A medical ethics question

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm interested to see the results of this survey.

Personally, I would have thought that the answer to this question would have been obvious, but seeing the poll results in this thread - along with some of the anti-GMO stuff in past threads - makes me wonder.

Here's the scenario:

Many insulin-dependent diabetics will die without some source of insulin. Right now, the most popular insulin for use in humans is Humulin:

Humulin, one brand name for a group of biosynthetic human insulin products, is synthesized in a laboratory strain of Escherichia coli bacteria which has been genetically altered with recombinant DNA to produce biosynthetic human insulin.

Regular insulin - Wikipedia

This synthetic insulin has mostly (but not completely) replaced insulin that was extracted from pig and cow pancreas (e.g. Iletin).

Right now, there are no other practical options for insulin-dependent diabetics.

So... that's the background. Now to the poll.

Feel free to post your comments below.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I voted for Insulin synthesized using genetically modified bacteria.
I can properly agree to some anti-GMO as I recall it, but that is not a function of it being GMO alone.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I think I'm fine with either 1 or 2.

 

[Altfish]

Which ever saves peoples' lives.
I ticked genetically modified but if pigs is available that too.

GM is a scare word for a dark new world of dubious food. BUT we've been genetically modifying food for years, with no issue. Look at the banana before humans got their hands on it.
In the 60's I worked on a market stall that sold F1 Hybrid tomato plants - F1 Hybrid was a GM breed.

Don't misunderstand some extreme GM foods do worry me, but minor tweaks are fine.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Beef and pork insulin are a little more likely to cause allergic reactions, so I'd say human is preferable. Incidentally, the animals aren't killed for insulin. They are killed for meat and their pancreases harvested:

"Insulin reactions occur rarely but are of tremendous clinical importance. The first was reported in 1922 as a callus reaction at the injection site of insufficiently purified bovine insulin. Porcine insulin was subsequently found to be less allergenic than bovine insulin. Increasingly pure insulins have decreased the risk of adverse reactions, and the production of recombinant insulin with the same amino sequence as human insulin saw a large decrease in adverse reactions."

Insulin allergy - PubMed

 

[Secret Chief]

Look at the banana before humans got their hands on it.

and the EU

 

[Father Heathen]

If we can use pigs for bacon, we can use them for life saving insulin. Of course, more humane alternatives should be pursued if viable.

 

[AlexanderG]

I'll bet anything that producing insulin with bacteria is orders of magnitude cheaper than extracting it from the organs of farm animals. GMO bacteria is a fantastic way to produce complex biological materials in a very efficient way. I also think getting away from animal products is the cutting edge of moral progress right now, as plant-based diets and plant-based biotech are enormously better for the environment and reduce the suffering of conscious beings. About 25 million animals are slaughtered in the US each day, and about 70% of our farmland goes toward animal feed, not to mention the huge problems of the global fishing industry. One of the biggest impacts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that you can make as an individual is to simply eat less meat.

Genetically modified food is incredibly safe. You eat lots of DNA from plants or animals with every meal, and having some DNA inserted from one plant into another plant before you eat it doesn't matter because it's all getting broken up in your stomach anyway. As a biologist who is a liberal progressive, I've been very frustrated by leftist activists against GM foods, because almost all of the concerns they raise are based on factual misunderstandings about biology and the processes of genetic engineering. They panic over terms like "viral promoter" when this is a technical term of art that has nothing to do with viruses or promoting viruses, for example. I want to shake them and tell them to educate themselves in the basics of a topic before they criticize it.

The really HUGE issue is that many of the biggest agricultural biotech companies have policies and practices that only an evil psychopath could dream up, entirely separate from their technology or products. It's truly awful.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'll bet anything that producing insulin with bacteria is orders of magnitude cheaper than extracting it from the organs of farm animals. GMO bacteria is a fantastic way to produce complex biological materials in a very efficient way. I also think getting away from animal products is the cutting edge of moral progress right now, as plant-based diets and plant-based biotech are enormously better for the environment and reduce the suffering of conscious beings. About 25 million animals are slaughtered in the US each day, and about 70% of our farmland goes toward animal feed, not to mention the huge problems of the global fishing industry. One of the biggest impacts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that you can make as an individual is to simply eat less meat.

Genetically modified food is incredibly safe. You eat lots of DNA from plants or animals with every meal, and having some DNA inserted from one plant into another plant before you eat it doesn't matter because it's all getting broken up in your stomach anyway. As a biologist who is a liberal progressive, I've been very frustrated by leftist activists against GM foods, because almost all of the concerns they raise are based on factual misunderstandings about biology and the processes of genetic engineering. They panic over terms like "viral promoter" when this is a technical term of art that has nothing to do with viruses or promoting viruses, for example. I want to shake them and tell them to educate themselves in the basics of a topic before they criticize it.

It's reminiscent of the people afraid of irradiated food for fear of radiation poisoning.

 

[Augustus]

Genetically modified food is incredibly safe. You eat lots of DNA from plants or animals with every meal, and having some DNA inserted from one plant into another plant before you eat it doesn't matter because it's all getting broken up in your stomach anyway. As a biologist who is a liberal progressive, I've been very frustrated by leftist activists against GM foods, because almost all of the concerns they raise are based on factual misunderstandings about biology and the processes of genetic engineering.

The long-term effects on ecosystems of introducing non-native plant species with characteristics not typically found in nature and with the potential for further evolution and cross pollination with other GM crops combined with the human element of agricultural economics are unknowable.

Assuming this carries negligible risk is hubristic given the absolutely terrible track record of humans being able to understand the impact of their activities on ecosystems prior to the damage becoming visible, and potentially irreversible.

 

[AlexanderG]

The long-term effects on ecosystems of introducing non-native plant species with characteristics not typically found in nature and with the potential for further evolution and cross pollination with other GM crops combined with the human element of agricultural economics are unknowable.

Assuming this carries negligible risk is hubristic given the absolutely terrible track record of humans being able to understand the impact of their activities on ecosystems prior to the damage becoming visible, and potentially irreversible.

This is a good point, but one that equally applies to crop farming using plants bred through traditional selective breeding. There is no critique here that particularly applies to GM crops, is there? Which is worse for the ecosystem, an oat plant bred to be resistant to crown rust, or an oat plant genetically engineered to be resistant to crown rust? I don't think you could justifiably choose one over the other.

When Monsanto sues farmers for patent infringement after pollen from their GM crops blows on the wind and cross-pollinates with the crops those farmers were growing far away, then that does cause unconscionable harm. The agritech companies are up there with the fossil fuel and cigarette companies in terms of their mendacity and cynical evil.

 

[Augustus]

This is a good point, but one that equally applies to crop farming using plants bred through traditional selective breeding. There is no critique here that particularly applies to GM crops, is there? Which is worse for the ecosystem, an oat plant bred to be resistant to crown rust, or an oat plant genetically engineered to be resistant to crown rust? I don't think you could justifiably choose one over the other.

I'd say there is a significant difference. If there were no difference, GM would be unnecessary.

Selective breeding has to operate within parameters defined by nature, GM allows ever bigger 'jumps' away from what occurs naturally.

Humans have selectively bred since time immemorial, would you say that any GM of human genetics would be no different to this?

Human ability to create technology always outpaces our ability to understand that technology, especially when that relates to technology that impacts complex systems with non-linear responses and dynamic feedback loops (Remember the idea that social media would usher in a new era of human tolerance and understanding ).

When Monsanto sues farmers for patent infringement after pollen from their GM crops blows on the wind and cross-pollinates with the crops those farmers were growing far away, then that does cause unconscionable harm. The agritech companies are up there with the fossil fuel and cigarette companies in terms of their mendacity and cynical evil.

And we know that if corporations noticed some harm then at least some would do their level best to try to muddy the waters for as long as possible.

 

[Jainarayan]

No problem from my POV in using GMO. We’ve been genetically modifying organisms for 10,000 years. The first litter of wolf pups born in a human encampment started the process. Broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, kale, and their kind are all the same plant... wild cabbage that looks nothing like those vegetables. Apples, citrus, someone mentioned bananas, all forms of squash and gourds, cucumbers, melons... same ancestor plant.

 

[AlexanderG]

I'd say there is a significant difference. If there were no difference, GM would be unnecessary.

Selective breeding has to operate within parameters defined by nature, GM allows ever bigger 'jumps' away from what occurs naturally.

Nope. GM technology only speeds up the process so that it is economical and achievable. Any GMO product could be created through selective breeding, given enough time and effort. Both equally operate "within the parameters defined by nature."

 

[Augustus]

Nope. GM technology only speeds up the process so that it is economical and achievable. Any GMO product could be created through selective breeding, given enough time and effort. Both equally operate "within the parameters defined by nature."

Can't say I agree with that.

Would you say there is no difference or greater risk involved in GM of the human genome and selective human breeding too?