Genetic Engineering does indeed have problems

Jim Mason jmason at ink.org
Thu Feb 17 13:36:17 EST 2000


I stand corrected on the distinctions (apparently very few) between
mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA.  I hope Bruce and his merry band of
genetic tinkerers have lots of fun messing around with all this and never
regret what they are doing.  Those pesky unintended consequences have an
amazing way of coming around to bite you.  We truly are now at a stage where
we can play God with the world.  I am no Luddite.  I just want to enjoy my
time on this wonderful planet and do my part to preserve its biodiversity.

Jim Mason, Naturalist
jmason at ink.org
(316) 683-5499 x103
Great Plains Nature Center
6232 E. 29th St. N.
Wichita, KS 67220-2200
http://www.gpnc.org


----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Walsh <jbwalsh at u.arizona.edu>
To: jmason <jmason at ink.org>; Leps-L <LEPS-L at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2000 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: Genetic Engineering does indeed have problems


Jim chimes in with " It
is very disingenuous to say that "Nature itself likes genetic
engineering."
based on the presence of mitochondria and chloroplasts in animal and
plant
cells.  You should know better."

Actually, I do indeed know better, which is why I said this.  Most of the
original genes in the mitochondria and chloroplasts have been transferred
to the nucleus --- animal mtDNA have only 20 odd protein coding genes,
cpDNAs have around 150 protein coding genes, yet the molecular energy
structures unique to both organelles have 1000-2000 other proteins, which
are
all nuclear.  All those bacteria genes are now in our nuclei, a massive feat
of genetic modification.

Peace



More information about the Leps-l mailing list