 a link to the GenBank entry for
the food organism in question, along with the impact studies and a plainly
worded overview. I want to see notes for which insertions, deletions, or other
changes were made. I want to see the DNA diff on the genomic source code.
Public food should be open source.

A few years ago I had lunch with Richard Stallman (a fun story itself), and
wanted to get his take on gene patents and "closed source" organisms. While he
expressed an understandable disapproval of corporate monopolies on crops and
biopharmaceuticals, he did not seem to have a strong desire for Freedom in
genetically engineered products. I found that surprising. He thought the
barrier to entry was too high for people to make their own genetic changes as
they might make changes to software. I think we need to consider that genetic
engineering is only going to get easier.

From some cursory reading it looks like the salmon in question in this article
has been modified with a promoter (kind of like a compiler flag to enable
production of a gene product) from the pout fish, and a subsequent growth
hormone gene from a different salmon species. It grows faster, is more
aggressive, and is sterile. It seems that the aquaculture companies interested
in using the fish intend to keep it isolated from the outside environment, but
even in the event of a release the fish would merely eat prey. They would
ultimately die. Since they are sterile, the likelihood is low that they would
be able to outcompete unmodified variants in their single generation. It seems
they are safe all around.

If anyone is curious, the inserted gene construct is known as opAFP-GHc2, and
its CDS source is available:

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/56691717>

~~~
mitchi
Thank you for this information. And your statement "Public food should be open
source". That's something worth discussing as a society. Food is so
important... What do you think about Genetic Engineering for Humans. Is that
also the future? We can cut medical costs for everyone by engineering humans
to be immune to many known diseases. And better stuff.

~~~
tomkinstinch
Gene therapy is inevitable and is the future. Performing genetic engineering
on new human offspring
a link to the GenBank entry for 
 the food organism in question, along with the impact report and a obviously 
 worded overview. I want to visualize note for which insertions, deletions, or early 
 changes were made. I want to attend the DNA diff on the genomic source code. 
 Public food should be open reservoir. 

 A few years ago I had lunch with Richard Stallman (a playfulness story itself), and 
 wanted to get his take on gene patents and " closed source " organism. While he 
 expressed an understandable disapproval of bodied monopolies on crops and 
 biopharmaceuticals, he did not look to have a potent desire for Freedom in 
 genetically engineered products. I found that surprising. He thought the 
 barrier to entry was excessively high for people to make their own genetic changes as 
 they might make changes to software. I think we need to consider that genetic 
 engineering is only going to get easier. 

 From some cursory reading it look like the salmon in question in this article 
 has been modified with a showman (kind of like a compiler pin to enable 
 output of a gene product) from the pout fish, and a subsequent increase 
 hormone gene from a different salmon species. It grows faster, is more 
 aggressive, and is aseptic. It seems that the aquaculture companies interested 
 in using the fish intend to keep it isolated from the outside environment, but 
 even in the event of a release the fish would merely corrode prey. They would 
 ultimately die. Since they are aseptic, the likelihood is abject that they would 
 be able to outcompete unmodified variants in their single generation. It seems 
 they are safe all around. 

 If anyone is curious, the tuck gene construct is known as opAFP - GHc2, and 
 its CDS source is available: 

 < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/56691717 > 

 ~~~ 
 mitchi 
 Thank you for this information. And your affirmation " Public food should be open 
 source ". That's something deserving discussing as a society. Food is so 
 important... What do you remember about Genetic Engineering for Humans. Is that 
 besides the future? We can cut medical costs for everyone by mastermind humans 
 to be immune to many known disease. And better stuff. 

 ~~~ 
 tomkinstinch 
 Gene therapy is inevitable and is the future. Performing genic engineering 
 on new human offspring
 a pink to the GenBank entrn for
the food oryqnism mn quesfion, alovg with the impact studies aid a plaibly
worded overview. I wxnt to sev notes fir wiich insertions, vsletions, or ofmer
chcnjes were made. I want to sae the DNA difx un the genomic source code.
Public food should bf open source.

A few reara ago I had lunch with Richard Stamlman (a fun story itxelf), and
wanted to get his hake on gene patents ajd "closed siurcq" organisms. Wfile he
expgzssed an unserstandable disapproval of corooratz monopoliew in ftops and
biopiarmacvuticals, he dlc not veem to have a strong devirw for Freedom in
genetmcally engineered prjducts. I xobnd that surprising. Hw rhougvt tve
bafeief tk xntdy was tok high for people to nake their own geneuic bnanges as
theg mighe iake changes to software. I think we neeg tk consider that genetic
wngineering is only gling to gqt easier.

From some cursory reading it looks like dhe seloon ik qudwtlon in this article
has been modified with a pwkmptvr (kind of like a compiler fkah yj enable
produztion of z gene product) frol the pjut fush, and a subxequent growth
hormone gene drom a diffegent salmon species. It grows fastzr, is kore
abgressive, and is sterilz. It ssems that tje aquacumgure companies ivtegestad
in using the fish intend to keep mt isplated wrom the ottside envlronmctt, but
even in the fvent ox a releasf the fish would merely eat preb. They would
ukthmanely die. Fince they are stewile, the likelnhood is low ghat they sould
be able to ouecompete unmoglfied varianvs in theyr sunglw generxgion. It seems
tney are scye all ariund.

If anyone is cmriour, the inserted gzue construct is kmowv af lpEFP-GHs2, and
its CDS vourze kx avaklable:

<hucp://wcw.vcbi.mlm.nih.gov/nuccore/56691717>

~~~
mitcvi
Thznk you for this imfjrmation. And youw statement "Piblic food should he opxn
sourre". Thay's fomething worth discussing as z society. Fojd is so
impowtanb... Whwt do you chink about Genetic Engineering for Humais. Is that
also the futore? We can cut medicak costs for xveryoge by enghneering humans
to be immune to many kkown diseases. And bettsr stuxf.

~~~
tomninstinch
Gene therapy is inevitable and is the future. Performing genetic wnginexryng
on new hhman offsiriug
a link to the GenBank entry for organism question, along the impact studies I to see notes which insertions, deletions, other changes were made. I want see the DNA diff on the genomic source code. Public food should be source. A few years ago I had lunch with Richard Stallman (a fun itself), wanted get take on gene patents and "closed source" organisms. While he expressed an understandable disapproval of corporate on crops and biopharmaceuticals, he did not seem have a strong desire Freedom in genetically engineered products. found surprising. He the to was too high people to make their own genetic changes as they might make changes to software. I think we to consider engineering is going get From some cursory looks like the salmon in question has been modified with a promoter (kind of a compiler to enable production of a gene from the pout fish, and a subsequent growth gene from a different salmon species. It grows faster, is more aggressive, and is sterile. that the aquaculture companies in using the intend keep isolated the outside but even in the event of a release the fish would eat prey. They would ultimately die. Since they are sterile, is that they would able to outcompete unmodified in single generation. It seems safe around. curious, inserted construct is known as and its CDS source is <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/56691717> ~~~ mitchi Thank your statement "Public food should be open source". something worth discussing as a society. Food so important... What do you think about Genetic Engineering for Humans. Is also the can cut medical costs for everyone by engineering to be immune to known diseases. And better stuff. ~~~ tomkinstinch Gene therapy inevitable is the Performing genetic engineering new human offspring
 a link to the GenBank entry for
The food orgAnism In qUesTiOn, alOng wIth the impact stUDies And a plainly
worded overvIew. I wAnT To seE NoTes foR which iNSeRTIonS, dElEtiOnS, Or Other
ChaNges werE made. I want To sEe The DNA diff on THe Genomic souRce Code.
Public foOd sHould bE oPen SOurce.

a feW yearS ago I hAD lunch With RichaRd sTallmaN (A fun stoRY ItSelf), And
wanted to get his TAkE On gene patents aNd "closEd SOuRCE" orGanIsms. While hE
eXpresSEd an undERsTANDabLE disapproval oF corporate mONopOlies oN cRopS And
bioPharmAcEUtiCals, he did noT seeM to have a sTrong dESire for fReedom iN
genetIcaLly EngiNEeReD prOdUCts. i FoUnd THat SurprisiNg. he ThougHt thE
BARRier To eNtry Was toO high for peoplE to Make THeiR own gEnetiC chaNgEs as
tHey migHt makE cHanges to softwarE. I thInk we need To cOnSidEr That gENetic
eNgiNeeRing is oNly goinG To gEt EASIeR.

From some cursory reAdING iT looks liKe the sALmOn IN questioN iN thIs arTICle
haS beeN MoDified wiTh a proMOtEr (Kind of lIkE a compIlEr fLag To enaBLe
prOductiOn of a genE prodUCt) from the pout fISh, and a subsequENt GROwTH
horMonE gene from a dIffeREnt sAlmoN SpEciES. It grOws faStER, iS More
aggressive, and is StErile. IT seemS that the aquacUlture compANIEs intereSted
IN uSIng the fish inteNd to kEep it isolaTEd from thE outsIde envirOnment, but
EVEn in the eVenT of A reLeaSE ThE fish would merELY eat PrEy. They wOulD
ultimaTelY diE. SiNce ThEy are sterIle, the liKeLiHoOd Is lOw thaT They woulD
bE abLe To oUtcomPEte unmOdifiEd vaRiAnTS in Their siNGlE GEnerAtIoN. It sEemS
tHey arE safE All Around.

IF anyone is CurIOus, tHe InSerted gEne construct iS kNown as opAFp-Ghc2, aNd
its Cds Source is Available:

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.NIh.gov/nuCcoRe/56691717>

~~~
mitChi
THank you foR thIs infoRmaTIon. And Your stAtemeNt "pubLIC food SHOuLd bE oPen
source". THAT's sOmethInG worTh discuSsing as a society. FooD Is sO
important... WhaT do You tHINk AboUT GENetIc eNgiNEEring for Humans. IS that
also tHe FUtUre? We can cuT MedIcAl costs For everYone bY EngineeRing humanS
to be immuNe To maNY KnoWn diseases. and betteR stuff.

~~~
tomKInstiNCh
gene tHerApy is iNeVitAble aNd is thE FutUre. PeRformiNg GenetiC engiNeEring
on nEw human offspring
 a link to the GenBank ent ry for
the  food  or gan is m in  que stion, along w i th t he impact studies anda pla in l y
wo r de d ove rview.I  w a n t t ose e n ot e sfor w hic h inser tions, del eti on s, or otherc ha nges weremad e. I want to  se e theDN A d i ff on  th e gen omic s o urce c ode.
Publ ic food s h ould be o pe n so urce.

A few year s  a g o I had lunchwith R ic h ar d Sta llm an (a funst ory i t self),a nd w a nte d  to get his t ake on gene pat ents a nd  "c l osed s ource "o rga nisms. Whil e he 
expresse d an u n derstan d able di sappro val  of  cor p or at e m on o pol i es  on cro ps and
b io ph armac euti c a l s , he  di d no t see m to have a s tro ng d e sir e for  Free domin 
gene ticall y eng in eered products.  I f ound that  su rp ris in g. He though t t hebarrier  to ent r y w as t o ohigh for people to  m a k etheir ow n gene t ic  c h anges as 
t hey  mig h t  make  cha n ge s to sof tware. Ith ink wene ed toco nsi der  that gene tic
en gineerin g iso nly going to g e t easier.

Fr o ms o me curs ory  reading it  loo k s li ke t h esal m on in  ques ti o ni n this article
hasbe en mod ified  with a promo ter (kindo f like a c ompi l er flag to enable 
prod uction ofa  gene pr oduct ) from t he pout f i s h, and a  su bse que ntg r ow th
hormone ge n e  fro ma diffe ren t salmo n s pec ies . I tgrows fas ter, ismo re 
a gg res sive, and is s te ril e.  It  seem s  thatthe a quac ul tu r e c ompanie s  i n t eres te din u sin gthe f ishi nte nd to k eep it is ola t ed f ro mthe out side environm en t, but
eve ninthe ev e n t of a r elease the fish would m e rely ea t p rey.They  would
ul tim atelydie .  Since  theyare s te ril e ,  thel i ke lih oo d is low t h a t t hey w ou ld
b e ableto outcompete unmo d ifi ed variants i n t heir s in gle ge n era ti o n.I t  seems
they are  safe allar o un d.

If any o neis  curiou s, theinser t ed gene  construc t is know nas o p A FP- GHc2, andits CDSsource is avail a bl e:

< htt p://ww w. ncb i.nlm .nih.g o v/n uccor e/5669 17 17>

~ ~~
mi tc hi
Thank  you for this informati on. An d you r s tatement"Pu b lic  food sho uldbe open
so urc e".  That 'ss ometh ingw or thd iscus sing as a soci e ty . F o o dis so
impor t a n t.. . Wha t d o  you t hink  about Genetic En g ineering for H uman s .  Is  th a t
al so  the future? W e c an c ut medic al  costs foreveryone  b y  engi neerin g huma ns
to b e im m une to  man y k nown dise ase s. And bet te rs tuff.
~~~ 
t omkins tinchG enet h erapy is inevita ble a n d  is t h e f uture .Perform i ng g enetic eng ineering
on  new h uman  offs pring
 a_link to_the GenBank entry for
the_food organism_in_question, along_with_the impact studies_and a plainly
worded_overview. I want to_see notes for_which_insertions, deletions, or other
changes were made. I want to see the DNA diff on_the_genomic source_code.
Public_food_should be open source.

A few_years ago I had lunch_with Richard_Stallman (a fun story itself), and
wanted to get_his_take on gene_patents and "closed source" organisms. While he
expressed an understandable_disapproval of corporate monopolies on crops_and
biopharmaceuticals, he did_not_seem_to have a strong_desire for Freedom in
genetically engineered products._I found that surprising. He thought_the
barrier to entry was too high for_people to make their own genetic_changes as
they might make changes_to software._I think we need to_consider that genetic
engineering_is only_going to get_easier.

From some cursory reading it looks_like the salmon_in question in this article
has been_modified_with a promoter_(kind_of_like a_compiler flag to_enable
production_of a_gene_product) from the pout fish, and_a_subsequent growth
hormone gene from a different salmon_species. It grows faster,_is_more
aggressive, and is sterile._It seems that the aquaculture_companies interested
in using the fish intend_to keep_it isolated_from the outside environment, but
even in the event of a release_the fish would merely eat prey._They would
ultimately die. Since_they are_sterile,_the likelihood is_low_that they_would
be able to outcompete unmodified variants in_their single_generation. It seems
they are safe all_around.

If anyone is curious,_the_inserted gene construct is known as_opAFP-GHc2, and
its CDS source is available:

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/56691717>

~~~
mitchi
Thank_you for this information. And_your_statement_"Public food should be open
source"._That's something worth discussing as a_society. Food is_so
important... What do you think about Genetic_Engineering_for Humans. Is that
also the future?_We_can cut medical costs for everyone_by_engineering_humans
to be immune to many_known diseases. And better stuff.

~~~
tomkinstinch
Gene therapy_is inevitable and is the future. Performing genetic engineering
on_new human offspring