[throwawaygal7]

Releasing GMO chestnuts will contaminant the gene pool forever, it's a bad idea.

Two things about the American chestnut are relevant: 1) the percentage of forest it occupied is widely overstated, seemingly due to exageration thru retelling of the story. It was usually a top ten tree at most sites, far from the numbers you usually see in articles. The these numbers are from ideal sites for its colonization or areas where it was planted by humans. This is widely known and studied, but people who write about it to lay audiences tend to use exaggerated figures out of context.

2) many specimens survived the blight due to partial resistance, not all were wiped out.

All we need to do is wait and they'll do just fine. Even a traditional breeding program would work in a few generations, there's really no good reason to rush this stuff.

[trash3]

All we need to do to fix climate change is wait as well ;)

[hobs]

I dont know why the poster is being downvoted, I have heard the same about the Chestnut coming back from foresters and others in the know for a decent amount of time.

Pretty sure you'll find https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi12xaJxA5U saying the same thing about the Chestnut.

[sojournerc]

What are you winking at? Cheeky comment, but thread was about trees... You just trying to flame war?

[bobcostas55]

>Releasing GMO chestnuts will contaminant the gene pool forever

So what?

[sojournerc]

Whomever downvoted this care to comment with evidence?

[SECProto]

American Chestnuts that have gained resistance to blight via selective breeding, hybridization with a different species, or insertion of a different gene are all genetically modified. The only difference is the source of the modification. Starting a comment with the inflammatory statement "Releasing GMO chestnuts will contaminant the gene pool forever, it's a bad idea" doesn't serve the discussion well.

Humans are really good at throwing environmental pressure (logging) after environmental pressure (chestnut blight) after environmental pressure (urban air pollution) after environmental pressure (global warming) at species. The speed with which these pressures arise is faster than natural selection can deal with for most species, and are leading to an extinction event rather than species just learning to adapt. If we can make minor direct genetic modifications to help species cope, I think it's an unqualified win.

[irrational]

I didn’t downvote, but my guess is that it has to do with the first sentence as sounding like something an anti-GMO nut would say.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

Right. "contaminant " or even "contaminate" is a "press the emotional button" kind of word. The kind of disgust-trigger than inhibits rational thought.

Stripped of that, it says "the new gene will be in the tree's the gene pool forever, so it's a bad idea" which is a non-sequitur. Putting the gene in permanently, for permanent fungus resistance, is the point, isn't it?

The emotional appeal is the entire argument. It seems to imply that gene editing is always "bad and dirty". There might be a case to be made that putting this particular gene in this tree is a bad idea, but this sentence is really not it (1). I think that I had an emotional reaction against it ;)

IMHO Gene editing is too broad a category to judge like that. Comments on the internet - good, bad or useless? It depends on what you write, and where.

If someone is going to ask for "comment with evidence", then do not reverse the burden of proof (1) and put that on "downvoters", instead ask for "sources" that all gene editing is "contamination", rather than giving a free pass to sneaking in the conclusion via loaded language, without supporting evidence.

I think that I gave this topic more in-depth examination than it deserved, but there you go.

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

[throwawaygal7]

Two points:

1) resistance genes are already in the genome, they don't need to be added. This means the entire endeavor is unnecessary

2) this is an internationally recognized definition of genetic pollution, it's controversial only with a few hardliners.

[SECProto]

1. Resistance genes are already in the genome, but they have so far proven inadequate. Experiments in interbreeding and crossbreeding have been going on for 60 years from the USDA, the American Chestnut Foundation, the American Chestnut Cooperators Foundation, etc - and none of them have declared "victory" yet. There's no reason to assume there'll be blight-resistant chestnut seedlings available anytime soon. Or anytime late, to be honest.

2. If you read the wikipedia article [1], it has an entire section on why it's controversial. It also has links to an article on genetic rescue[2], which I think is more relevant.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_pollution#Controversy

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_rescue