rangrz
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2008
- Messages
- 11,691
See here is the problem, you need to become more informed... If you think there is still genes to explore in the drug gene pool, then youre a newb.
So I take that to mean, we have a complete and accurate genomic sequence for the plant, with a full understanding of what each gene does, at a molecular level? Well, there are some genomes, Harm van Bakel et al released a genome sequence in 2011, and there are few others.
According to our friends above, it has about 30,000 coding genes, making it appreciably larger then the human genome. On diversity they noted "However, single nucleotide variant analysis uncovered a relatively high level of variation among four cannabis types" According to work by a private research group "Medicinal Genomics" of Mass. USA, the variance between two strains was 1% or roughly 10 times that found between different populations of humans. Not a particularly small genome, nor all that bottle necked. But I am guessing a cutting edge molecular biologist, or perhaps a geneticist, like yourself was already aware of this work, seeing as you claim to be a specialist in cannabis genetics, I trust you read the literature when it was published.The gene pool is finite. It is not HUGE AND IMMENSE, rather it is comparitively SMALL against the genetic diversity of many other species in this world.
Then I should not need to mention co-dominance, variable penetrance,pleiotropism and epistasis? You are actually familiar with the idea of "new" genes I hope. You know.. mutations. Case in point, Harm Van Bakel, et al found that at some point a "new" gene occurred due to artificial selection which changed the ancestral hemp into cannabis, namely: in Cannabis, THC is the result of an enzyme called "Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinolic acid synthase" which appears to have mutated from "cannabidiolic acid synthase". More generally, I trust you, with your keen interest in these matters, are familiar with Richard. Lenski at U Michigan, showing complete evolution of new genes in E.Coli strains. Again, I would not need to remind you of why E.Coli are relevant to Cannabis.I understand gene dominance and phenotype just fine. Do you understand that the new phenotypes that arise in F2 did not arise because of NEW GENES? You are not producing new GENES
Really? There seems to plenty of chance for drug research with controlled substances. Seeing as the Federal Government here contracts a company to grow it, I don't see legality with requisite licenses being a phenomenal challenge. Aside from standard breeding, there is induced mutagenesis. One can use ionizing radiation to a VERY large number of seeds and select for those that seem interesting. [Just like how pink grapefruit was made!] Let alone the newer work with recombinant DNA technology, including the obvious ability to make transgenic organisms.Modern breeders AS A WHOLE need to get over this idea that they CAN produce ACTUAL SEEDLINE IMPROVEMENTS with their poor methods when they simply cannot.
Basically, (again) What it comes down to is this: You dont have enough resources -in seed form and in legality-, nor the requisite breeding facilities open acreage, plus other
controlled environments) to even MAINTAIN germplasm properly, let alone improve it.
That is an appeal to tradition, generally considered a logical fallacy. It has no genuine relevance to the question of "Can modern and systemic research be useful re: Cannabis as medicine"nor does it reflect the historic use of indigenous cannabis by indigenous peoples.
Science is not about INVENTING, that is more applicable to engineering. Science is attempts to understand the physical world, using the general guidelines of the scientific method, with an emphasis on methodological naturalism, and formulating TESTABLE hypothesis and predictions about that area. A "Cannabis grower" who uses rigorous and logical methodology is still a scientist. A professional scientist however, maybe have access to resources not widely available and hence can generally contribute significantly to a field.But to go from that to claiming that this breeding was actually inventing, and that it was done by scientists instead of cannabis-growers, is a bit too much.
May I ask why a scholar such as your self took to such handsome use of ad hominem attacks in your reply?