Someone argued that I was actually probably Russian like their grandfather, not Polish because Polish and Russian is both Slavic and therefore the DNA test and our culture is probably wrong and I was Russian the whole time.
Someone argued that I was actually probably Russian like their grandfather, not Polish because Polish and Russian is both Slavic and therefore the DNA test and our culture is probably wrong and I was Russian the whole time.
Selective breeding is genetic modification. That’s what makes the anger about the lab stuff so stupid. Sure, it isn’t natural, but neither is what we’ve been doing for thousands of years.
Yeah, well where do you draw the line though? When normies talk about something being GMO, it always involves fancy labs, modern biotechnology and greedy corporations.
When wolves were modified to become dogs, people were effectively practicing low-tech genetic manipulation, but people usually don’t think of it in those terms. Well, what about when the same thing happens without humans in charge of the process? Like, why do peacocks have such impressive tail feathers? Humans weren’t involved in that manipulation, so does it still count? It’s the peacocks themselves who did all the selective breeding and genetic manipulation.
What about when one species causes another to change? Just think of the relationship between orchids and hummingbirds for example. What about wasp-mimic flies or harmless snakes that look a lot like venomous ones? Surely, that’s a result of genetic manipulation too. This is getting completely ridiculous, so I guess we need to draw the line somewhere.
Yeah, I do think the lab kind should be in a different category, but it shouldn’t be shunned. It’s a new way to do an ancient thing. The biggest difference is that genes from one species (or designed ones) can’t get into a different one naturally (very frequently or easily —viruses can, but that’s pretty limited without humans managing it). Usually the genes need to be present in a population for them to be selected for. Either that, or caused by a random mutation, which decreases the rate this can happen.
It’s potentially dangerous, if it isn’t managed properly. It could introduce some issues that wouldn’t be with slower methods. However, it’s not a serious concern. It being modified in a lab doesn’t inherently make it harmful any more than all the other ways does. It’s just far more capable. It can solve some huge issues, and we shouldn’t shun it.
In biology, there are always exceptions. As you pointed out, viruses frequently mess around with genomes. Also, some bacteria can grab a plasmid from a completely different species of bacteria. Larger critters can’t pull off tricks like that, and that’s the group we usually think of.
Totally agree about gene editing being neutral. It’s just a tool like any other. That doesn’t make it good or evil. People who use it get to decide how it’s being used, and that’s the step where things can go wrong. It’s a powerful tool, so when used correctly, the results are life-changing. When mistakes are made, the price can be very high.
What about the terminology then? My previous examples are usually covered under evolution, not genetic manipulation, and I think intention is the key difference. Evolution happens on its own, while editing requires an intention.
I think evolution also covers selective breeding, which is intentional too. The “natural” form is natural selection. I think “Genetic Engineering” is the best term for the lab process. It’s not ideal, because I’d argue selective breeding could still be argued to be genetic engineering, but it’s the most accurate I think that exists. Engineering does imply a certain amount of control that could be argued isn’t met by selective breeding. Genetically modified organism (GMO) is a horrible term, though that is probably the most common term for the lab process.