Getting a sample ready for electrophoresis?

[Paul Anderson]

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, is so, please forgive
me. I'm very curious about getting a sample to the point that I can
run electrophoresis on it.

There is a tutorial online, for example, on extracting DNA from peas.
What steps would I need to take to get that DNA ready for
electrophoresis?

--
Paul Anderson
VE3HOP
wacky...@gmail.com
http://www.andersonloco.com
QRP ARCI #13228, GQRP #12447

[William Heath]

Hi Paul,

We just did this!  It was really fun.  Let me tell you the baby steps I took to doing this. First test the "protocol" with food coloring.  This is the website I used to do this:

http://openwetware.org/wiki/DIYbio:Notebook/Keiki_Gels

I am going to give you a little background on what I experienced when I did it:

1.  If your not a cook, which I am not, it is kind of like making a cake, just get the ingredients, follow the directions and that is it, it is easy!

2.  A volt meter is handy.  You can chain together the batteries without solder or anything, they snap together like legos.  Then just connect alligator clips to a wire to the - and + of the battery ends to spoons on opposite sides of the buffer so the voltage differential will occur.  Then just watch the food coloring separate etc...

Once you have done this preparatory experiment you can do the real experiment with real dna.  You have to get the DNA out of the peas.  To do this you will need soap, meat tenderizer, and alcohol.  Look at this url if you want to see more details:

http://www.ca.uky.edu/BREI/Teach/4-H/Info/Macgyver%20Electrophoresis.htm

Things I experienced doing this with real dna was:

1.  Soap makes the cells explode releasing the raw dna

2.  Alcohol makes the dna float to the type and is white looking, you can scoop it up with like a tooth pick.  Then just make a little hole in the agar gel and stuff it in there.  

3.  Be vary careful when pouring the buffer as you don't want to dislodge the dna from the gel you just put in.  I thought it might float to the top again, but Tito let me know that was not possible as it is not alcohol based and what have you.  But just to be sure we only barely covered the gel to prevent it.

4.  The very big thing I learned was the agar gel can be made into a brick if you will.  If you do this you can visualize multiple dna samples at the exact same time!  Kind of like this:

              (Agar brick with multiple dna holes for multiple samples)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

|  |dna hole|                                                            |

|                                                                            |

|  |dna hole|                                                            |

|                                                                            |

|  |dna hole|                                                            |

|                                                                            |

|  |dna hole|                                                            |

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The methyl blue staining did not work for us.  We used an led and like a clear glass ball that magnified the light coming from the led.  Still don't know what led Mike used.  Anyway, get in a dark place and you see the DNA in the gel!  Here are some pics of what we saw:

http://flickr.com/photos/mike_kan/

The other quick thing I learned is if you have what is called a dna ladder you can get a good feel for exactly how long the DNA is.  You would put the dna ladder in one of the dna holes (channels) above and it would help you know how long the dna actually is.  Once you do the gel I hear you can actually get the dna out of the gel.  I don't know how to do that yet.

-Tim

P.S.

Let me know if you have other questions man!  No question is too simple for me, keep'em coming!

[sgt york]

I'd suggest dissolving & cleaning up the DNA before you run it. Also,
since you're running genomic DNA (i.e., really big), you want a low-
percentage gel. 0.8% w/v is the standard. If you can make one lower
without breaking it, go for it.

Getting DNA from strawberries is very easy and fruitful; they're
octoploid, so each one gives you a ton. You'll only need one. Cut off
the crown; it's more trouble than it's worth and your yield will be
high anyway. Crush the strawberry with a fork, add a touch of soap & a
touch of meat tenderizer (most have the protease papain in them; this
breaks up the chromatin and helps slow down enzymes that break up
DNA). Now get a coffee filter. Hold it over a clean shot glass and
pour the strawberry mash through it. Gather up the edges like a teabag
and give it a gentle squeeze, retaining the pulp in the filter and
collecting the juice in the glass. Discard the pulp.

Now add rubbing alcohol, swirl it around. You'll see what looks like
cotton in the glass. Pull that out with a toothpick and swish it
around in another clean glass filled with rubbing alcohol. Now take
the DNA and swirl it into some distilled water (best if you have it
buffered to ~pH8, but plain water is fine for short periods of time).
Swirl it around to dissolve; the water will look viscous. Take a
little out and dilute it in more water until it doesn't look viscous
anymore. You don't want to overload your gel.

Loading dye: in the lab, this is 50% glycerol + xylene cyanole and
methylene blue. We use xylene cyanole and methylene blue as markers
on the gel. MB will move a LOT faster than your genomic DNA. XC will
move a little faster than the genomic DNA. (or do I have that
backwards? I haven't done molecular work in about three years....) If
you don't have glycerol, you can use corn syrup. If you don't have the
dyes, use the gold corn syrup so you can see the stuff (so you can see
it sitting in the well). Just mix it half & half with the diluted DNA.

Now you can load it on your gel. Use a transfer pipette if you have
one; they're not hard to get a hold of. (Do NOT use a regular pipette
tip if you have them. If you want to use a standard p200 tip, cut the
end off at the first gradation to prevent shearing of the DNA). If the
line in parentheses makes no sense to you, you don't need to know it.

The most reasonable way to see it is probably with shadowing; put a uv
source under the gel and the DNA will show up as a shadow.

Don't expect a pretty, tight band; genomic DNA usually runs in an
ugly, streaked clump. And don't stare at it too long....uv will hurt
your eyes.

On Feb 24, 2:05 pm, Paul Anderson <wackyvor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure if this has been discussed before, is so, please forgive
> me.  I'm very curious about getting a sample to the point that I can
> run electrophoresis on it.
>
> There is a tutorial online, for example, on extracting DNA from peas.
> What steps would I need to take to get that DNA ready for
> electrophoresis?
>
> --
> Paul Anderson
> VE3HOP

> wackyvor...@gmail.comhttp://www.andersonloco.com

[Jeswin John]

Has anyone tried pineapple juice for proteases?

--
*-----------------------------------------------------------*
Join the Revolution

http://diybio.org/
http://homebrewbioscience.blogspot.com/
*------------------------------------------------------------*

[Rajagopal]

are you sure that the straw berries and pineapples are not GM samples? Even agri samples may contain GM strains........

Raja

[Nathan McCorkle]

Raj,

What would the samples being GM have anything to do with this protocol?

--
Nathan McCorkle
Rochester Institute of Technology
College of Science, Biotechnology/Bioinformatics

[Rajagopal]

Nathan,

The protocol does not stop there.the DNA separated must be used with purpose if necessary mutated from the existing form to another form and used in live situations to see cell modifications......This should be the direction of research purpose...if you think any other purpose except a cavalier one that you have also separated the DNA in its crude form I won't reckon with it as worthwhile. can you explain?

[Nathan McCorkle]

Well to detect modification usually a PCR reaction is performed on the sequence of interest, and then a PCR sequencing reaction is performed to prepare for capillary electrophoresis (for reading the sequence)...

I thought you were talking about Genetically Modified foods.     :)

[Aaron Hicks]

Unless things have changed quite recently, I am unaware of any GM food items that are available as whole, unmodified foods. For example, while we may consume some GM corn, it is not as corn on the cob, but as highly processed taco shells or whatever. While I'm sure there's some fallout from cross-pollination somewhere with corn, strawberries and pineapples are not wind-pollinated; both are largely grown clonally.

-AJ

[Jeswin John]

I'm not sure where the talk of pineapples DNA came from but my question on pineapple was about the use of pineapple juice in the DNA extraction experiment. The effectiveness of pineapple proteases compared to meat tenderizer or contact-lens cleaning solution?

Thanks

[Daniel C.]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Aaron Hicks <aaron...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unless things have changed quite recently, I am unaware of any GM food items
> that are available as whole, unmodified foods. For example, while we may
> consume some GM corn, it is not as corn on the cob, but as highly processed
> taco shells or whatever. While I'm sure there's some fallout from
> cross-pollination somewhere with corn, strawberries and pineapples are not
> wind-pollinated; both are largely grown clonally.

Ahhh, GM corn - just like Dad used to make. Literally. My dad was a
plant geneticists at the U of MN and did a lot of work on corn and
soybean genetics while he was there. They planted their experiment
plots on a rotation, so every year they had at least some plots on
corn. Since those were "off" plots (no research being done on them)
we could harvest them for our own use. And yes, all of it was
genetically modified. I'm pretty sure that most consumer-grade corn
grown currently in the US is genetically modified. Same with
soybeans, and I wouldn't be surprised if other crops were as well.

Regarding cross pollination - most farmers are pretty careful about
how they allow their corn to pollinate. (Google "corn detasseling".)
They're careful about it because of the financial incentives - careful
control over pollination can make a huge difference in their yield.

Anyway, this is a bio-engineering mailing list... we're not really on
the verge of a debate about GM foods are we?

[Nathan McCorkle]

Yes Daniel, we are going to debate GM foods!!! DOWN WITH GM!!!! (totally just joking)

I actually think it would be a good idea to grow GM foods with organic practices... I know there is controversy over BT corn, but honestly, even if there are people that can't denature it or it affects them in an allergic way, I bet it is still not as bad as eating some toxic pesticide, etc... and I think that we can denature it just fine.

[Guido D. Núñez-Mujica]

Plus, organic farmers use BT toxin sprayed over crops.

[Jeswin John]

Just to put it into perspective: the corn we eat is GM, just naturally selected over thousands of years. Same with almost all other edible fruits and vegetables. One is artificial and quick but other way take many, many years.

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Nathan McCorkle <nmz...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Marnia Johnston]

Jeswin had a good question that I would also like to know the answer to.

"My question on pineapple was about the use of pineapple juice in the DNA extraction experiment. The effectiveness of pineapple proteases compared to meat tenderizer or contact-lens cleaning solution?"

Anybody got an opinion?



Thanks

[Nick Taylor]

> Yes Daniel, we are going to debate GM foods!!! DOWN WITH GM!!!! (totally
> just joking)
>
> I actually think it would be a good idea to grow GM foods with organic
> practices... I know there is controversy over BT corn, but honestly,
> even if there are people that can't denature it or it affects them in an
> allergic way, I bet it is still not as bad as eating some toxic
> pesticide, etc... and I think that we can denature it just fine.

I'm an active member of Greenpeace - ie: I occasionally do stuff that
could get me arrested, and I must confess I'm not really with them on
the GM issue.

What I am (extremely) hostile to is the notion that corporations as evil
(and I use that word reservedly) as Monsanto winding up owning the
foodchain... and along side "trade deals" with the US government,
inflict "no seed-saving" laws on the rest of the world, like they tried
to do with Iraq.

I have this small thesis brewing in the back of my head... which goes
something like "no matter what the initial stimulus is, your biggest
problem will always be other people".

- although the flu pandemic of 1918 is a pretty hard act to follow.
But we've tried dammit. We've tried.

[Daniel C.]

Hold on, I've got my bellows around here somewhere... ahh, there they are...

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Nick Taylor <nick...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> inflict "no seed-saving" laws on the rest of the world, like they tried
> to do with Iraq.

Yeah, because wanting to recoup your investment is evil.

[Guido D. Núñez-Mujica]

Yes, Monsanto is a very ugly Corp. And that is why I really, really,
really have no respect at all for Greenpeace and the likes (Sorry,
Nick). Because all the regulation and red tape around GMOs that they
ask means that only a bloated, rich entity like Monsanto is able to
develop GMOs. Because all the crop burning will be only for people who
cannot protect their experiments behind moats and walls, like Monsanto
can. Opposing GMs in an irrational way only benefits Monsanto.

[Cory Tobin]

> What I am (extremely) hostile to is the notion that corporations as evil
> (and I use that word reservedly) as Monsanto winding up owning the
> foodchain... and along side "trade deals" with the US government,
> inflict "no seed-saving" laws on the rest of the world, like they tried
> to do with Iraq.

If I spent millions and millions of my own dollars making plants that
output more food per acre, I would expect to make lots of money from
it as well. I guess I'm just an evil evil capitalist.

-Cory

[Guido D. Núñez-Mujica]

Well, I have nothing against you making money as long as you do not
try to bend the law to fuck me so you can make money because what I do
is now illegal. Then, we have huge trouble.

[Nathan McCorkle]

I always think of the song that sings "Why can't we be friends???" I dunno, people need to make money, and get returns on investments, but seriously if the world was well fed and some company wasn't being greedy, the return would be things like increased peace and happiness (assumed).

[Nick Taylor]

> Yes, Monsanto is a very ugly Corp. And that is why I really, really,
> really have no respect at all for Greenpeace and the likes (Sorry,
> Nick). Because all the regulation and red tape around GMOs that they
> ask means that only a bloated, rich entity like Monsanto is able to
> develop GMOs. Because all the crop burning will be only for people who
> cannot protect their experiments behind moats and walls, like Monsanto
> can. Opposing GMs in an irrational way only benefits Monsanto.

Well yea - that's one of the ironic things about it, is that the anti-GM
thing actually caused Monsanto (et al) to wind up owning the food chain
anyway. Monsanto now doesn't actually need to deal in GM seeds.

Whether or not that's grounds to "really really really" blame Greenpeace
(out of all the parties involved) is another matter entirely.

Given that you could alternatively blame the Government who passed the
laws or the corporations that benefited from them... blaming the only
corner of the triangle that doesn't have any power at all seems a little
bit... off to me.

[Daniel C.]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Nathan McCorkle <nmz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I always think of the song that sings "Why can't we be friends???" I dunno,
> people need to make money, and get returns on investments, but seriously if
> the world was well fed and some company wasn't being greedy, the return
> would be things like increased peace and happiness (assumed).

This one time, when I was employed by Monsanto, I asked my land lord
if I could pay my rent in Peace and Happiness. He said no :'(
Neither would he accept Rainbows, Butterflies or Unicorn Kisses. He
was so mean I didn't even ask him if he wanted to be friends.

-DTC

[Nick Taylor]

>> What I am (extremely) hostile to is the notion that corporations as evil
>> (and I use that word reservedly) as Monsanto winding up owning the
>> foodchain... and along side "trade deals" with the US government,
>> inflict "no seed-saving" laws on the rest of the world, like they tried
>> to do with Iraq.
>
>
> If I spent millions and millions of my own dollars making plants that
> output more food per acre, I would expect to make lots of money from
> it as well. I guess I'm just an evil evil capitalist.

How does this fit in with inflicting "no seed-saving" laws on Iraq?

Anything to do with the millions and millions of your own dollars spent
lobbying politicians?

Is this:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto

what you'd spend your millions and millions of dollars on?

See also :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NlD_mw9xaI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av6dx9yNiCA

The Monsanto/Fox censorship thing with specific interest to lying about
public health.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZkDikRLQrw

[Nick Taylor]

> Yeah, because wanting to recoup your investment is evil.

Yea, sometimes it is. I don't get it. How can you not see this?

Anyway, Monsanto etc :

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto

[Daniel C.]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Nick Taylor <nick...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Well yea - that's one of the ironic things about it, is that the anti-GM
> thing actually caused Monsanto (et al) to wind up owning the food chain
> anyway. Monsanto now doesn't actually need to deal in GM seeds.

I may be completely mistaken, but I don't think this is Greenpeace's
fault at all. I doubt they even had an influence on it, to be honest.
(Sorry Nick.) I hate Greenpeace as much as the next red-blooded
hick, but I try to hate intelligently - i.e. blame them for what they
actually did (funding terrorism, anyone?) rather than wildly
constructing straw men.

There's actually more history here than what's being discussed. I
don't recall the details, but I'll try to round them up.

-DTC

[Nick Taylor]

> This one time, when I was employed by Monsanto, I asked my land lord
> if I could pay my rent in Peace and Happiness. He said no :'(
> Neither would he accept Rainbows, Butterflies or Unicorn Kisses. He
> was so mean I didn't even ask him if he wanted to be friends.

What is that? Some variant of the Nuremburg Defence in some weird
imaginary world post-Haight Ashbury utopia where Monsanto is the only
employer?

Why do this? Why make up a world where Monsanto is the only employer?

Why conjure up such fwuffy wuffy nonsense in the defence of a really
ugly corporation that lies to you about what it's putting into your food?

[Cory Tobin]

> How does this fit in with inflicting "no seed-saving" laws on Iraq?

If you don't to agree to their terms, don't buy their seeds.

I will agree that Monsanto has made some seriously horrible
environmental and human-health transgressions, but I have no problem
with them forcing customers to abide by the contracts they agreed to.

-Cory

[Nick Taylor]

> I hate Greenpeace as much as the next red-blooded
> hick, but I try to hate intelligently - i.e. blame them for what they
> actually did (funding terrorism, anyone?) rather than wildly
> constructing straw men.

So why do you hate them then? Intelligently?

What have they done that has personally affected you?

Have you met anyone from Greenpeace that gave you cause to hate them?

[Daniel C.]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Nick Taylor <nick...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>  > Yeah, because wanting to recoup your investment is evil.
>
> Yea, sometimes it is. I don't get it. How can you not see this?

I don't understand how you can construct a philosophy in which it is
immoral to spend money researching something, and then charge a fair
market price for your discoveries. How can that possibly be wrong?

From a purely practical standpoint, if scientists had no incentive to
conduct their research then they wouldn't engage in it in the first
place, and the world would be left without the benefit of their
discoveries.

I'm sorry but I'm not going to go read that entire Source Watch page.
It reeks of conspiracy theory.

> What is that? Some variant of the Nuremburg Defence in some weird
> imaginary world post-Haight Ashbury utopia where Monsanto is the only
> employer?

I didn't posit the existence of a world in which Monsanto is the only
employer; nor did I make any reference at all to the morality of
anyone's actions, whether that person was following orders or giving
them. (Are you sure you know what the Nuremberg Defense is...?) I
was responding to Nathan McCorkle who said that if Monsanto were to
invest in feeding the poor and hungry, the return on their investment
would be peace and happiness. This is all well and good, but peace
and happiness don't pay the bills.

-DTC

[Nick Taylor]

And if it isn't possible to get seeds from anywhere else?

Do you actually understand what owning the foodchain means?

[Nick Taylor]

> This one time, when I was employed by Monsanto, I asked my land lord
> if I could pay my rent in Peace and Happiness. He said no :'(
> Neither would he accept Rainbows, Butterflies or Unicorn Kisses. He
> was so mean I didn't even ask him if he wanted to be friends.

What is that? Some variant of the Nuremburg Defence in some weird
imaginary world post-Haight Ashbury utopia where Monsanto is the only
employer?

Why do this? Why make up a world where Monsanto is the only employer?

[Daniel C.]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Nick Taylor <nick...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> So why do you hate them then? Intelligently?
>
> What have they done that has personally affected you?
>
> Have you met anyone from Greenpeace that gave you cause to hate them?

Greenpeace has links to terrorist organizations and may actually
encourage its members to engage in acts of terrorism. You admitted
yourself that you "occasionally do stuff that could get [you]
arrested". Whether they have personally affected me is irrelevant. I
wasn't personally harmed when planes crashed into the World Trade
Center, but I dislike Islamic extremists all the same. Send not to
ask for whom the bell tolls, and all that.

Also, environmentalism is a religion, and it (like all other
religions) is a lie.

-DTC

[Daniel C.]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:38 PM, Nick Taylor <nick...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> And if it isn't possible to get seeds from anywhere else?

http://lmgtfy.com?q=buy+seed+corn

There's more than Monsanto on that list there, Nick. Your theories
don't seem to be holding up well against reality. My theory, on the
other hand (that most Greenpeace members are loonies who are out of
touch with reality) seems to be holding up pretty well.

Also, statements like the previous one are the reason I don't know
very many environmentalists.

-DTC

[Cory Tobin]

>> And if it isn't possible to get seeds from anywhere else?
>
> http://lmgtfy.com?q=buy+seed+corn

Here's another place...

http://seeds.omri.org/

There's plenty of companies selling seeds besides Monsanto.

-Cory

[Nick Taylor]

>> Yea, sometimes it is. I don't get it. How can you not see this?
>
> I don't understand how you can construct a philosophy in which it is
> immoral to spend money researching something, and then charge a fair
> market price for your discoveries. How can that possibly be wrong?

Why are you being so simplistic?

Don't you know what else Monsanto gets up to?
Do you know how much they spend on lobbyists for example?
What is their record on pollution?
What has been their effect on small farmers in developing countries?
What costs are they externalising and who is paying for them?

> From a purely practical standpoint, if scientists had no incentive to
> conduct their research then they wouldn't engage in it in the first
> place, and the world would be left without the benefit of their
> discoveries.

Says he on an DIYbio list. FFS, get a grip. You're starting to sound
like the RIAA

> I'm sorry but I'm not going to go read that entire Source Watch page.
> It reeks of conspiracy theory.

Well read 1/2 of it then. Sourcewatch are not conspiracy theorists, and
forgive me, but it looks to me like that you'd prefer not to know
what Monsanto are actually like.

[Nick Taylor]

> Greenpeace has links to terrorist organizations and may actually
> encourage its members to engage in acts of terrorism.

Cite?

What specific acts of terrorism "may" they "actually" encourage people
to engage in?

Please provide an answer.

> You admitted yourself that you "occasionally do stuff that could get
> [you] arrested".

Yea - protesting peacefully within a mile of Parliament buildings in
London. Is that terrorism to you?

I stood in Trafalagar Square wearing a sandwich board handing out
leaflets while some other guys hung a big banner across Admiralty Arch.

Is that terrorism to you? Hanging banners on public buildings?

And you know what, I was amazed by how positive people were - everyone
from silver-haired old gents to young kids to teenagers etc - the early
morning office crowd were the best. There was this one bloke who looked
a bit angry, who came striding up to me... and he growled "Thank god
there are people like you in the world".

But you... you hate us... and the only reasons you seem to be able to
give appear to be to do with... what? 9/11?

> Whether they have personally affected me is irrelevant. I
> wasn't personally harmed when planes crashed into the World Trade
> Center, but I dislike Islamic extremists all the same. Send not to
> ask for whom the bell tolls, and all that.

So... you've never actually met any of these people you're hating, and
you've never been affected by anything they do... but you've fallen back
on that standard bush-era catchall, 9/11 analogies.

You do realise you're starting to sound like a bit of a fuckwit?

> Also, environmentalism is a religion, and it (like all other
> religions) is a lie.

Err... you're starting to lie yourself now aren't you.

[Daniel C.]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:56 PM, Nick Taylor <nick...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Why are you being so simplistic?

Well, let me go back and reiterate the conversation so far.

Me: Sarcastic remark about wanting to recoup an investment being evil.
You: Yes, sometimes it is.
Me: How is it wrong to want to recoup your investment?
You: Complaints that I'm not considering other stuff that Monsanto is
doing wrong.

I know almost nothing about Monsanto, so I'm not even attempting to
engage you on that front. If I were to learn more about their
activities in some areas I would probably agree with you to some
extent. All I'm arguing is that it's not evil for a company to
attempt to recoup their investment. That is a fairly simple argument,
which is why I'm being simplistic in my responses. Do you disagree,
separate from any issue about Monsanto or its products, that it is
okay for a company that spends money to create a valuable product to
sell that product at a price the market will bear in an attempt to
recoup its investment, not only in the valuable product itself, but
into the various lines of research that produced worthless products or
no products at all? What about run-on sentences - do you agree or
disagree with those? I personally think they're great.

> Don't you know what else Monsanto gets up to?

Not really, no. I am willing to accept that Monsanto may be Evil, but
keep in mind that I think people freak out way too much about GM
products and capitalism in general. So it's kind of an uphill battle
convincing me that a wealthy corporation that makes GM seed is evil,
because I am assuming that you are viewing events with a bias that I
do not share.

> Do you know how much they spend on lobbyists for example?

No, but I would assume it's a lot. I dislike lobbyists, but simply
having them doesn't necessarily make a company evil.

> What is their record on pollution?

No, but I don't share the Greenpeace definition of pollution, so where
you see pollution I might see acceptable use of pesticides.

> What has been their effect on small farmers in developing countries?

No but let me guess - it's atrocious. Unfortunately, a lot of things
westerners do has a net negative effect on farmers in developing
countries. Corn subsidies are one of the biggest factors working
against 3rd world farmers, but there are a million other factors. I
suspect that, were I to learn the facts here, you and I would agree at
least 85%.

> What costs are they externalising and who is paying for them?

Don't know this one either, but I'm going to guess "taxpayers". All I
should need to say about this is that I'm a pretty staunch
Libertarian.

>> From a purely practical standpoint, if scientists had no incentive to
>> conduct their research then they wouldn't engage in it in the first
>> place, and the world would be left without the benefit of their
>> discoveries.
>
> Says he on an DIYbio list. FFS, get a grip. You're starting to sound
> like the RIAA

What does being on a DIYbio list have to do with wanting to be able to
own and sell the things I discover? Also, RIAA what? That's kind of
a non sequitur... their position is completely different.

> It looks to me like that you'd prefer not to know

> what Monsanto are actually like.

You are forgiven for thinking this. It's more that I'm kind of
apathetic. I've got my hands tied up in other issues which I consider
important; I haven't got time to take up the torch against Monsanto as
well. (And anyway, like I said earlier, I was arguing more about
capitalism in general than about Monsanto specifically.)

-DTC

[Nick Taylor]

> Here's another place...
>
> http://seeds.omri.org/
>
> There's plenty of companies selling seeds besides Monsanto.

It's all so simple to you isn't it?

Let's look up Cotton. Ok, there seems to be one alternative supplier

Southern Exposure Seed Exchange
P.O. Box 460
Mineral, VA 23117

with an email address and a telephone number. Great. How are you going
to buy that if you don't have an internet connection, a phone, a credit
card and you don't speak English.

But the traditional place you buy your seeds only sells seeds controlled
(as Vandana Shiva says) by Monsanto?

Nick

[Nick Taylor]

> I know almost nothing about Monsanto, so I'm not even attempting to
> engage you on that front.

Ok, well do let us know when you do.

[Guido D. Núñez-Mujica]

There should be a version of Godwin's Law for 9/11.

And, Nick:

"Given that you could alternatively blame the Government who passed the
laws or the corporations that benefited from them... blaming the only
corner of the triangle that doesn't have any power at all seems a little
bit... off to me."

Look at France, for instance. The anti GM crowd is so big and noisy
that the govt. even admits that they won't pass some GMs approved by
the EU, not based on science, but on politics. Look at all the red
tape surrounding Golden Rice (even if they have also a huge IP
problem). Look the silly "plant dignity" laws in Switzerland. And of
course I blame the govt. and the corporations also, but they can say
without lying that people are asking for it! And when people that are
very well fed tell to ones who are hungry that GM are awful, well, I
just lose my temper. Sorry about that, but empathy is easier once
you've been actually hungry.

[Daniel C.]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Nick Taylor <nick...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Ok, well do let us know when you do.

Tell you what, I'll read up on Monsanto as soon as you write some
letters to your congressman (or the British equivalent) about how
upset you are about the lack of true gender equality in your country.
Does that sound fair to you?

-DTC

[Nick Taylor]

> http://lmgtfy.com?q=buy+seed+corn
>
> There's more than Monsanto on that list there, Nick. Your theories
> don't seem to be holding up well against reality. My theory, on the
> other hand (that most Greenpeace members are loonies who are out of
> touch with reality) seems to be holding up pretty well.

What, google's front page is "reality" for you?

And how many of those are available in Iraq?

Vandana Shiva says here that "Every seed that is in the market in cotton
today, is linked to one company or another, licensed and controlled by
Monsanto"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Av6dx9yNiCA at .55 seconds

[Nick Taylor]

> Look at France, for instance. The anti GM crowd is so big and noisy
> that the govt. even admits that they won't pass some GMs approved by
> the EU, not based on science, but on politics.

I suspect that might be more to do with the French home-grown thing that
Greenpeace.

> Look at all the red tape surrounding Golden Rice (even if they have
> also a huge IP problem). Look the silly "plant dignity" laws in
> Switzerland. And of course I blame the govt. and the corporations
> also, but they can say without lying that people are asking for it!

Hmm... wouldn't it be possible for the governments putting these laws
together to do so in such a way that it doesn't (once again) slant
things heavily in favour of corporate power?

I think you're blaming the wrong people.

> And when people that are very well fed tell to ones who are hungry
> that GM are awful, well, I just lose my temper.

I'm not saying that GM is awful, I'm saying that the corporate ownership
of the foodchain is awful.

There's an interesting debate / talks about synthetic biology that you
may have heard here:

http://www.fourmentinguilbert.org/adhoc/drew-endy-jim-thomas-201csynthetic-biology-debate201d
http://tinyurl.com/bg7grl

(mp3 at bottom)

I don't entirely agree/disagree with either speaker, but the second
speaker does outline a number of issues relevant to "ones who are
hungry" which go beyond simply assuming that the only effects of GM are
confined to crop yield.

Nick

[Cory Tobin]

> Let's look up Cotton. Ok, there seems to be one alternative supplier
>
> Southern Exposure Seed Exchange
> P.O. Box 460
> Mineral, VA 23117

There ARE cotton suppliers besides the one on that list. MRC Seeds,
for example.
http://www.floragreen.com/cottonseeds/index.html
They sell to farmers all over the world, including India and presumably Iraq.

> Vandana Shiva says here that "Every seed that is in the market in cotton
> today, is linked to one company or another, licensed and controlled by
> Monsanto"

Based on the MRC Seeds website, MRC has developed their own varieties
of cotton. No mention of licensing Monsanto technologies. I'll send
them an email though, just to make sure.

-Cory

[Guido D. Núñez-Mujica]

Well, I must admit there is something personal here.
9 years ago Eco zealots burned a trial crop of GM papaya, modified to
be resistant to the Papaya Ringspot Virus. Not only they did that,
they also spread awful lies, nasty e mails and gave totally clueless
declarations to press. They created FUD about GM and then pushed for
laws forbidding them. I have seen, hear and felt what these kind of
people can do. And no, Greenpeace was not involved, but after that I
have found some GP members who are pretty nutty about GM.

Nick, you yourself said you do not agree with GP position on this
issue, and what I said is that I have no respect for GP and its
buddies for their position on GMOs. I have not checked lately, but as
far as I remember, it was not rational or based on facts, but based on
paranoia. The French case might be a local thing, but certainly
Greenpeace is not complaining. And you and I know that these attitudes
only help Monsanto in the long term, tearing apart the ability to make
GM by any other than big corporations.

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Nick Taylor <nick...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Look at France, for instance. The anti GM crowd is so big and noisy
>> that the govt. even admits that they won't pass some GMs approved by
>> the EU, not based on science, but on politics.
>
> I suspect that might be more to do with the French home-grown thing that
> Greenpeace.
>
>
>
>> Look at all the red tape surrounding Golden Rice (even if they have
>> also a huge IP problem). Look the silly "plant dignity" laws in
>> Switzerland. And of course I blame the govt. and the corporations
>> also, but they can say without lying that people are asking for it!
>
> Hmm... wouldn't it be possible for the governments putting these laws
> together to do so in such a way that it doesn't (once again) slant
> things heavily in favour of corporate power?
>
> I think you're blaming the wrong people.
>
>

I am not sure about this. But they certainly have a good excuse. And I
do not think that I am blaming the wrong people. These social
attitudes, these anti science attitudes are costing us dearly, and I
think we should not dismiss how powerful they are. Of course, we
should neither forget the role of crook politicians and lobbyists from
corporations.

>
>> And when people that are very well fed tell to ones who are hungry
>> that GM are awful, well, I just lose my temper.
>
> I'm not saying that GM is awful, I'm saying that the corporate ownership
> of the foodchain is awful.
>

And we agree on this. But many of your fellow ecologists will indeed
tell me that GM ARE awful, evil, unnatural, will make Baby
Jesus/Mother Gaia cry.

And concerning Vandana Shiva, as far as I know, the cotton production
in India has indeed grown, and the farmers in Gujarat told Monsanto to
fuck off and developed their own varieties, with the BT gene and
adapted to local conditions. These varieties outperform Monsanto
varieties and are far cheaper. So, even proprietary biotechnology can
be co opted.

> There's an interesting debate / talks about synthetic biology that you
> may have heard here:
>
> http://www.fourmentinguilbert.org/adhoc/drew-endy-jim-thomas-201csynthetic-biology-debate201d
> http://tinyurl.com/bg7grl
>
> (mp3 at bottom)
>
> I don't entirely agree/disagree with either speaker, but the second
> speaker does outline a number of issues relevant to "ones who are
> hungry" which go beyond simply assuming that the only effects of GM are
> confined to crop yield.
>

Will try to listen to it. But, is there any transcription? I am much
more text friendly, my English is still not very good for
understanding speech from speakers.

>
>
>
> Nick
>
>
> >
>

[Nick Taylor]

> Tell you what, I'll read up on Monsanto as soon as you write some
> letters to your congressman (or the British equivalent) about how
> upset you are about the lack of true gender equality in your country.
> Does that sound fair to you?

Sounds like a non-sequitur.

[Daniel C.]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Nick Taylor <nick...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Sounds like a non-sequitur.

Only if you missed the part where I said that I don't have enough time
to get involved in fighting Monsanto's particular brand of evil
because I'm already busy fighting others. If you didn't get that,
then yes it does.

[Nick Taylor]

> And we agree on this. But many of your fellow ecologists will indeed
> tell me that GM ARE awful, evil, unnatural, will make Baby
> Jesus/Mother Gaia cry.

I'm not attempting to defend my fellow ecologists, just Greenpeace...
although I do disagree with them on the GM thing.

I've belonged to various green groups in the past - and some of them are
scarily woolly and scarily out of touch with regards what constitutes
reality for other people.

This tends not to be the case with Greenpeace though - because I think,
some of the things we do can be a bit scary, the groups tend to be
composed more of people "you'd want to watch your back". It's also a far
more PR-Aware group... and we're specifically trained with calming down
stressful situations. If one of us is coming up with loads of irrational
fighty bollocks, other GP people, will attempt to gently divert things etc.

But people aren't perfect you know? I mean this conversation managed to
inspire a reply from someone else who hates... not 'disagrees with' or
is 'annoyed by' but actually hates, a group of people who:

- he has never met
- who's actions don't affect him
- on the grounds that they're somehow connected with terrorists

Although there is obviously no evidence for this and it would seem
unlikely that the biggest peace organisation in the world would
encourage its members to be violent... especially as they specifically
train us in non-violence.

> And concerning Vandana Shiva, as far as I know, the cotton production
> in India has indeed grown, and the farmers in Gujarat told Monsanto to
> fuck off and developed their own varieties, with the BT gene and
> adapted to local conditions. These varieties outperform Monsanto
> varieties and are far cheaper. So, even proprietary biotechnology can
> be co opted.

Yea - a group that Vandana Shiva is associated with have set up
alternative seed-banks (as a reaction to Monsanto controlled
monopolies)... but the carte-blanche assumption (as made by someone
else) that anyone on the planet can get alternative seeds because there
are sellers on the front-page of google is facile nonsense. There's more
to it than meets the eye.

> Will try to listen to it. But, is there any transcription? I am much
> more text friendly, my English is still not very good for
> understanding speech from speakers.

Not that I can find no, there's a video version here if that's any help

http://fora.tv/2008/11/17/Drew_Endy_and_Jim_Thomas_Debate_Synthetic_Biology#chapter_01

[Nick Taylor]

> Only if you missed the part where I said that I don't have enough time
> to get involved in fighting Monsanto's particular brand of evil
> because I'm already busy fighting others. If you didn't get that,
> then yes it does.

Well why are you even taking the time to stick up for them then? If you
can't find the time to find out what they're like?

[Daniel C.]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Nick Taylor <nick...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Well why are you even taking the time to stick up for them then? If you
> can't find the time to find out what they're like?

Nick, I'm beginning to think that you're skipping over large parts of
my responses. I wouldn't blame you if you did, but skipping over them
and then responding anyway confuses things.

I'm not sticking up for Monsanto - at least not specifically. I am
defending the notion that a company has the right to charge a
reasonable price for their product. That's all.

[Nick Taylor]

> I'm not sticking up for Monsanto - at least not specifically. I am
> defending the notion that a company has the right to charge a
> reasonable price for their product. That's all.

In response to my saying they're evil?

Why do you think I think they're evil?

In the light of that, why then try to simplify things to "a company has
the right to charge a reasonable price for their product"? I mean
really, what has that got to do with anything?

[Daniel C.]

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Nick Taylor <nick...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> In the light of that, why then try to simplify things to "a company has
> the right to charge a reasonable price for their product"? I mean
> really, what has that got to do with anything?

Go back and read over the thread. I can't be arsed to copy and paste
it for you - AGAIN - if you're not going to read it properly the first
time.

[Cory Tobin]

> Yea - a group that Vandana Shiva is associated with have set up
> alternative seed-banks (as a reaction to Monsanto controlled
> monopolies)... but the carte-blanche assumption (as made by someone
> else) that anyone on the planet can get alternative seeds because there
> are sellers on the front-page of google is facile nonsense. There's more
> to it than meets the eye.

According to this article (
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2003/10/13/stories/2003101300370700.htm
) a consortium of 7 companies in India have a significant share of the
Indian cotton seed market...
"The consortium has a market share of 30 per cent of total cottonseed
market in the country and 50 per cent share of the proprietary cotton
hybrid seeds marketed in the country."
This is contrary to the idea that Monsanto seeds are the only cotton
seeds available to farmers in Inda.

-Cory

[Nick Taylor]

> According to this article (
> http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2003/10/13/stories/2003101300370700.htm
> ) a consortium of 7 companies in India have a significant share of the
> Indian cotton seed market...
> "The consortium has a market share of 30 per cent of total cottonseed
> market in the country and 50 per cent share of the proprietary cotton
> hybrid seeds marketed in the country."
> This is contrary to the idea that Monsanto seeds are the only cotton
> seeds available to farmers in Inda.

Be sure to tell Vandana Shiva that she's been wasting her time then.

[Nick Taylor]

> Go back and read over the thread. I can't be arsed to copy and paste
> it for you - AGAIN - if you're not going to read it properly the first
> time.

No, I don't imagine you can.

Maybe my reading is better than your writing though. Maybe your
springing to Monsanto's defence on the grounds of their "right to make a
profit" did have absolutely fuck all to do with anything.

[Nathan McCorkle]

that fora.tv video is cool, watching it now... (was listening before i saw there was a video)

If anything this thread has made me think that synth bio work NEEDS to be opensourced and well documented/published... to keep things safe for everyone, even if we as scientists think we are acting appropriately, people can still feel lied to and helpless, and be abused, injusticed, and hurt when secrets are kept and information concealed.

I wasn't saying that peace and rainbows pay the landlord, but was trying to point out that the only reason he needs to get paid is to buy food for his family. If we were all fed well, the basic driving force of the world would be much different. No one works for no reason, for no return, but screwing people into modern slavery, hurting people, etc, is just plain evil. I understand science has it's pitfalls, that is experimentation, that is evolution, but I am sure there must be farmers and consumers in the world that would be willing to participate in said experiments. I am willing, my mother is willing (not my dad though), but let us know first.

- Show quoted text -

--
Nathan McCorkle
Rochester Institute of Technology
College of Science, Biotechnology/Bioinformatics

[Daniel C.]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Nick Taylor <nick...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Maybe my reading is better than your writing though. Maybe your
> springing to Monsanto's defence on the grounds of their "right to make a
> profit" did have absolutely fuck all to do with anything.

Here, I'll copy and paste one more time:

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Daniel C. <dcroo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hold on, I've got my bellows around here somewhere... ahh, there they are...
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Nick Taylor <nick...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> inflict "no seed-saving" laws on the rest of the world, like they tried
>> to do with Iraq.
>
> Yeah, because wanting to recoup your investment is evil.

It looks like it did after all have something to do with the conversation.

[Cory Tobin]

She's not wasting her time. Setting up seed banks is a great idea.
My point is that your idea of Monsanto "owning the food chain" is not
true. For any given crop there are other companies selling seeds
beside Monsanto.

-Cory

[Nick Taylor]

> She's not wasting her time. Setting up seed banks is a great idea.
> My point is that your idea of Monsanto "owning the food chain" is not
> true. For any given crop there are other companies selling seeds
> beside Monsanto.

In that video, she said otherwise.

[Nick Taylor]

>>> inflict "no seed-saving" laws on the rest of the world, like they tried
>>> to do with Iraq.
>> Yeah, because wanting to recoup your investment is evil.
>
> It looks like it did after all have something to do with the conversation.

Copying and pasting the first time you said something irrelevant doesn't
suddenly make it relevant.

[Nick Taylor]

> If anything this thread has made me think that synth bio work NEEDS to
> be opensourced and well documented/published... to keep things safe for
> everyone, even if we as scientists think we are acting appropriately,
> people can still feel lied to and helpless, and be abused, injusticed,
> and hurt when secrets are kept and information concealed.

Yea - they did seem to be in agreement over that. I think the Greenies'
take that goes along the lines of "oooh, we've got to stop this from
happening" is something they're kindof painted themselves into a corner
with - and I think they're in denial. I think they've got about as much
chance stopping this as they have stopping people from smoking grass.

[Bryan Bishop]

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 1:33 AM, Nathan McCorkle <nmz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wasn't saying that peace and rainbows pay the landlord, but was trying to
> point out that the only reason he needs to get paid is to buy food for his
> family. If we were all fed well, the basic driving force of the world would
> be much different. No one works for no reason, for no return, but screwing
> people into modern slavery, hurting people, etc, is just plain evil. I
> understand science has it's pitfalls, that is experimentation, that is
> evolution, but I am sure there must be farmers and consumers in the world
> that would be willing to participate in said experiments. I am willing, my
> mother is willing (not my dad though), but let us know first.

http://factorefarm.org/

"""
Factor e Farm is the land-based facility where we put the theory of
Open Source Ecology into practice. Agricola sum. We are farmer
scientists - working to develop a world class research center for
decentralization technologies. Now there's a tool for doing this: open
source technology deployed via flexible and digital fabrication. Open
engineering is applicable to our technology base- and from that - to
providing basic needs. That is a stepping stone to evolution.

Factor e Farm is not a factory farm. Why e? It is a transcendental
number. We aim to transcend. We push towards open source. Factor 10
reduction in price. Or at least e. Ten times cheaper means ten times
the freedom. It is Factor e improvement in quality of life. It is
technology for ecology. Evolve to freedom.

In these pages you will find the unfolding story of how we started
with raw land, and what we are up to on an ongoing basis. We paid our
last electricity bill three years ago. We are getting our power from
waste vegetable oil and the sun. We drink pure free rain water. We
grow most of our food. We are free. Welcome to our life. We want to
help others do the same. Decentralization. Regain control of your
life. Be your own boss. Evolve to freedom.

The Global Village Construction Set is the first experiment of Open
Source Ecology. Our challenge is to see how far we can reach into
human prosperity on a small scale. Can we create an advanced, largely
self-sufficient 'civilization' on the scale of villages or farmsteads?
Have we overlooked something? If so, what else is needed? Could this
have the potential to transform the world? If so, would you support
it?
"""

http://heybryan.org/transhumanism_def.html

> Considered as one of the modes of thought present in this-worldly
> political discussion, the transhumanist (like the polymath) turns
> technology into a rhetorical argument. Technology is the more
> powerful political argument because “it works.” It is pointless to
> argue “about” technology, but not pointless to argue through and with
> it. It is pointless to talk about whether stopping technology is good
> or bad, because someone will simply build a technology that will
> invalidate your argument.
>
> There is still a role for technical invention, but it is strongly
> distinguished from political, legal, cultural, or social
> interventions. For most transhumanists, there is no rhetoric here, no
> sophistry, just the pure truth of “it works”: the pure, undeniable,
> unstoppable, and undeconstructable reality of technology. For the
> transhumanist attitude, the reality of “working code” has a reality
> that other assertions about the world do not. Extreme transhumanism
> replaces the life-world with the world of the computer, where bad
> (ethically bad) ideas won’t compile. Less-staunch versions of
> transhumanism simply allow the confusion to operate
> opportunistically: the progress of technology is unquestionable
> (omniscient), and only its effects on humans are worth investigating.

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507

[Guido D. Núñez-Mujica]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Nick Taylor <nick...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> And we agree on this. But many of your fellow ecologists will indeed
>> tell me that GM ARE awful, evil, unnatural, will make Baby
>> Jesus/Mother Gaia cry.
>
> I'm not attempting to defend my fellow ecologists, just Greenpeace...
> although I do disagree with them on the GM thing.
>

I understand that. But to me, their position on GM has not changed
enough for them to earn my respect. As I said before, here we are
dealing with the lives of people who are affected now, and we are
improving business for Monsanto, and they have kept this state of
things during years and show no sign of change that I can see. Maybe
they will change soon, or have already changed, but I see the same old
and very wrong message. I support pretty much the rest of things they
do and believe, but to me, the GM position even manages to tarnish
that, as can be used as an argument against them from people who are
not as concerned as us. Or from people who profit from the way things
are now.

> I've belonged to various green groups in the past - and some of them are
> scarily woolly and scarily out of touch with regards what constitutes
> reality for other people.
>

I agree with you. That is the reason that I have never joined any
green group. Many times I have seen disregard for people and worship
of a fake "nature" that does not exist outside their heads.

> This tends not to be the case with Greenpeace though - because I think,
> some of the things we do can be a bit scary, the groups tend to be
> composed more of people "you'd want to watch your back". It's also a far
> more PR-Aware group... and we're specifically trained with calming down
> stressful situations. If one of us is coming up with loads of irrational
> fighty bollocks, other GP people, will attempt to gently divert things etc.
>

OK: I did not know that. Thanks for the bit of knowledge.

> But people aren't perfect you know?

Of course, that is why I prefer to stick to my beliefs as a private
person rather than join organizations that I do not agree in all their
basic points.

I mean this conversation managed to
> inspire a reply from someone else who hates... not 'disagrees with' or
> is 'annoyed by' but actually hates, a group of people who:
>
> - he has never met
> - who's actions don't affect him
> - on the grounds that they're somehow connected with terrorists
>
> Although there is obviously no evidence for this and it would seem
> unlikely that the biggest peace organisation in the world would
> encourage its members to be violent... especially as they specifically
> train us in non-violence.
>

I stopped replying to that person once he chose to ignore my
observation that bending the law to punish people for doing whatever
they have done for thousands of years (It is Iraq, civilization was
born around there!) is indeed awful (and very non Libertarian, btw).
And when that person broke the Godwin's law equivalent with 9/11
instead of Nazis, bonus points.

>
>
>
>> And concerning Vandana Shiva, as far as I know, the cotton production
>> in India has indeed grown, and the farmers in Gujarat told Monsanto to
>> fuck off and developed their own varieties, with the BT gene and
>> adapted to local conditions. These varieties outperform Monsanto
>> varieties and are far cheaper. So, even proprietary biotechnology can
>> be co opted.
>
> Yea - a group that Vandana Shiva is associated with have set up
> alternative seed-banks (as a reaction to Monsanto controlled
> monopolies)...

I did not know Shiva was associated with them. I stopped reading
anything from her since she claimed several years ago, that BT cotton
really did not improve yields. I thought she was so blind that it made
no sense to waste my time reading her. If you would point to me some
other pieces by her that accepted the possibility of GM managed by
people, not by corporations, I really would appreciate it.

but the carte-blanche assumption (as made by someone
> else) that anyone on the planet can get alternative seeds because there
> are sellers on the front-page of google is facile nonsense. There's more
> to it than meets the eye.

There is much, much more. And indeed that assumption is moronic.

>
>
>
>> Will try to listen to it. But, is there any transcription? I am much
>> more text friendly, my English is still not very good for
>> understanding speech from speakers.
>
>
> Not that I can find no, there's a video version here if that's any help
>
> http://fora.tv/2008/11/17/Drew_Endy_and_Jim_Thomas_Debate_Synthetic_Biology#chapter_01

Not really, I still watch movies with closed captions and have a hard
time understanding them otherwise, Weirdly, my understanding in person
is much better. And I was going to go to that debate, damn, but I
could not make it.

[Jeswin John]

People, PLEASE stick to the topic:

Getting a sample ready for electrophoresis?

All of those that want to talk about GMO, start a new topic. I don't want to see this again. OK??

--
*-----------------------------------------------------------*
Join the Revolution

http://diybio.org/
http://homebrewbioscience.blogspot.com/
*------------------------------------------------------------*

[Nick Taylor]

>> I'm not attempting to defend my fellow ecologists, just Greenpeace...
>> although I do disagree with them on the GM thing.
>>
>
> I understand that. But to me, their position on GM has not changed
> enough for them to earn my respect.

I think they've painted themselves into a corner to be honest. Changing
their stance now, would be about as difficult as any western politician
coming out in favour of legalising marijuana.

And I think they're in denial... I think there's as much chance of
holding back the biotech revolution as there is stopping people smoking
marijuana. The best they can do is shut up about it - and if I had my
way, they'd do just that.

But you know, on the whole I think they do a lot of good - and even with
GM I wouldn't blame them for the clumsiness with which the laws wind
up being framed.

[Guido D. Núñez-Mujica]

Nick:

It takes a lot of balls to say "I was wrong. I am sorry". But the
ability of doing exactly that is what makes people and institutions
flexible, able to change and able to improve themselves. You yourself
said that people are not perfect, indeed we are not, and refusing to
acknowledge our mistakes makes us dogmatic, and does not help to fix
any issue. Dogma is never good.

I do not think they can stop the biotech revolution. But they can hurt
people, they can prevent a lot of people from getting early access to
new crops. Let's assume that the whole GM opposition (not only GP)
delayed the launching of golden rice by three years. Let's assume that
each year only 10.000 kids would have gone blind for lack of Vitamin A
in a way that Golden Rice could have prevented it. That is 30.000 kids
going blind, several thousands of parents and siblings affected by
such a tragedy. My concern is not they stopping biotech revolution. My
concern is them delaying useful biotech reaching people in need. That
is happening right now. It is not a theoretical risk.

Again, I tell you I have seen in person what this kind of zealots (GP
or not) are able to do, the FUD, paranoia and mistrust of science. It
is not pretty and it is dangerous, we live in democratic systems.

[Mackenzie Cowell]

Bump!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marnia Johnston <mar...@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 2, 5:43 pm
Subject: Getting a sample ready for electrophoresis?
To: DIYbio

Jeswin had a good question that I would also like to know the answer
to.

"My question on pineapple was about the use of pineapple juice in the
DNA
extraction experiment. The effectiveness of pineapple proteases
compared to
meat tenderizer or contact-lens cleaning solution?"

Anybody got an opinion?

Thanks

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Jeswin John <phillyj...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Just to put it into perspective: the corn we eat is GM, just naturally
> selected over thousands of years. Same with almost all other edible fruits
> and vegetables. One is artificial and quick but other way take many, many
> years.

> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Nathan McCorkle <nmz...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Yes Daniel, we are going to debate GM foods!!! DOWN WITH GM!!!! (totally
>> just joking)

>> I actually think it would be a good idea to grow GM foods with organic
>> practices... I know there is controversy over BT corn, but honestly, even if
>> there are people that can't denature it or it affects them in an allergic
>> way, I bet it is still not as bad as eating some toxic pesticide, etc... and
>> I think that we can denature it just fine.

>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Daniel C. <dcrooks...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Aaron Hicks <aaron.hi...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Unless things have changed quite recently, I am unaware of any GM food
>>> items
>>> > that are available as whole, unmodified foods. For example, while we
>>> may
>>> > consume some GM corn, it is not as corn on the cob, but as highly
>>> processed
>>> > taco shells or whatever. While I'm sure there's some fallout from
>>> > cross-pollination somewhere with corn, strawberries and pineapples are
>>> not
>>> > wind-pollinated; both are largely grown clonally.

>>> Ahhh, GM corn - just like Dad used to make.  Literally.  My dad was a
>>> plant geneticists at the U of MN and did a lot of work on corn and
>>> soybean genetics while he was there.  They planted their experiment
>>> plots on a rotation, so every year they had at least some plots on
>>> corn.  Since those were "off" plots (no research being done on them)
>>> we could harvest them for our own use.  And yes, all of it was
>>> genetically modified.  I'm pretty sure that most consumer-grade corn
>>> grown currently in the US is genetically modified.  Same with
>>> soybeans, and I wouldn't be surprised if other crops were as well.

>>> Regarding cross pollination - most farmers are pretty careful about
>>> how they allow their corn to pollinate.  (Google "corn detasseling".)
>>> They're careful about it because of the financial incentives - careful
>>> control over pollination can make a huge difference in their yield.

>>> Anyway, this is a bio-engineering mailing list... we're not really on
>>> the verge of a debate about GM foods are we?

>> --
>> Nathan McCorkle
>> Rochester Institute of Technology
>> College of Science, Biotechnology/Bioinformatics

> --