Tyler Smith on Nostr: npub1trdnq…gussx that's a bit of a jump. They note that they don't know the cause ...
npub1trdnqrfstufc45awha43p6xy2n0v6czuhapzh4r09hap08dg0c6s9gussx (npub1trd…ussx) that's a bit of a jump. They note that they don't know the cause of the mutations, they don't suggest the mutations present a risk. All of plant breeding is based on mutations in one form or another, so when a breeder makes a statement about mutation it shouldn't be interpreted as a human health risk without additional context.
If we were to assume mutations *do* present a risk, then the paper is actually evidence for the relative safety of gene editing, since it generates fewer mutations than other techniques.
The authors argue, based on their data, that GE should be regulated based on the *product*, not the *process*. Because the process of GE does not introduce an increased risk of mutation, harmful or not.
If we were to assume mutations *do* present a risk, then the paper is actually evidence for the relative safety of gene editing, since it generates fewer mutations than other techniques.
The authors argue, based on their data, that GE should be regulated based on the *product*, not the *process*. Because the process of GE does not introduce an increased risk of mutation, harmful or not.