Genetics is information. Do you believe information should not be ownable? I think we should not be able to own any information. Information is like fire. It takes no space and costs nothing to replicate. Taking the concept ownership developed with physical objects and applying it to information is ridiculous. It's like owning clouds.
Physical objects are not the same as information. We create all information. Hard drives are just atoms arranged a particular way and how we interact and process those atoms adds the information layer on top. Same goes for DNA.
I agree with your sentiment, I do see some nuance here though. This phenotype is very valuable in how it could reduce inputs across industrial agriculture--and industrial agriculture is an extremely competitive and well-developed market. Entrenched interests are change-averse (unless they themselves are exploiting the change), so the very powerful industry will either squash this plant if it threatens their dominance, or squeeze every last penny out of it through patents. The net benefit will be best for everyone involved if the Nitrogen-fixing phenotype is hybridized into every corn cultivar around, which is only likely to happen if big-ag can exploit it for profit. That being the case, can we find a way to reward the farmers who genetically engineered this plant by selecting for the strongest individuals for the last several thousands years? Perhaps we can compensate them proportionately to the western seed companies who will close the last-mile gap getting this valuable trait to market.
> can we find a way to reward the farmers who genetically engineered this plant by selecting for the strongest individuals for the last several thousands years?
In a very concrete sense we cannot, because the people who did it are dead. We're really talking about rewarding (the people we presume to be) their descendants. Is that something we would do in a completely European context? For example, if we found a strain of worm-resistant apple that had been growing in a particular suburb of Manchester since before anyone's grandma could remember, would you consider giving patent rights to anyone who had a tree in their back yard?
So question based on this, is this a reason to be for non-GMOs? I would imagine that a lot of GMO crops have such patents, and as such, by purchasing them, you are supporting the patent holders. On the other hand, non-GMO craps would not have such patents, so you are not supporting them.
I imagine there could be a flaw in this logic, but I welcome thoughts to it.
Everything is GMO to a degree, and without GMO people starve as long as we all live in cities. So start a farm with a group of like minded people, or be dependent on corporate farms
I understand everything is GMO to a degree, and I am honestly not sure of how the "non-GMO" label works. The question them becomes is the GMO from a patented modification or a non-patented modification?
I am not against GMOs from a biological perspective, I agree they are necessary. The question is should one take a stand against patented GMOs.
Discussion in Farm Progress.[1] The maize plant in Mexico requires a 9-month growing season, so it's only useful in near-tropical climates. Work is progressing to see if the trick that plant uses can be adapted to something that grows faster.
For a plant to fix its own nitrogen carries an energy cost. So the plant grows slower. There's a tradeoff here.
20 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 58.6 ms ] threadHow does that tie to ownership?
I don't think we can state that as a fact, can we?
I was just watching this discussion here yesterday: https://youtu.be/noj4phMT9OE.
Very interesting points made.
Hah, tell that to FANG!
In a very concrete sense we cannot, because the people who did it are dead. We're really talking about rewarding (the people we presume to be) their descendants. Is that something we would do in a completely European context? For example, if we found a strain of worm-resistant apple that had been growing in a particular suburb of Manchester since before anyone's grandma could remember, would you consider giving patent rights to anyone who had a tree in their back yard?
I imagine there could be a flaw in this logic, but I welcome thoughts to it.
I am not against GMOs from a biological perspective, I agree they are necessary. The question is should one take a stand against patented GMOs.
For a plant to fix its own nitrogen carries an energy cost. So the plant grows slower. There's a tradeoff here.
[1] https://www.farmprogress.com/biotechnology/nitrogen-fixing-c...