# CRISPR, tidal wave of genetic modifications coming real soon?



## wildbranch2007 (Dec 3, 2008)

UTvolshype said:


> http://reason.com/archives/2016/03/11/gene-edited-crops-and-livestock
> 
> I'm shocked this isn't really big news yet! Is it real?





> Chinese researchers have used the technique to make muscular goats that grow more hair; American researchers have used it to generate hornless cattle;


this is the break through I have been waiting for, now me and the wife can have the designer kids we always wanted.


----------



## David LaFerney (Jan 14, 2009)

It's real - it's been in science news for a year or so.


----------



## DaisyNJ (Aug 3, 2015)

I am surprised we haven't gotten a GMO HoneyBee yet. 

* Bumble Honey Bee, Wasp Honey Bee
* Patented Honey Bee produced by X company and can tolerate ridiculous amount of chemical applications produced by that X company. 
* Patented Honey Bee with crazy appetite for cross mating enabling X company to take out injunction against backyard keepers 
* Glow-In-The-Dark honey bee
.....the list could go on


----------



## BadBeeKeeper (Jan 24, 2015)

I'm thinking more along the lines of a gene modification in the bees that, when the mites feed on bees/larvae, it causes the female mites to produce sterile males.


----------



## DaisyNJ (Aug 3, 2015)

BadBeeKeeper said:


> I'm thinking more along the lines of a gene modification in the bees that, when the mites feed on bees/larvae, it causes the female mites to produce sterile males.


That would be awesome. But gene modification (without adverse effects) on primary target species (bees) is difficult enough, crafting a mechanism of gene transfer targeting specific result onto secondary (mites) species is almost impossible. IF someone were to achieve such a thing, then they have trillion $ business in dealing with human problems than investing that into bees.


----------



## DaisyNJ (Aug 3, 2015)

On unrelated topic,

"More, better, and safer food - but only if regulators will stay out of the way." ... 

That sounds more like a PR stunt than actual science. That industry has generally been resisting two basic things

* Labeling, informing consumers, so the market can decide
* Stop suing and going after Farmers who may be farming cross-bred varieties (that will invariably happen once the patented crop hits the field). This is like a VSH Bee company suing backyard keepers for a cross bred variety that carries VSH genetics. Imagine that.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

Daisy, it was done with RNAi already, with a little tweaking, I'm betting it could work great. The problem lies within the cost to deregulate genetically modified organisms, which is about 45 milllion these days. I believe Germany or some other Eu country was working with this on bees, but mainly to study and identify genes.


----------



## Steven Kluck (Mar 21, 2015)

"...a VSH Bee company suing backyard keepers for a cross bred variety that carries VSH genetics. Imagine that."

That would be my concern. At some point in the years ahead, when every feral swarm that any beekeeper captures can be easily shown to carry patented genes, is Monsanto Bee Gene Division just going to sit idly by? If not, how much will we be shaken down for in licensing fees, per hive?


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

None of the licensing agreements work that way. Knowingly propagating adventitious presence and selecting for it is what got people into trouble.


----------



## DaisyNJ (Aug 3, 2015)

JRG13 said:


> Daisy, it was done with RNAi already, with a little tweaking, I'm betting it could work great. The problem lies within the cost to deregulate genetically modified organisms, which is about 45 milllion these days. I believe Germany or some other Eu country was working with this on bees, but mainly to study and identify genes.


Makes sense. But its in typical commercial interest to do it with a mechanism that can be applied directly to target species (such as mites). I was responding to BBK idea of engineering Bees that in turn help carry such RNA interference forward into mites through blood (food). Thats round about way, more complex and less commercial control. 

While its a shame that large sums of money is required to pass regulation, general population is genuinely concerned about unknown effects of Genetic Modification in general. Time and again we see products marketed as "best thing since sliced bread" and then declared as "known carcinogen" after few years. I guess balancing the risk vs progress is the real trick.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

I don't have issues with gmo's, I understand the science behind it, sadly most people don't and just believe the utter garbage and nonsense about them. Beelogics was monsanto's technology aquisition to get away from gmo's as public perception drops via direct application of si oligos targeting specific genes to target organisms.


----------



## BadBeeKeeper (Jan 24, 2015)

DaisyNJ said:


> I was responding to BBK idea of engineering Bees that in turn help carry such RNA interference forward into mites through blood (food). Thats round about way, more complex and less commercial control.


I realize that it is a kind of "pie in the sky" idea but I was considering whether it would be better to engineer something that would kill the mites directly when feeding on the larvae, or to simply render them sterile. Just dreaming...I don't really have a good handle on what it would take to accomplish either one, or if it would even be possible. 



> I guess balancing the risk vs progress is the real trick.


Isn't that the way of most things?


----------



## NeilV (Nov 18, 2006)

Here's a radio show about CRISPR that explains it and points to some of the ramifications: http://www.radiolab.org/story/antibodies-part-1-crispr/


----------

