jump to navigation

Is cloning the wave of the future? March 9, 2008

Posted by eyegillian in consumer, environment, food, life, nature, science.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
3 comments

Clone cartoon - Sydney Morning Herald

Cloned food: according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, it’s officially “safe to eat”… but does anybody want to eat it?

I’ve been following some of the discussion around the ethics of cloning — and wondered whether manipulation of animals at the cellular level is just another step down the road from other “unnatural” methods like artificial insemination — when I realized all the hypothetical “ifs”, “ands” or “buts” were about to be put to the test. All that fuss around Dolly the sheep and other cloned animals should have led me to the obvious question: what are the cloned animals to be used for?

Food is only part of the answer. No matter which way you slice the cell, cloning can cost up to 10 times more money than just breeding an animal for food. And a cloned animal doesn’t just spring fully-formed from the test tube — it uses the same resources, food, drugs, vet bills, etc as the other animals. So I would have thought it was an interesting experiment, in the same vein as climbing Mt. Everest (because it was there), but that it wouldn’t affect the rest of us non-scientific plebes.

According to a Newsweek article, the main purpose of cloning is to produce prize livestock to be used for breeding:

An elite cow—one whose genes are optimized for producing the healthiest, longest-living and most productive offspring—can fetch more than $100,000. With such a price tag, elite cows aren’t allowed to bear calves at the natural rate of one per year. Farmers insist on a blistering 10 to 20 births a year. To keep up this pace, veterinarians employ an array of reproductive technologies, including in vitro fertilization and artificial insemination. Cloning is the latest, and perhaps the most powerful, reproductive tool in the vet’s black bag.

So, while it’s not likely that these elite animals will find their way into the food chain, their offspring might. And its the offspring which could turn out to be the fly in the ointment. Critics are worried that too few studies have looked at successive generations of animals from cloned parents, and that no one knows exactly how DNA and molecular biology will change as a result of the cloning process. Could the unknown changes be harmful to the animal, and to human consumption? Add to that the low percentage of successful clones; a French study found that, out of 100 embryo transfers, fewer than five of the fetuses were born alive. And that could raise a whole lot of ethical questions.

In Great Britain, meanwhile, cloned animals are seen as a possible solution to predicted food shortages. A Guardian article points out that a cloned top-producing animal saves generations of cross-breeding, and provides an environmentally friendly alternative to other methods of increasing meat and dairy production, such as the use of chemical fertilizers to provide more fodder. The article quotes Tim Lang, of the sustainable development commission, who says consumers need to change their attitudes and their spending habits:

The problem is that consumers expect cheap and plentiful meat, fruit, vegetables and groceries, yet their production causes harmful greenhouse gases and is unsustainable because of the UK’s limited availability of land, oil and water.

When I think about the prospect of eating cloned meat, the picture that springs to mind is the food replicator onboard the Starship Enterprise. Since food is, as far as I know, a bunch of chemicals, proteins and other atoms anyway, it shouldn’t be too hard to imagine a futuristic computer putting together food on the molecular level and reconstituting it to tempt our human taste buds. (OK, maybe I’ve read too much science fiction…) So is cloning that much different?

Anyway, science fiction aside, I’m not convinced about the benefits of cloned food. First of all, there’s the “yuck factor”. And I’d rather support local farmers and buy organic foods which are better for the environment. Still, although the U.S. has asked farmers to hold off on putting cloned meat into the human food chain — for now — in a few years we may see meat from the offspring of cloned animals in the supermarket. Clone appetit!

SHARE : add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook

Related Links:
Guardian UK: “The clones are coming — to a supermarket near you”
European Food Safety Authority draft statement on cloned food
Newsweek: “Is Cloned Meat Safe to Eat?”
“Clone, clone on the range”

Is e-mail a dead technology? February 24, 2008

Posted by eyegillian in communication, explore, internet, learn, life, technology.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
2 comments

the big questionSpam has become the bane of my working life. We’ve had to switch to an online quarantine system, set at its highest level, in order to keep viruses off our computer system. I usually receive about 100 spam e-mails per day — some of my co-workers have to deal with several hundred — and my biggest grudge is that I can’t just set up the filter system and forget about it.

I don’t think there’s any quarantine system that’s 100% reliable, unless you only ever get e-mails from a predictable list of safe senders. So for the sake of one legitimate e-mail which invariably is caught in the net with the 100 or so spam, I have to do my own visual scan of everything in the junk mail folder. Not only is this a slow and tedious task, but it is also odious: I dislike having to even skim through the subject lines — as laughable and ridiculous as some of them are — and I really resent the time I’ve lost to so-called businesses offering free prescriptions and sexual enhancements. So, not only are legitimate e-mails less likely to get to me (at least, in a timely manner), but I am also less confident that my e-mails are arriving at their destinations safely.

Chad Perrin, in his blog entry “The truth about e-mail spam”, says that spam now makes up about 85% of all e-mail. “Without a reasonable guarantee that legitimate emails will get through,” he writes, “email is useless, no matter how clean of spam it may be.”

He points out that spam has proliferated because it is easy and cheap — trojans and “spambots” do most of the work, linking infected computers in a loose network to send a mind-boggling number of e-mails.

Sadly, spam wouldn’t have become such a problem if personal computers were not so easily infected, or, in other words, if computer users were more careful about security. “Eliminating the means by which spammers defer their costs to millions of unsuspecting home users of personal computers,” Chad says, “would have a significant effect on the volume of spam.”

Similarly, Justin James refers to “E-mail’s swan song” in his programming blog. “E-mail was going to revolutionize our world,” he says, “but this is no longer the case. E-mail is hopelessly devalued to the point where I barely use it.”

He lays the blame at the feet of the SMTP protocol system which was designed to deliver mail, not protect it. “SMTP has its roots in an era… [when] e-mail delivery time was measured in hours and sometimes days. In other words, e-mail was fine for non-critical items. The SMTP standard[s]… are written to meet the demands of that environment. As a result, it is nearly worthless in today’s environment and, in fact, it makes matters much worse due to the security and spam issues involved.”

Justin suggests that this is another sign that the personal computer is headed the way of the dodo, and that the “cloud” and other internet-based programs are the sign of the future. “For many users (particularly in the consumer space), the blossoming of Web applications means that they really do not need a PC per se — they just need a device that can access the Web and preferably has a way of attaching a large display and a full-size mouse and keyboard.”

It’s true that many people today are relying on the internet for sending and receiving e-mail, storing documents, and working in collaboration with others. I can’t imagine not being connected to the internet. But I also depend on my computer for many non-internet functions, from photo processing to personal information storage. Maybe the best idea is that our internet connections could be separated — physically or virtually — from our vulnerable personal computers.

So perhaps e-mail will die, at least on home computer systems. Long live virtual communication!

add to del.icio.us :: Add to Blinkslist :: add to furl :: Digg it :: add to ma.gnolia :: Stumble It! :: add to simpy :: seed the vine :: :: :: TailRank :: post to facebook