interessi,
Saluti

Alessandro Gimona
PeaceLink

LETTERS: WHEN FOOD IS MODIFIED
         December 12, 2000
         New York Times
         http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/12/science/12LETT.html
         Several letters to the Times about the Jane Brody column, 
column "Gene
         Altered Foods: A Case Against Panic" (Dec. 5).
         Dr. Stuart A. Newman of Valhalla, N.Y., a professor at New York 
Medical
         College says that while the column tried to claim that unease 
about medical
         and agricultural uses of technology is often due to inaccurate 
terminology
         and poor understanding of science, unfortunately, it adds to 
the confusion
         by mischaracterizing the nature and role of genes. A plant 
breeder is quoted
         on the introduction of a gene from the Arctic flounder into 
strawberries and
         cites his interpretation: it is "not a flounder gene but a cold 
tolerance
         gene."
         But there is no such thing as a cold tolerance gene independent 
of the
         organism in which it acts. Biologists agree that genes are 
context-
         dependent and may do different things in different cells and 
tissues of the
         same organism, not to mention in organisms as different as 
flounders and
         strawberries.
         Newman suggests that inaccuracies in scientific terminology and 
concepts are
         often due to promoters of new technologies.

         Rob Carlson of Berkeley, Calif., a research fellow at the 
Molecular Sciences
         Institute writes that the Personal Health column on genetically 
modified
         foods promotes the misconceptions it warns of. The portrayal of 
current
         genetic "engineering" as precise and well defined is 
inappropriate today.
         Few genes are "known quantities" and the process of introducing 
a foreign
         gene into an organism produces uncertainty about both the 
gene's function
         and the function of the DNA into which it is inserted.
         Genetic engineering techniques are abysmally primitive, akin to 
swapping
         random parts between random cars to produce a better car. Yet 
our ignorance
         will fade; biological engineering will become a reality 
relatively soon.
         But it is difficult to discuss this impending development when 
the public
         believes that the details are already understood, especially 
when mistakes
         are so publicly discussed. The conflation of "engineering" and 
such failures
         can only suggest a subtext that the problem is beyond hope and 
that further
         work will produce dire consequences.

         Dr. Gilbert Ross of New York, the medical director of the  a 
group financed by foundations, trade associations,
         companies and individuals, writes that the Personal Health 
column on Dec. 5
         correctly notes the potential of genetically improved food to 
help feed the
         world and reduce the need for pesticides. But many are 
needlessly concerned
         about negligible risks posed by this technology. Genetically 
engineered food
         is thoroughly regulated by at least three federal agencies.
         Superstition and fear should not interfere with this 
technology, which has
         so much to offer those who suffer from hunger and malnutrition. 
Unfounded
         concerns about hypothetical risks are far outweighed by the 
real benefits
         that will soon be realized, if scientific research and 
development of
         genetically modified agriculture is allowed to proceed 
unhindered.
Alessandro Gimona
agimona@libero.it