No, I don't. That is why I take time to try to explain these issues in non-scientific language that lay people can understand. Believe me, if I wanted to launch into dense scientificese that no one but a handful of FReepers could understand, I could do that quite easily.
Gene splicing is nothing like the natural process produced by pollenation.
"Gene splicing" is targeted. Pollination is random. The biochemical processes that occur in each case are identical. The cutting of segments of DNA to swap with other segments of DNA are completely natural processes that occur in every living organism ALL THE TIME.
One way that the genome is altered is during the production of gametes. Most organisms have a matched set of chromosomes, one from their mother, one from the father. During reproduction, the matching chromosomes from the organism's mother and father physically line up. And then they trade segments of DNA, making two completely new chromosomes. Those new chromosomes exist nowhere else but in that gamete, whether it is an egg, sperm, or pollen. If the locations where the DNA was cut for the swap to occur were within genes, this crossover event can also make entirely new genes.
Another way for natural genetic alteration to occur is through viruses. Viruses can insert themselves into chromosomes just about anywhere. In some instances, the viruses stay there and become a permanent part of the genome. About 8% of the human genome is actually viral DNA. In some cases, researchers have been able to pull that viral DNA from human DNA and recreate the original virus. (That kind of research, FYI, is far more dangerous than merely adding or changing a single gene in an otherwise unaltered plant. The researchers have no idea how dangerous the virus might be once recreated.) Key components of placentas are coded in virus DNA that became stuck in our genome millions of years before humans existed.
Simple random mutation is another means of altering the genome; each offspring contains about 120 mutations that are not present in either parent.
I could go on with more examples of completely natural genome alterations that occur all the time, but I won't, for the sake of brevity. I only had to study textbooks full of that stuff (not to mention, learn the chemistry of how each type of alteration occurs)--that quantity of knowledge doesn't condense very well.
Let's compare that to the case of a researcher who wants to develop a new wheat that is resistant to a specific pathogen. He knows that the pathogen attacks the wheat through a specific protein, called a receptor. He knows the physical structure of the receptor, and how the pathogen attacks it. He determines that changing five amino acids in the receptor will make it immune to the pathogen. So he changes the DNA in the wheat so that those five amino acids are substituted with a different five amino acids--and changes nothing else about the wheat. The receptor functions exactly the way it did before the genetic alteration, but is now immune to the pathogen. Not only did he genetically modify the wheat to be immune while preserving 99.9999999% of its genome unchanged (except for the natural and unpreventable changes that happen regardless), he used completely natural tools to do so. Every single tool used in genetic engineering is taken from a naturally occurring organism. Usually, they come from bacteria, but they can come from beans, cows, pigs--even wheat. No scientist has ever invented a method of genetic engineering--we took them from nature. We just use them intelligently, instead of randomly.
Now, I've just spent quite some time explaining why genetic engineering is really nothing to be concerned about--but my feeling is that you'd rather have something to feel victimized about in a conspiratorial sort of way than have the facts. So be it. Other people actually do find my posts educational, and I don't mind sharing my knowledge. (After all, the taxpayers paid for me to learn this stuff. I might as well share it.)
A++ for a very lucid and concise explanation.
(in so much as it possible in this type of forum)
Actually, Dr. Davis has asserted elsewhere that the current method of gene splicing is much less dangerous than the breeding of wheat that occurred beforehand. Agriculturists had the best of intents, creating modern wheat from its 4-and-a-half foot tall ancestor in Grandma’s day by first breeding it to have a bigger head with more seeds, then breeding it for a shorter stalk in order to keep that heavier head from breaking the plant.
However, modern wheat has numerous odd proteins in it, including ones that break down into chemicals that can latch onto opium receptors in the brain. That way, if you decide to quit wheat, you can actually go through a sort of withdrawal.
Furthermore, the wheat is full of an easily digestible carb called amylopectin — less digestible versions of it are in potatoes and beans. So eating wheat will cause a spike in your blood glucose as all that amylopectin is digested. Insulin is subsequently produced, causing that glucose to be stored as fat. So people who eat a lot of wheat will inevitably gain weight.
Wheat can also exacerbate asthma and certain allergies. I’m guessing it’s because of other noxious proteins in this plant. When I first drastically reduced my wheat intake, I found myself sneezing a lot less, and my hay fever didn’t bother me as much, although I always seem to have one week out of the year when it still does. I also lost weight.
Wheat is a common staple, and unfortunately, it is recommended by the government. However, regular consumption of it does leave a lot of, shall we say, usually-non-deadly collateral damage in people.