[Taxacom] GMOs and taxonomy

[dipteryx at freeler.nl]

Van: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu namens Kenneth Kinman
Verzonden: zo 8-11-2009 5:18
 
Hi Paul,
      I have no problem with GMOs getting either cultivar or variety
names, or even the name of a new subspecies if one wanted to take it
that far (a variety existing only in or near a limited area where the
GMO is being raised).
      However, I know of no cases where a GMO (either cisgenetic or
transgenetic) is so reproductively isolated that it would prevent
out-crossing with related natural species, with or without human
intervention (even the most well-meaning attempts to prevent it can
eventually fail).  GM salmon (which grow year round) are supposedly 100%
sterile, but that kind of reproductive isolation would not warrant
species status in my opinion. They are manmade freaks that hardly
qualify as species.
       A GMO able to reproduce exclusively with itself without extensive
human control seems very unlikely at present, although future
experiments in which much larger numbers of genes are involved may make
it more likely.  It also would make it more likely that it could result
in true "frankenfoods" that even I would worry about.  When the greed
factor gets out of hand, unregulated experimentation could create
unanticipated problems far beyond even allergic reactions (which may
already be causing problems for some people). 
      Not that these would be new species, but rather "problematic"
varieties or cultivars with unanticipated consequences on the health of
susceptible humans.  I still think it would be unwise to call such
creations a separate species, since it gives the impression that
interbreeding with the natural parental species has been totally ruled
out (and the creators of GMOs tend to have financial considerations
which I think would tend to cloud their judgment).  And most
"well-known" species you speak of which are recognized by ICBN are no
doubt cisgenetic, not the transgenetic creations that are increasingly
being created today.  Genetic shortcuts and corporate greed are going to
increasing create problems, and calling them species would only mask
those problems under the guise that they are reproductively isolated.
It's sort of the biological equivalent of not regulating Wall Street,
and look where unregulated greed has gotten us in the financial sector.
Big corporations controlling our food supply is even scarier in some
ways.
           --------Ken Kinman

***
Your concerns are valid, as concerns. There is an endless supply of 
ethical questions. And, yes, it is conceivable that disasters could
happen.

However, that is not the issue. The question of naming GMOs is a
separate matter, and a single one-size-fits-all answer is not 
the way to go. Theoretically a GMO could be created that would meet 
the criteria that a group of people sets for a species, and from 
a nomenclatural perspective there is nothing that would prevent 
a species name from being published. This would then exist 
(as a name), for purposes of priority and homonymy, at least.
Practically, it not very likely that such a GMO will be created, 
or, should it be created, that its creators would want to attach 
a species name to it (after all, what advantages would be conferred 
by having a species name?). Then there would be the question of how
widely this would be accepted. So, basically it is a non-issue. 
However, in theory ...

Paul