Today I asked Monty Don a question

I must confess to a typo, that should have read I'm NOT a physicist.

Yes indeed. Far more subtleties in genetics than we used to think.
The particle acceleration lecture was very good. Young woman from the Rutherford.
Wearing a summer dress!!!!
I did zoology and psychology and recently enjoyed writing an ebook about the immune system. Lovely to get my head back into science having done a number of other things in the last 30 years. Writing a short one about the gut now.

Sorry to get carried away but its one of my special interests - Mitochondrial haplogroups

I'm fascinated by studies involving monozygotic twins snce I personally came across a case where one twin developed a genetically inheritable condition and his identical twin didn't. As you know genes can be 'switched off' and in this instance something caused the dominant gene to be switched off so allowing the recessive trait to manifest itself. I suspect that we will soon discover the function of non genes in the same way that the 'secrets' of mitochondrial DNA is now being unraveled and the evidence linking somatic mutations with certain cancers, eg breast, colon, stomach, liver, and kidney tumors is being investigated. Fascinating, echoes of the 'seven daughters of Eve?

Enjoy your lecture on particle acceleration JessM. I'm a physicist, my subjects were Botany, Zoololgy, Chemistry and Maths.

Ah I see your point - that the gene may express differently inside a different species. So proceed with caution.
At the moment it seems that understanding of the genome is going forward in huge leaps, doesn't it. All the non-genes on chromosomes and what their function is for instance. And how cancer genetics works - that seems to be getting turned on its head at frequent intervals.
I am off to one of our local secondary schools in half an hour to hear a lecture on particle accelerators. The science dept invite academics in, and invite the public to join in. They are pitched at students in theory. Some are better communicators than others. Last month's started off well and then ran out of steam and started talking about the details of his grant application!

I'm not talking about methods of gene transfer strategies that have been developed for the treatment of human diseases ie the viral and non-viral methods. I'm talking about the end product of transfer between species. I see you have a similar background to mine, teaching science. Although we're both retired I suspect we like to keep to date with current research. You may therefore be familiar with research into genetic susceptibility to infectious diseases. Simply put, why some disease can cross the species barrier may be down to a possession of a single gene, a variation or mutation of that gene, a combination of genes and so on. The research into variant Creutzfeldt Jakob disease has discovered the most significant marker at reps1799990 SNP location PRNP. This is why in the wake of 'mad cow disease' only certain individuals developed CJD and others who had eaten infected meat did not. The ethical worry to me us that though we have mapped the human genome we are only beginning to understand the complexity and to transfer genes between species may have unforeseen consequences. I have no such problem with same species transfer and applaud the work of scientists in this area.

I don't have a problem as long as safety guidelines are adhered to.
The technique is similar to what is being developed in "genetic surgery" ie trying to correct a defective gene in an embryo to prevent disability.
But there are probably many other lines of medical research that are far more hazardous than this one.

I didn't mean ethical in that sense JessM I meant it in its wider sense, the rights or wrongs of transferring genes from species

In practice GM products that make crops naturally resistant to pests could save lives.
In practice GM animals or plants that produce molecules like perfectly matched human insulin could save lives.
There are many such examples.
The issue of whether it is ethical to experiment on animals to achieve some of these goals is a separate one.

I think the ethical problem is when genes from different species are used eg jellyfish genes introduced into marmosets (see below) or animal genes intoducued into plants.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8070252.stm

As jess says, bacteria (and viruses) are extremely good at it. I certainly feel they've changed my internal environment sometimes!

Agreed about Monsanto. Essentially, Monsanto is the problem with GM, which is also what I said earlier, in different words. The principle of GM is not a problem because it's the same as selective breeding – changing things for our purposes. I suppose one could, if one felt inclined, object to that, but one might as well just object to humans in that case, because it's what we do. Other organisms change their environments too, but not with the same degree of intent – we tend to assume with no intent but of course the basic intent of all life is simply to survive in the best way possible.

anno Does that mean old vineyards are full of the bones of dead animals?
I can see why my vine is so reluctant to bear fruit now. Nice leaves though.
Mulberry trees are a very long term project best suited to those with ancestral estates - fortunately for donkeys.
Jodi - very succinct. Bags - hybridisation is indeed transfer of genes from one organism to another. In the bacterial world they swap individual genes like kids in the playground swapping top trumps cards. e.g. they will pass on their antibiotic resistant genes, helpfully, like. This is very similar to GM and speeds up their ability to adapt and change no end.
But hybridisation and selective breeding slightly different.
In true selective breeding the breeder chooses breeding stock with the "best" genes, generation after generation - just like survival of the fittest. There is a classic experiment being done on arctic foxes by someone up Siberia way, in which they have selected for tameness for many generations. Along with the tameness has come changes in coat colour and floppy ears!
I think the worst thing that ever happened to GM technology was Monsanto who launched their Roundup resistant soya on the world and put everyone's backs up. I can see why it appeals to midwest farmers. But to the rest of us it appeared cynical in the extreme. (Roundup is Monsanto's broad spectrum weedkiller in case anyone not familiar)

Isn't natural hybridisation the same kind of transfer of genetic material from one species to another? Just that it's happened without our direct help. I say direct help because of course moving Spanish bluebells to Britain has 'assisted' the hybridisation of native bluebells, so although we didn't do it deliberately....

In principle, doing it deliberately amounts to the same thing as it happening naturally. The difference, as I said before, is speed. The principle is the same.

GM normally involves the insertion of genes carrying a specific trait (eg pest resistance) from one organism into another, although other GM techniques are possible. The result is a genetically modified organism (GMO).
The difference between this and selective breeding is that often the gene transfer is from an unrelated species rather than through controlled sexual reprodction or hybridisation.

Dead donkeys and goats used to be planted buried under the roots of vines. The best I could do with the vine I one had was blood, fish and bone fertiliser but the cats took a very lively interest in that corner.

I wondered. But I think it is a journalistic thing - as in drop the filler animal-interest story?
In our local paper (you know the one gracesmum) there was once a story entitled "Lost parakeet found dead" alongside one that said "Village hall not open yet"
Once on the evening BBC Wales news was the story, trailed as: Gwent piglet happy at home.
I think those stories might be dead donkeys.

Is that where you get the phrase "Drop the dead Donkey"?

But he is not v scientific. Remember he was an artist first. And once he did a prog where he was getting into that method of growing things where you work out the phases of the moon, get the carrot seed's horoscope done, cast the runes and just to make consult a new age self appointed wise person as to the time of day you should do the planting.
Actually... did you know that the traditional way to plant a mulberry tree is to kill a donkey, dig a big hole, throw the dead donkey in and then plant your mulberry tree on top. Makes sense. About a century of fertiliser in a dead donkey I'd say.
MD would not approve though as, I think, he is a veggie.

farming not pharming

The problem isn't really GM per se, it's who is controlling it and the patenting of seeds and other nonsenses. Big pharma is in control rather than the universities where the research is done. The principle is not wrong, only the way it is being applied. Let's hope laws will change. People like the Ben Goldacres of farming need to get onto this.

Good sleuthing, jings!

I've found it!

Ah!

Was this Twitter?