Exotic in this case just means uncommon or rare in the wild, not expensive. Something like requiring both salt and aspartame would help prevent gene transfer in the wild (to related or unrelated strains) as well as making it unlikely to grow on its own.
I'm going to guess this is for patenting strains that are bred or genetically modified? E.g. to provide better disease resistance or higher quantities of substances?
I had meant the 'original', 'natural' plant, but a fair point.
Hmm Big Deal.! Kenya, the poster child in this case has been fully infiltrated with genetically engineered seeds and crops. I dont see the native or indigenous value of these crops in a place like that.
If you want very native plants you might have to move into harsher areas. Sudan, Congo, Somalia etc
Seems to me that one of the more interesting directions that genetic engineering could take is manufacturing of exotic materials. The safety issues would be much easier to manage as well if the GM organisms are kept in vats in a lab instead of planted in farm fields, etc.
The super algea we are looking for here, would likely have no chance in the wild anymore, because to optimize some desired traits (thriving in a protected, stable environment) usually means giving up on other traits, which will force them down when they have competition. (same argument applies to GMO plants)
Sure, that's something to consider before releasing stuff like this in the wild, especially if it can mutate and start attacking something else.
My point was: whether we use GMO or not, such a thing might happen naturally.
There is also a chance that such a mutation does not offer much competitive advantage if other nutrients are easy to find, and the mutation disappears. I wouldn't bet on it though, given the number of ecological niches that exist.
All genetic modifications aren't created equal. If you can get to it from cross breeding, it's probably not that foreign a trait, but if you to say splice pea DNA with mesquito DNA or something, that result could have consequences consumers would rather not worry about when buying produce. I'm not saying it's a fine dilineation or anything and I'm not anti science, but there are more nuanced regulations in food labeling today than GMO nonGMO.
Q: There are lots of techniques to preserve genetic diversity in EA/GA, like e.g. niching. Does anyone know if this specific thing has ever been tried?
As a complete outsider, I've got a question for you. How hard is it to do this GMO thing? Why does it have to be limited to only a few big corporations? Why have we yet to see a diverse industry of startups and small companies competing to make the best strains at the lowest prices with the most features, like we saw with the electronics industry?
I'm not saying anyone should, but in the context of preserving particular strains and particular genetic diversity (which is what this article is about), if you are breeding willy nilly (which there is nothing wrong with, and can, as the other commenter mentioned, help you select for your very particular micro-conditions), you almost certainly aren't preserving whatever strain it is you started with.
Many of those variants are related to the Cavendish or GM, and are not resistant to existing threats.
Those that are resistant, without seeds, with similar taste, often have thinner/weaker skins causing more spoilage/loss, lower shelf lives, are more expensive to harvest/store (grow in less dense groups) etc...
Those corporate behemoths would love to save money by not loosing good cropland to viruses that kill their crops, but the only solution to date that doesn't end up costing more elsewhere due to the issues mentioned above is GMO's and their potential to maintain those benefits while adding resistance (or apply those traits to other varieties that are already resistant).
Some countries carefully restrict imports of certain plants, animals and foodstuffs to avoid upsetting their ecosystem. This essentially boils down to the restriction of import of genes. Are you opposed to this? Can't genetic modification essentially amount to the same thing?
(I'm happy with genetic modifications in general, but I think that it's prudent to be cautious because of potential upsets to the ecosystem.)
That's not because of genetic modification, that's because of commercial farming practices, which really aren't related. We've done a fine job of homogenizing bananas without any genetic twiddling, for instance.
I agree with you that it's a concern, though I'm more concerned by the fact entire crops and indeed potentially entire foods can be wiped out by one pathogen more than worrying about genetic diversity abstractly.
reply