What a drag, Israeli firm grows "highless" marijuana

[squiggly]

As a scientist, I welcome genetic modification of MJ--with the caveat and understanding that every possible precaution should be taken to prevent genetic mixing with non-modified plants. Please keep in mind that there will be zero opportunity for in depth study (to the full degree and measure that we are capable of in plant science today) without genetically modifying the plant.

These days this is very often the first step in studying a plant and it's systems. If we're ever to find the secrets of the plant and how to grow it the very best under normal conditions (and fully understand the chemical pathways by which THC, CBD, CBN are synthesized in the plant)--it will require genetic manipulation.

This is something we need MORE not less of. People have been crying for years that there's been this moratorium on MJ research for a very long time and that it is a bad thing--and I agree with them. This is the direct opposite of that, and I hope to see more in the future--hopefully in THIS country (and hopefully I can be a part of the research group).

 

[kolah]

monsanto does have its hands on it already bro and it is round up ready they developed it in HI they are just waiting for it to go legal

say what? whatchoo talkin bout?

 

[caregiverken]

we need a "dis-like" button
:cool:

 

[Darth Schwag]

I say let them play with the genetics. Who knows, maybe they'll breed a tomato plant that will kick a$$.

 

[Chobble]

say what? whatchoo talkin bout?

While I don't know persay that monsanto has been working with the cannabis plant. I know a PhD. Botany proffesor here in town who has been contracted by GW pharmaceuticals and a few other large pharma companies to research cannabinoids. These are men who work with Robert C Clarke back in the 70's etc.

we need a "dis-like" button
:cool:

Mind you your harlequin was genetically modified to have high CBD ratios.

As a scientist, I welcome genetic modification of MJ--with the caveat and understanding that every possible precaution should be taken to prevent genetic mixing with non-modified plants. Please keep in mind that there will be zero opportunity for in depth study (to the full degree and measure that we are capable of in plant science today) without genetically modifying the plant.

These days this is very often the first step in studying a plant and it's systems. If we're ever to find the secrets of the plant and how to grow it the very best under normal conditions (and fully understand the chemical pathways by which THC, CBD, CBN are synthesized in the plant)--it will require genetic manipulation.

This is something we need MORE not less of. People have been crying for years that there's been this moratorium on MJ research for a very long time and that it is a bad thing--and I agree with them. This is the direct opposite of that, and I hope to see more in the future--hopefully in THIS country (and hopefully I can be a part of the research group).

As a Botanist, I welcome some forms of genetic modification. I support the old monk style as a I call it, or breeding through selection. I think this is a method that provides the most short cuts to develop the best result. That is Genetic Modification by the way folks, I know a lot of people thing it means you have pig or fish genes in your corn. What our breeders do on this site is Genetic Modification.

Now the cannabis genome project sounds really freaking cool Ill admit. The only way money would ever be allocated to that would be if the evil gene splicing type of genetic modification where to take place. Monsanto or another super power corporation would have to bank roll the project and would eventually use the product to make gene splicing easy.

What the israelis are doing though is creating new CBD dominant strains that a lot of patients need. CBD is the next corner stone in cannabinoid medicine. Our breeders should honestly be working on high CBD strains as well, but I guess the medicine doesnt always get first priority.

Chobble

 

[kolah]

I think there's a huge difference between genetic alteration via simple pollination methods versus genetic alteration via laboratory genetic splicing (splicing fish DNA into a tomato to make the tomato more cold resistant. A Big difference.

I do not think the terminology "genetic modification" is accurate as it is too broadbased. I feel cross-bred pollination is a term that should be used for people using "natural" methods (pollen induced) and leave the "genetically modified" term to gene splicing at the cellular level. In would say it is safe to say most of the folks here (and the bigger MJ breeders) are creating hybrids via pollination methods and not the "GMO"(or GM) methods which most of us identify that terminology with Monsanto's Frankenfoods.

I tend to think that without the psychoactive properties, MMJ will not have the same medicinal value. People in general that feel better actually are better.

Is anyone aware if any of the MJ breeders ( Barneys Farm, Shanti, DJ Short, etc) are implementing DNA splicing via lab methods?

 

[squiggly]

Is anyone aware if any of the MJ breeders ( Barneys Farm, Shanti, DJ Short, etc) are implementing DNA splicing via lab methods?

It's very unlikely--but as things like plasmids become cheaper you can expect to see some of this kick off. I'd say in the next 20 years or so.


The research which must be done ahead of such a modification has a huge scale to it--but as time goes along things like gene sequencing are getting much faster and cheaper as well.


I, personally, welcome this type of modification as well--but only insomuch as it is used for study.

Selective breeding can help you separate lines and isolate genes and things like that--and this often is the first step in research, we see a lot of this happening now in various grasses which might be used for biofuels that haven't really been studied well previously.

However, there are some things which are only possible with advanced methods. I don't think we should turn our backs on anything that we can learn--who knows what this plant can teach us.


I agree we shouldn't start smoking Albacore Marijuana, but I think it's important to remember that even if we did--it would be an innocuous act.

 

[caregiverken]

I agree we shouldn't start smoking Albacore Marijuana, but I think it's important to remember that even if we did--it would be an innocuous act.

Are you sure about that? o_O

 

[caregiverken]

I think there's a huge difference between genetic alteration via simple pollination methods versus genetic alteration via laboratory genetic splicing (splicing fish DNA into a tomato to make the tomato more cold resistant. A Big difference.

Huge difference! IMO

 

[squiggly]

Are you sure about that? o_O

I certainly am.

As sure as I am that hydrogen and hydroxide yield water.

People seem to have this weird idea of genetic modification--that ingesting something which has been subject to it will cause you to grow a third arm and develop cancer.

The truth is, there is no legitimate biochemical reasoning underpinning this idea. It's nothing but fear due to lack of understanding.


As I've suggested already, the major concern here is what can happen to the plant population if genetic mixing takes places between modified and normal stock. Genetic changes can predispose plants to disease, or might weaken another of their systems. Without a full understanding of the plant--we could do major damage here.

Think of what would happen if we starting breeding people to have the genetic defect which causes Huntington's disease--more people would start getting it, and it would make its way through the population more.

So there are some dangers involved.

Now it'd also be possible to genetically modify a plant such that it is harmful--but such a modification would either:

A. Be deliberate

B. Be rooted out during responsible testing of the plant


If we follow the scientific process here, the only possible danger really is to the plant itself.


I fully understand people's avoidance to this--and I'm not asking you necessarily to take my word for it. It's important to be careful with your body. It IS possible to make a harmful genetically modified product--but its not possible to do so in a way that is going to avoid detection under rigorous testing. The question is who's best interests do companies doing this have at heart.

Even for a company like Monsanto, I think the answer (in this very limited case) is themselves and by proxy the consumer. Lawsuits are no good for a company.


That said, the answer is yes--I am quite certain. You will have to develop your own certainties--but I would advise against making them in a vacuum of relevant information.

 

[Chobble]

I think there's a huge difference between genetic alteration via simple pollination methods versus genetic alteration via laboratory genetic splicing (splicing fish DNA into a tomato to make the tomato more cold resistant. A Big difference.

I do not think the terminology "genetic modification" is accurate as it is too broadbased. I feel cross-bred pollination is a term that should be used for people using "natural" methods (pollen induced) and leave the "genetically modified" term to gene splicing at the cellular level. In would say it is safe to say most of the folks here (and the bigger MJ breeders) are creating hybrids via pollination methods and not the "GMO"(or GM) methods which most of us identify that terminology with Monsanto's Frankenfoods.

I tend to think that without the psychoactive properties, MMJ will not have the same medicinal value. People in general that feel better actually are better.

Is anyone aware if any of the MJ breeders ( Barneys Farm, Shanti, DJ Short, etc) are implementing DNA splicing via lab methods?

Unfortunately to the Biological, Botanical and Horticultural worlds that's how genetic modification is defined. Genetic modification is the when humans impact the natural process of evolution that organisms go through on our planet. 1200 years ago when that first monk started recording how he was selectively breeding his pea's for red flowers, Some could call that the devils work etc. It was branching out from what we knew at the time and was a way to manipulate things that people may have not understood.

My point is, With genetic splicing being a relatively new science (Been around for 40 years, really in use the last 10-15) it is new to us, The scary part is with gluten free corn being bred and scientists saying that children wouldn't live till they're five eating this shit? That's the real problem. The Idea of genetic splicing though is you silence certain genetics in the DNA sequence while the organism (yes the can do it to animals, look up "Knockout mice"). This causes other DNA to be allowed to be expressed (as there is no dominate gene to rule it now persay).

Both methods do the same thing, they look for certain traits expressed in each reoccurring generation of a certain population. This would be genetic modification because the plants did not go through natural selection. Make sense?

Also the only "Natural" method of pollination is not to have human interference at all. Lets see how that works for all of us :P

Chobble

 

[Chobble]

I certainly am.

As sure as I am that hydrogen and hydroxide yield water.

People seem to have this weird idea of genetic modification--that ingesting something which has been subject to it will cause you to grow a third arm and develop cancer.

The truth is, there is no legitimate biochemical reasoning underpinning this idea. It's nothing but fear due to lack of understanding.


As I've suggested already, the major concern here is what can happen to the plant population if genetic mixing takes places between modified and normal stock. Genetic changes can predispose plants to disease, or might weaken another of their systems. Without a full understanding of the plant--we could do major damage here.

Think of what would happen if we starting breeding people to have the genetic defect which causes Huntington's disease--more people would start getting it, and it would make its way through the population more.

So there are some dangers involved.

Now it'd also be possible to genetically modify a plant such that it is harmful--but such a modification would either:

A. Be deliberate

B. Be rooted out during responsible testing of the plant


If we follow the scientific process here, the only possible danger really is to the plant itself.


I fully understand people's avoidance to this--and I'm not asking you necessarily to take my word for it. It's important to be careful with your body. It IS possible to make a harmful genetically modified product--but its not possible to do so in a way that is going to avoid detection under rigorous testing. The question is who's best interests do companies doing this have at heart.

Even for a company like Monsanto, I think the answer (in this very limited case) is themselves and by proxy the consumer. Lawsuits are no good for a company.


That said, the answer is yes--I am quite certain. You will have to develop your own certainties--but I would advise against making them in a vacuum of relevant information.

The problem I have with this, is that I have a feeling genetic modification would take place first for hemp, all the hemp varietys (Over twenty from around the world) that I have worked with are monoacious. Meaning they produce female and male parts. Now in drug Cannabis I wouldn't be to worried about growing genetically altered organisms as there should not be to much pollen running around and genetic pollution wouldn't happen easily. So at that point its not nearly as dangerous to the genetic pool, but one male will be devastating.

Now as for hemp, if they where to genetically modify a hemp plant we would witness what has happened to soy and corn.

If one hectare of this hemp farm was planted with genetically modified hemp you can rest assured at least 75% of the farm will contain genetically modified DNA next season.

Is that a risk we are willing to take?

Chobble

 

[caregiverken]

:rolleyes:

 

[caregiverken]

Be careful Squggly; If Logic see's you talking like that,
he might break this out

:D

 

[squiggly]

Be careful Squggly; If Logic see's you talking like that,
he might break this out

View attachment 262887

:D

Look.

I hate Monsanto too--it's just that I don't have to make up (or assume) information in order to explain that.

They partake in ruthless business practices, have polluted our land and water supply for decades, and they have led us into one of the greatest disasters of our time as it regards the destruction of soy/corn genetic diversity.

Their hands are in so many cookie jars I've lost count.

Fuck that company, and any other company that wants to do business the way they do.


That said, the science here is very clear. No amount of hand wringing from a GMO activist is going to change that. The beauty of science is that it does not respond to opinion or lack of evidence.

Sometimes there is a local bias--and this can come in many forms, for example:

1. Experiment Design Error
2. Experimental Error (incorrect measurements)
3. Publication Bias
4. Researcher Bias

and more.


In the case you have posted pics from above, the scientific community at large has condemned the study to a failure in experimental design (having used animals already quite predisposed to developing tumors).

This is why science experiments must be repeatable--and in the follow up to this trial you can expect that many research teams will attempt to do exactly that. However, I wouldn't hold your breath for results that favor GMO activism on the basis that GMO products cause cancer.

The research done here is questionable at best, and flat out incorrect at worst (and I'm willing to bet the farm we'll find this is the case in the aftermath--as is 99% of the scientific community).

Science in this local fashion can make mistakes--but these mistakes are weeded out through repetition and analysis from many different perspectives. Even Einstein got things wrong sometimes.


This is why I say its important to be cautious, and I welcome more research like this--it is impossible to be "too sure" about such things. However, as it stands this very day, there is every reason to believe that what I've said is correct and one (highly questionable) reason to believe that I could be wrong.


You're welcome to make your own choices, as always--but if you're interested in toppling the GMO machine, you'd do best to focus on things which represent legitimate concerns--rather than very clearly flawed experiments which appear to demonstrate something completely opposite to what thousands of similar experiments (without apparent flaws) have demonstrated.

 

[kolah]

I like simple. I'll stick to growing my own, breeding my own and when needed, buying seeds from reliable sources. ;)

otta' here.

 

[SodaLicious]

How much money did they spend to develop nohigh?they could have just went to nebraska and picked it on the side of the road!

Its not that easy to get good meds without side effects

 

[Theoneandonly Z]

I was unexpectedly gifted 5 seeds of the Avidekel today. I was hoping someone else has ran her, cant find too much info on her.

 

[fractal]

monsanto does have its hands on it already bro and it is round up ready they developed it in HI they are just waiting for it to go legal

That's why this does not sit right with me. Once they breed THC-free cannabis it will suddenly be "legal" and ONLY grown and sold by huge conglomerates.

 

[Jboys3]

I personally have been seeking strains that are low in THC and high in CBD to raise. I can no longer ingest or smoke medicine as I have anxiety issues when I do. Thus I am always on the lookout for this type of strain to ease my arthritis pain. If you can help, I would appreciate a PM to see if we can work something out.

There is and will be a 'market' for both types of meds/weed. Recreational and medicinal use is where this is headed in the future. So I say...Go Isreal.