Re: [DIYbio] Re: Uptake of food transgenes by guy bacteria

As a linguistic device, it's significantly younger than "Genetic Engineered Organisms" (source: ngrams), and if you think about the difference it's clear that one carries connotations of unguided or unintelligent work. Genetic Engineering is done by engineers: people who are rigorous and understand what they're working with. Modification could be anything! For better, worse, unknown!

So, I tend to view "GMO" as an enabling sort of minor pejorative. It's a form of language which prejudices the listener, making further anti-science propaganda more appealing.

On 1 December 2014 19:26:09 GMT+00:00, Nathan McCorkle <nmz...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 5:27 AM, Cathal Garvey
<cathal...@cathalgarvey.me> wrote:
 Dow/Pont haven't made such a dedicated effort to be hated, though. Suing
 individuals for patent infringement is nearly unheard of outside of GM
 crops; patents are used in most fields for killing competition and
 destroying *inventors*, not end-users.

 Monsanto's use and precedent for patents as weapons against potential
 customers (those who didn't pay this year, but probably would in the future)
 is bizarre, and has earned it the reputation it deserves. Sadly, it's also
 earned "GMOs" (a pejorative, I'll remind ye all)

That may be the public opinion at-large, but I for one never thought
that. The earliest I can remember anything about GMOs was with Dolly
the sheep, and I  can only remember thinking how cool it was. That has
been my opinion of GMOs ever since. So I don't think it is necessarily
a pejorative term, but indeed what most 'common' folks probably think.

--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.