We'll see if they can program the little critters properly. I'd hate it if one of those little buggers got a BSOD or a virus while it's performing heart surgery XD

"the nature of the very small was never intended to directly interact with man."

I suppose youve never heard of cells, microbs, DNA, bacteria..

"Jellyfish gene sequences were never intended to be introduced into plants, for example."

You dont know that! maybe the jelly fish are just lazy and hadnt gotten around to it yet.

Genetics, being as universally understood comes in two flavors, even then the promoter region of a gene can be swapped to allow prokaryotic material to operate in a eukaryote. Plants swap genes with one another rather often, plants of whole different species will work together, fungi support most plants in a very close inter cellular relationship. Bacteria will often and easily exchange genetic material with one another outside of their own strain/species, plasmid material was designed to be exchanged.

The problem with the technology is that people don't understand how it works and what it means. Eating a plant that has a new gene that allows that plant to be more productive doesn't imply that that gene could invade a person or anything else, or that it is even harmful, it's food just as the rest of the plant is. It doesn't so much matter where it came from or how it got there, it only matters if the item in question is dangerous in itself. Jelly fish green florescent protein isn't harmful, nor is the gene that produces it.

Rick: I don't mean this to sound offensive, but unless we're talking about the "butterfly flaps its wings and causes an earthquake" type of cause and effect reasoning, the range of effect for food is very short.

Imagine: if you spill your coffee, it wouldn't be reasonable to then ask how spilling your coffee will affect your long-term health (unless we're talking about McDonalds Scolding Coffee(tm)). Similarly, if eating modified foods doesn't affect you in a day, a month, a year -- you're in the clear.

Most of what we eat doesn't stick around in our systems for more than a few days, let alone weeks or months. There are of course exceptions like Mercury, vitamin A, etc. However, even these are eliminated through normal biological process, with reasonable doses lasting in the bloodstream for no longer than a few weeks.

If the effects of modified foods don't show up more or less "immediately", they won't show up at all. The concern that genetically modified foods are subtly modifying our DNA in such a way that wouldn't be noticed for years, or in our children, is pure fantasy. In effect, that would be saying the modified foods contained a new virus (i.e. "fruit herpes").

Lastly, the type of modified foods that we eat aren't the sort of thing they make headlines with (i.e. no jellyfish). The modifications we eat are not unlike the modifications humans have been making to crops forever through selective breading: we're selecting desirable traits and finding ways to make them more repeatable. Some uncommon tomatoes naturally last a long time on the shelf. Most do not. After figuring out what makes them last, we find a way to repeat that quality in all future tomatoes of that strain. Or have more vitamins, or can grow in harsh conditions. That's it. No magic. No modifications that implant viruses that recode our cells. No new chemicals.

Nanotech covers too broad a range of technology, and is too young to say much about it. It could be the end of humankind as we know it. Or not. Too early to tell.

-Truth Seeker

While it's good to be concerned about unintended consequences, I must pick apart the Author's opinion. He/She states that "...the nature of the very small was never intended to directly interact with man." Who's intent are we talking about here? Last time I checked, Mother Nature wasn't "telling" us what her intents were so how could one know what was intended or not? Not to mention, mankind interacts with the very small every day. Hell, we ourselves are made up of very small things.

Just so we get this straight, there are plenty of foods that can and do affect us on a cellular and DNA level, and even more preservatives. A list of which would be to long to cut and paste here, but the only ones that are harmful are the man made preservatives, and those changes though they are changes are also small, though they can have large effects. Such preservatives as BHA, TBHQ, Sodium EDTA, oh my favorite nonnatural food modified food starch. Now before anyone says anything my profession Registered Dietitian.

This is exactly why people are more concerned than scientists. Scientists rely on numbers and probabilities. The public relies on Resident Evil movies. Because of the public concern, genetically enhanced foodstuffs are better tested than most anything else we as human beings make.

[Genetically modified foods were introduced into Canada and India. In Canada they caused genetic drift, which affected the nearby organic plants, rendering those crops uncertifiably organic (ruining those farmer's investments). There is now no crop of this particular seed in Canada which does not have the GM effects in it. It all shows signs of GM intrusion.

In India, the bugs the GM crops were supposed to ward off were not affected, and if anything they were equal or worse. Many Indian farmers resorted to committing suicide to free their families of the debts incurred from improper GM seed stocks resulting in failed crops. These are criminals running the GM companies. The FDA has ruled that we, U.S. citizens, do not have the right to know what's in our own food. Tell me that's not part of a plan, and I'll just sit here smiling at you. It's so obvious. -Rick]

Go rent some Penn & Tellers: BS. They did an episode on it. I'm not saying believe everything you see on tv, but in this case, they have some good points. Not to mention all the starving people where genetic superfoods are banned. I'd rather have a dead populace than a tasteless tomato any day, but come on.

[Are you serious? Dead populace? -Rick]

As far as the nano machines goes... Of course scientists are concerned. The public sees "Bionic Woman" and thinks this stuff is ready for consumption, when really, we're still in the very theoretical stages, and there is a lot that can go wrong. Forget BSOD, I don't want Bill Gates having control over my intestines. Or even worse, having to go to Apple Land to have them replaced, cause the batteries went dead. Things like nanotech are going to go to the highest bidder as a means of padding their bank account, and if it's going to be for the good of the people, people have to take control of it. Until the technology is well into it's developement, I just don't see that happening. Picture trying to afford a super computer, while the people who can afford it can now benchpress a ton. The possabilities are there, and the enhancements will be for the rich, the wealthy may be able to live to 300, while the poor cintinue to starve to death because they're scared of genetically enhanced corn. Nothing against TomsHardware, but down with the uninformed telling the even more uninformed that things are bad with no more evidence than a gut feeling, and I do blame the media for it. This is a torch and pitchfork crowd we got here.

[It amazes me people can look at science in any regard, ever, and say "Oh yeah, we've mastered that. No worries." -Rick]

grow up... it's harmless. Modification only produces foods of better quality and nutrition.

[Do you know that you're wrong? Or are you just guessing? There have already been studies showing that GM foods, after being modified, do not contain the same positive traits as the original. These can relate to a loss of alteration of vitamins, minerals, surface tension, internal consistency, and all kinds of other traits, including sterility in some cases, the natural byproduct of a genetically unviable strain. GM does not make things better for us to eat. It makes them more profitable for the seed companies. -Rick]

Well the author seriously does have a point.

What is a virus?
Well it is a set of atoms that when in contact with a certain kind of cell may cause that cell too malfunction and perhaps even produce new viruses.

A virus is not biology it is dead.

So what is a nanomachine?
Well it is a set of atoms that can be programed to when in contact with a certain kind of cell may cause that cell too change function. eg kill the cell. If the patient has cancer this is a good thing... if the nanomachines kill the cancer cells that is.

See any resemblance?
Honestly we don't know what different particles do when in contact with each other, one nanomachine might become "reproductive" when in contact with a certain chemical (perhaps something in a drug).

When giving a thing the power to act freely you cant be too careful.

I am not talking about killer robots but just about a certain particle that might just be the most deadly virus we have ever seen.

What the hell are you guys talking about.
Go read some books.
The article here is talking about super small nano particals that is human make for whatever purpose they are created for. Problem with that is it's so small it can enter into your cells and body without you knowing...so you eat products that has been injected with them or just nano particles floating in the air etc.... and you don't know how the body is going to react to it...it could possible to react to some cell or chemicals or protein in your body just like virus etc...
causing unknown problem ...and you can't filter it out... (no bio suit is going to shield you from it.)
It's different from generic altered food what is just dna modified...

1st off, thanks for reading, that's what makes this all worthwhile. And you make some good points, the systems aren't perfect. There are areas where the inclusion of high yield crops would help solve that hunger problem, way better than Sally Struthers. Starvation equals dead populace. There's no getting around that. When the population grows, you need more food, and a lot of areas including the US and most of europe are to the point where it's a good thing we have high yield crops.

And as far as science goes, one of the best reasons we make advancements in anything is that we know we're wrong about most things, or too vague to be useful. We get as close as we can, the other end of the stick is that not every scientist is Dr. Frankenstein. And that's where I see the problem. Every time some one seems to figure something out, we immediately see the evil that was inherent in trying to solve whatever it was they thought they solved. Cloning a sheep becomes the clone wars. Making a live bacteria is equal to robbing a grave to put a dead body together and bring it to life, and having it be evil (Even though in the book it wasn't really evil at all...) There's a big difference between what happened and what's in the movies, and I wish people would start taking that into account. Kinda like people are afraid to fly, even though statistically it's safer than the drive to the airport. Nuclear power is bad cause there was an accident once, and there was that three mile island thing. There are always trade-offs, not much in life is perfect.

[It amazes me people can look at science in any regard, ever, and say "It's all bad, didn't you see "The Core" or "The Day After Tomorrow"? We're all going to DIE!" -Jon]

Are you trying to tell me that a sterile or "genetically unviable strain" of some type of GM plant is more profitable for seed companies? This is like saying that it is cheaper to produce brand new seeds in a lab than it would be to create a GM plant that could reproduce on it's own. That doesn't make sense. The primary reason for GM crops is absolutely not for more profit. To think that none of the scientists who spend years of their lives on this are thinking altruistically is very sad; and I'm sure most of them would take offense to that.

You are also acting as if the FDA doesn't regulate the use of GM crops at all. GM crops are heavily regulated in part because of all of this public concern.

Besides all of this, genetic modification has been happening forever. Plants are constantly evolving and adapting on their own, science has simply helped the process along a little.

so, tell me how healthy you will feel when the usual bacteria and cells adapt and become able to destroy our nanobots? bacteria adapting to antibiotics is the WHO BIGGEST CONCERN hands down. so what makes you think these little things arent going to find chemical alkalides to dissolve and destroy our nanobots or something like that? what do we do then? put nano-laserguns on our nanobots and have star wars nanobots in our body... nanotechnology is not the answer to health concerns. it is the answer to convenience concerns just like the microwave, the tv, the hybrid car... i will never let those nano's go into my body if i have a choice about it. (prolly wont get a choice.. seeing the paradoxically fascist government state of the world)

One should be worried more with toxic molecules than nanotech. Nano-things are much more larger than toxic molecules. Nanotech? Chemists have worked on atomic and moculecular level for much long time than the so-called nano-tech.

This week's issue of the Economist has a great article all about the risks of nanotechnology (not just tiny robots, but anything engineered on such an extremely small scale). It's pretty scary stuff, and I'm sure that it's just a matter of time before some health or environmental catastrophe alerts the rest of the world to the risks in creating these things whose effects we cannot yet understand.

Here's the url: http://economist.com/displayst...d=10171212

The problem with Genetic modifications of food crops is that the changes tend to spread to non modified crops. Monsanto created a type of corn that was immune to Roundup. This let farmers spray Roundup on their corn and kill all the weeds. Unfortunatly, the modification spread to all the fields around the Monsanto corn.

If the Monsanto corn was less resistant to a corn virus, this could have caused big problems. Some GM foods are good. Golden rice is an excellent source of vitamin A for third world nations. We do need to take more care to insure that genetic modifications do not spread.

This is primarily directed at the author Rick.

Try not to use questions when you are writing. It interrupts the reader, making it difficult to follow what is being said and interpret the intent of an author. Question can almost always be better phrased as a statement, exceptions include quoted dialog.

Whenever anyone makes a controversial statement about anything, it is best to cite a creditable source(I am not implying anything) to support a point.

When an author feels very strongly about something it becomes very difficult to "check" one's feelings at the door. However, if we do not we risk looking foolish or in the author's case unprofessional. If an author is not throughly knowledgeable about a subject then we should educate ourselves through research. If there is no time for research then we should remember the Biblical Proverb, "Do you see a man who speaks in haste? There is more hope for a fool than for him"(Proverbs 29:20 NIV). http://www.biblegateway.com/pa...h=Proverbs 29:20&version=31

Anyone who looks at some part of science and says "we've mastered that" probably doesn't understand the nature science. The beauty of science is that it's an ever-evolving "self correcting system". It seems we agree on this point.

It would be unreasonable to say GM foods are without problems. It would be equally unreasonable to say natural foods are without problems.

Mr. Food Facts above addressed a different point: some chemicals we add to food are not good for humans. That's an easily provable fact. It has nothing to do with GM foods, though. If, through the process of genetic modification, new chemicals are now grown into the foodstuff, that could very well be a problem. That says nothing bad about GM foods in general, though.

Just as is the case with natural foods, GM foods need to be tested to determine their suitability for human consumption. Also the same, in any case where new types of plants/chemicals are introduced, a thorough environmental assessment (EPA/FDA) is needed.

This is all the same whether we're talking about GM foods or not. It's very clear that many people create in their mind an artificial differentiation between GM foods and the seemingly unlimited natural variations of foods, as though GM foods are truly unique -- they are not: they "present no new or special dangers".

To suggest generically that GM foods are bad because there can be problems with specific modifications is not reasonable. Try applying this stance to medicine.

To be fair, it's normal for humans to fear progress. If nothing else, science gives us a chance to feel good about each step forward we take. Science is our friend. More food in less area == good. More food == good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_Modified_food
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_food_controversy

I'm currently being poisoned by industry as we all are. I have no reasonable means of determining what chemicals the plywood manufacturer is dumping into the air commonly upwind of my home. Therefor I take no action because I have no way of placing a value on moving. I'm being poisoned by an amalgam filling (about 40 to 50% mercury) in my mouth right now, because of corruption in our medical system. (Dentists refuse to simply pull it, insisting on drilling it out instead and thereby exposing me to even more mercury.) Then there are T-fal pans, insect fogging, lead in gasoline, Growth Hormone and Antibiotics in food, Fox News winning the right to lie (in court during the Monsanto BGH in milk vs reporters trying to warn you case); the list of corrupt technologicaly driven dispersals both past and present for which many suffered and none were held accountable is endless.

Nanotechnology arrives at a time when the world is more corrupt than it has ever been before. My concern isn't about this new technology but who controls it. Just as I'm concerned about who controls anything that is powerful.

We can look forward to being left out of the decision-making on Nanotechnology because people as a rule fear their governments today, rather than govts fearing their people. Our rights were a response to that fear in the first place. Today our rights are little more than words on paper and on the lips of the ineffectual. Nanotech will result in more pollution along the lines of Monsanto's carcinogenic potatos, EMI, PCBs, Dioxins, etc that nobody can hold anyone accountable for in any meaningful way. Look forward to a world in which we get cancer and other major ailments earlier in life and with greater frequency, some of which nanotech itself will promise to treat... At a profit.

I admit I'm not the best informed about nanotech, but the impression that I always have is how many steps seem to be skipped when people start speculating about nanobots and nanomachines etc. It reminds me of all the Artificial Intelligence hype of the early years. Lots of extremely positive predictions, but after 35 years the smartest supercomputer still seems as dumb as an insect. Not that the whole background technology didn't deliver, and not that the early optimism didn't have a positive influence on the drive behind it all, but in the end it was all a bit more mundane than some envisioned.

I have this feeling that nanotech might go down the same route. Making things ultra-small is fine all in itself, and opens up opportunities otherwise impossible. But at the same time any progress in this area has no connection at all with all the breakthroughs in OTHER areas that will be necessary to realise some of the futuristic scenarios. By making something a thousand times smaller than usual, it doesn't suddenly become a thousand times more sophisticated and intelligent. These hurdles might be of a different order of magnitude.

As long as they aren't making them self-replicating, there's hardly much more to worry about than with viruses.

Are you trying to tell me that a sterile or "genetically unviable strain" of some type of GM plant is more profitable for seed companies?

yes, exactly! From a sterile strain, the farmer can't produce his own seeds. So he has to purchase new seeds or plants every season ergo more profit for the seed company.

The fact that GM foods yield better harvests also leaves the farmer with more profits though.

How's that surprising? Hard to go wrong underestimating the intelligence of the general public.

"From a sterile strain, the farmer can't produce his own seeds. So he has to purchase new seeds or plants every season ergo more profit for the seed company."

While I understand that the farmer could not then use their own seeds to grow new crops, the seed company could also not be able to take advantage of that. They would have to create brand new seeds to sell. This process would be far more expensive than being able to grow their own bulk quantities for resale.

When you add a Gene to a food item, all you are doing is adding one new protein. Seeing as people actually EAT jellyfish with some regularity, one single jellyfish protein is essentially GUARANTEED to be completely and utterly harmless.

The most hilarious ones are people worrying about 'franken-foods' with human genes. Obviously the gene product of a human gene is NOT going to have any ill effects if consumed, as your body is already full of these proteins.

The ONLY, and I do mean only issue (based on fact) with GM foods, is the possibility of a slightly higher allergenic potential, and this is only true in limited cases. For example, when the 2S protein from brazil nuts was added to soybeans, people already allergic to brazil nuts were likely (*GASP*) to be allergic to the modified soybeans. What you put in is what you get out. Genes aren't magic, and they aren't poison. With even a modest amount of thought GM foods can be made completely safe: the soybeans mentioned above never made it out of the lab, as scientists PREDICTED that it could be allergenic, and were correct.

Nanotechnology on the other hand could actually be scary stuff. While I really doubt that a 'Grey Goo' attack would be as effective as some people believe, nanotechnology could at the very least be used to make extremely effective killing machines. Does that mean we should trash nanotech? NO.

Nanotech has such amazing possibilities that any danger is more than worth the risk. After all, you aren't any deader if your city gets taken out by Grey Goo than you are if it gets A-bombed, firebombed, gassed, anthraxed, carpet bombed, or if soldiers go through the streets shooting or stabbing everyone the good old-fashioned way.