<% ballot="107442" ' Check nothing is broken broken = 0 if ballot = "" then broken = 1 end if set vt = Server.Createobject("mps.Vote") openresult = vt.Open("Vote", "sa", "") ' Created object? if IsObject(vt) = TRUE then ' Opened db? if openresult = True AND broken = 0 then ballotresult = vt.SetBallotName(ballot) ' read the vote votetotal=(vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes")+vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no")) if votetotal <> 0 then ' there are votes in the database numberyes = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes") numberno = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no") percentyes = Int((numberyes/votetotal)*100) percentno = 100 - percentyes ' fix graph so funny graph heights dont appear 'if percentyes = 0 then ' percentyes = 1 'end if 'if percentno = 0 then ' percentno = 1 'end if else ' summut went wrong frig it numberyes = 0 numberno = 0 percentyes = 50 percentno = 50 end if end if end if %> Votes so far:

100% 0%			>		>
			Yes: <% =percentyes %>%		No: <% =percentno %>%

There are no prohibitions in the U.S. of genetically mixing species or creating monstrosities. There are no safeguards against biological pollution. The driving force behind the research is profit- not the well-being of humanity or the planet. We've lost 90% of the edible plant species since the turn of the century. 400 biologists agree that the Cenozoic Age is at an end with the high rate of extinctions that is going on. It is time to stop blindly doing things because we can technologically do them and begin to ask, "Is this wise? How will this affect us? How will this affect our children , our grandchildren, and those that are born after them?
Carol Brouillet, U.S.A.

First, I congratulate BBC for taking this poll and inviting public comment. My hat goes off to Prince Charles and Britian for taking a leadership role in this regard. Genetic engineering poses the single greatest threat to the health of this planet, both for humans and the environment. Most biotech companies do not want these gene manipulated foods labelled which essentially means they are forcing them on world consumers without our informed consent. And, because long-term safety testing is not required by governments, it means the public becomes guinea pigs in a global experiment. Fooling around with the deepest structures of natural law in living organisms is inherently risky and dangerous because it violates the natural species barriers created by our creator. They call it transgenic but it is really mutagenic. And, mutating the world food supply will go down in history (a few years from now) as the biggest blunder of this past millenium which is coming to a close. This issue will in fact be one of the pivotal issues that launches the "new age." Hopefully, mankind will be able to catch it before the damage is done. Why tamper with the food that our creator has given us which has proven itself safe over thousands and perhaps millions of years? It is only because the biotech industry wants self-profit. It is not necessary. So, why gamble with public health and the delicate balance of nature? It is simply nuts! I only pray that enough sensible people speak out and stand up and insist on a outright ban of these extremely dangerous gene manipulated foods and crops. Thank you for reaching out to people worldwide on this very important issue.
William E. Crist, USA

I'm against genetic engineering as far as our daily food, clothing (cotton and silk e.g.), etc. is concerned. Maybe on a small scale for creating medicine I'm not against that. But on the large scale as it is now used (more than 60% of our daily food contains gentech soja, that even is not marked on the label) I say NO!).
Jan Konings, Netherlands

Genetic engineering will not feed the world's poor. It is expensive and centralised, and will increase power imbalance in the world. There are many small scale alternatives that could be applied, but they empower the poor and powerless, so they are controversial.
Birgitta Rydhagen, Sweden

I have no problem with genetically modified foods, but there is no good reason to fail to label food to allow consumers the choice of whether they eat it or not.
Iain McLurcan, UK

GE has proved itself to be potentially dangerous. People have been killed by GE products. It could happen again. Nobody knows exactly what the properties of any GE created organism can be, and what the long-term effects on the consumer could be. GE created organisms are self-perpetuating, and cannot be retracted once it has been found to be dangerous if it escapes into nature. At least legislation should determine proper labelling indicating if any food product contains GE material. At best it should be banned completely.
Kolbe Anema, South Africa

The last time we let scientists and farmers play with our food we got BSE, E-coli etc. Do we really need GE food? Do we want to give VAST amounts of money to companies like Monsanto (dioxins & agent orange) who hold patents on GE foods. These companies are not in it for the worlds common good they want the money.
Derek Brown, Scotland

I am a biochemist and know probably more than the general public about the dangers of GE food and am still amazed that people like Monsanto defend their position. Please publisise both points of view as much as possible. I thought the NewsNight programme was good but still needed to educate the public about the dangers. We are talking about something which is more dangerous than nuclear fallout! Nothing can be taken back if released into the environment. It may already be too late for some crops.
Mike Toomey, UK

There is a huge amount of ignorance about the benefits of genetically engineering plants. This can reduce the use of pesticides and with the increasing population, it will also decrease the amount of land required to grow crops. I wish that the general public were better informed rather than ill-informed people getting on their soap boxes about genetic engineering. Engineering animals is a greyer area. I personally disagree with the majority of it because I am very concerned with animal welfare but I do think that it has the possibility of enabling huge advances in science.
Michelle Hayes, UK

It is a credit to the Swiss people that they felt empowered to make an informed decision on genetic engineering. This is a large and complex subject for those not in the field. Most of the negative comments in your e-mails seem to arise from fear and lack of information, rather than informed choice. What is really required is education to allow such choice, not predujiced objection. The Prince of Wales said in his article that when consumers can make an informed choice about whether or not they eat GM products, then they would be able to send a direct message to manufacturers. This choice will never be truly informed until consumers have a broader understanding of the issues. The regulations and legislation surrounding GM work are already tightly controlling the production of new products, rightly so. Scientists are people too (!), not the self-serving mad-men alluded to in the media.
Dr R Duncan (geneticist), UK

Don't be fooled by claims that GE will feed the world and make everyone's lives better - its primary purpose is to make corporations richer and make more money for the manufacturers of pesticides, drugs and other chemicals. Now we have opened this particular Pandora's box there is no way to get the lid back on. The least we could do is to force companies to label all products containing genetically modified materials or their byproducts clearly and unmistakably, so we can choose for ourselves. As for the scientists involved in the process of GE I quote from Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park: "They spent so much time thinking about whether they COULD, that they never stopped to wonder whether they SHOULD."
Fiona Kellington, England

Genetic Engineering is an affront to individuals ' abilities to decide what is good for themselves. It is more big brother acting on behalf of corporate greedy interests which are death affirming & not concerned with the holistic system that is earth.
Jane Sherry, United States

Despite it being a well worn comment, I will make it again. Humans have been effectively genetically engineering food stuffs and animals for an age. From bananas to breeds of livestock, all these products have been subjected to selective breeding by mankind. To say that genetic engineering is taking mankind into the realms of God, is, in my opinion, a contradiction of todays society. Healthcare is at its most fundamental level altering the 'natural' function of the human body. This is especially evident when modern surgery is considered, and less obviously by the administration of advanced drugs. By stopping people from dying of cancer, reparting hearts and kidneys and extendings peoples life spans etc we are effectively playing God Genetic Engineering is simply the latest 'revolution' and as has been seen every time in the past with new 'revolutions' it is little understood and appreciated by the general public, if only because those responsible for it are not doing a good enough job of making known to the layman what it is they are going, and how it is going to effect society. I am for genetic engineering, but know that constraint and plenty of research must be done in it infant years, ie now. It's potential benifits will probably outdo the benifits the Industrial Revolution brought, but that is speculative. People have a right to know, and decide on things that directly affect them. The problem is not the technology, but the public relations of it.
David Pratt, UK

Genetic engineering has so much potential in helping to improve the quality of life on earth if used properly. As with anything, its benefits can so easily be abused, that it needs to be regulated but not banned.
Donia Conn, US

The proposed benefits of genetic engineering, e.g. "better" crops which are resilient to diseases, are misguided and narrow minded. The planet can easily provide enough food for everyone, it is mankind that cannot seem to organise this effectively. Why mess with genetics when it's war or politcal power that is causing the problems. There are similar arguments for many of these problems, including health. I do not think a ban on GM will work, however. Research will go on, it is too late for that. A ban would probably drive research underground, where it would be impossible to regulate or monitor. I feel theoretical research is important perhaps using computer simulations. In the same way as research on nanotechnology, the mistakes should be made in cyberspace, a chance we did not get with nuclear technology.
Pip Jones, England

My feeling is that we just don't know enough about the effects of genetic engineering to to let genetically modified foodstuffs be available to the public. However If research into genetic engineering is stopped I think we will lose a very valuable opportunity to develop new drugs and medical techniques that could potentially be an asset. However this research does need strict ethical controls.
Jeremy Boothroyd, Lancaster, UK

Genetic engineering, like other forms of engineering, can be used in many different ways. To blindly talk of banning it is not just ill-informed, it is downright foolhardy. The potential benefits are so enormous that we cannot afford to simply give it up. Already, genetically engineered medicine gives haemophiliacs a safe alternative to human blood products, and potatoes which manufacture vaccine proteins are about to begin wide-scale trials. These kinds of developments could be the single biggest leap forward in medical technology since the discovery of antibiotics. As for genetic engineering being in "realms that belong to God, and God alone", I have to disagree strongly. Even those who believe in the Biblical account should be less worried than the rest of us, since according to their worldview mankind was given dominion over all other life on Earth. The radical green camp, who ask us to retain "Mother Nature as it is" are equally poorly informed. Ever since the first animal was domesticated, and even more so since the first seed was deliberately sown, we have been altering "Mother Nature" to our own ends. Genetic engineering is merely the next step in this process. By ensuring more efficient use of existing land, it may even be possible to reduce our impact on the remaining wilderness areas. In short, whichever way you look at it, genetic engineering is just another technology. It is already with us, and we should all encourage its responsible use.
Sean Ellis, UK

I will not be buying genetically engineered food. I would prefer to buy food from local producers which (in sufficient quantity) would have a more beneficial effect of promoting local economies. It is a danger to us all - what gives us the right to tamper with nature?
Michelle Brothers, UK

Curiosity of the human mind knows no bounds. To put a stop to enquiry will stunt human growth. Nuclear energy has its potential for great welfare and equally disastrous consequences. Thus the reason and self imposed discipline on what this research will be used for is a vital issue.
Anil Trigunayat, UK

Research should not be stopped but should be closely monitored and controlled. No genetically engineered foods should be allowed into the food chain at this stage without the long-term implications being fully investigated.
Margaret Paling, UK

I would have to agree with Prince Charles. Besides, I don't feel that there has been enough discussion on the long-term benefits and effects on other organisms on the planet when you add a genetically engineered item into the mix. In terms of DNA, I don't think man has nearly the knowledge needed to go playing around with it. You need only look to each person on the planet or each person in a family to understand that there is an incredible complexity to DNA. In terms of supercrops, that is all well and good, but what will be the long-term damage to other crops as cross pollination will occur? What happens when you plant genetically engineered items into the soil? How does it affect soil composition, and don't kid yourself by thinking that it doesn't. These questions take years to answer. In addition, suppose we were to find a supercrop. Who then owns the rights to it and what will they charge? There are too many questions that are unanswered for us to be delving so quickly into genetic engineering, in my opinion. Thanks for asking!
Genny Elias, US

Thank God that Prince Charles has a spine and a brain, and uses them! I agree with his position completely, and wish that there were a few more "high profile" responsible thinkers. The absurdity of the whole issue is not just that its based on businessmen wanting exclusive financial markets and products, nor that they may want to control the food supply and health of the population of the world, as much as-just as in the case of Hitler-so many people are either sitting and watching it all happen, or else supporting the efforts either directly or indirectly. And, for all of America's "Good Helper" attitude, the American and Canadian position is highly irresponsible in saying, "it must be good if it hasn't been proven to be bad." With no adequate scientific investigation or ability to project or accurately assess the impact on world health, this could well be a grave nightmare for the health of the people of the world, which is already suffering immensely from multitudes of other senseless "innovations" whose primary purpose seems to make lots of money, and get "power" through control of the market. Genetic engineering should definitely be stopped, and be thoroughly evaluated before it is let out into the market place; for there's no stopping it once its out (already too late?). Whether we cite religious, philosophical, scientific, or plain common-sense reasoning, any government which supports and promotes this type of experimentation on the human race, under such questionable and untested and objectionable conditions, does not deserve to be called a government of the people; for it has forsaken its responsibility to work for the best interests of every man, woman, and child rather than against it for the sake of some market share and illusory wealth. Thank you for taking the time to take this survey.
Brian Haring, U.S.A.

The risk is too great. Natural evolution and mutation have occurred over thousands of years. We do not understand the wholistic aspect of these processes sufficiently well to be able to tinker with them. The way in which these foods are being introduced into various countries violates ethical considerations such as religious and philosophical and moral beliefs and gives to much power to one company. It's time for politicians to ignore the pressure and go for high quality solutions. It's time to favour Natural Law, not man's interference with natural law.
Sally Clarke Australia

We've found that GE food spoils much faster than organic food, does not taste good and one can never know what virus or bacteria or animal genes, etc. one may be getting in anything one eats. GE food has not been shown to produce any benefits - not heartier crops, not more crops, not any real benefits, just tremendous dangers which may take ages to repair. I very much want to enjoy good health by taking care of my body and not polluting it with various toxins. It's very hard to stay healthy in this world which we have polluted so badly with supposed improvements in foods. My hope is that GE will be banned very soon and the money and energy and intelligence wasted on this science will be used to really improve quality of human life, rather than continuing an experiment which has after many years not shown itself to have any real merit.
Geri McFadden, USA

Genetic engineering is at a very early stage in its development. It should be stopped in the form in which it is currently being developed. Research is one thing, but production in the hands of multinational companies, and widespread use in the foodchain is quite a different matter. I would urge a moratorium on release into the environment and use in food and farming until we understand a lot more. For example, not a single plant has had its entire genome sequenced. We do not understand the function of over 50% of plant genes. Genes are thought to be more complex than single entities with a single trait. Such aspects should be thoroughly explored. The referendum in Switzerland failed because it was poorly worded. People were afraid that all research would be stopped. This vote is also poorly worded for the same reason. If the phrase sought a moratorium on genetic engineering in food and agriculture, the vote would be an overwhelming YES.
Quentin Gargan, Ireland

We have no idea what we're fooling with here. Instead of creating plastic food that can withstand anything why isn't more effort being put into organic crops and soils that resist pests naturally?
Narelle Chenery, Australia

I dispute Mr. Nathan Hedin's saying, that we should not ban it. Why should we take on something when we are not fully aware of its benefits? Ignorance is the main problem, not the main advantage. Once we know fully, then we can act. Regarding better and bigger crops, the world has today the ability to stop third world hunger. If we all work together towards it we can do it. The problem is, as many have mentioned, we all want to make MONEY for our own good. All of us. At least label it!
Andre V. Elkind, Brazil

There are no good reasons to ban genetic engineering. On the contrary, it will have positive effects to people and animals.
Matti Linnanvuori, Finland

Genetic engineering could be essential for the treatment of many diseases in future especially genetic ones. Also, new technology will permit us to create new plants and animals to solve the acute problems of hunger and malnuitrition in the modern world.
Paul Semenoff, Russia

Some genetic engineering may be beneficial, but currently we just don't know enough. It would be wise to wait a few years, let the scientists study the risks and then, if it seems reasonable, to allow GE products to enter the market. Now I don't want to take the chance.
Oras Tynkkynen, Finland

Itīs a bit too simplified a question, since "genetic engieering" may mean so much - but if you by this mean a widespread use of GMO's in agriculture and forestry I say "no". If you mean a controlled and limitied use of genetic techniques for research and "in house" production I can say "yes".
S Molander, Sweden

Genetic engineering SHOULD be stopped, but it CAN'T be stopped in general. But what we need are VERY STRICT RULES for APPLICATIONS of genetic engineered "products" worldwide. The Swiss Referendum wanted to restrict genetic engineering, but not forbid. 40% of the people voted, and 2/3 of those were against restrictions. We don't know the reasons yet.
Thomas Schneeberger, Switzerland

Genetic engineering offers tremendous potential benefits - like any new technology it just needs to be managed in an intelligent way.
Simon Robinson, Australia

As a member of this great creation of Nature, I have just a small view of what is good for the totality. Mother Nature has the full recipe. I can just be humble and res- pect that.
Marie Victoria Hansen, Norway

An argument on this is the continuation of science and the furthering of knowledge. If 'fear groups' had always had their way we would have been kept in the middle ages by the Inquisition. Genetic engineering offers hope for improvements of our way of life, and may will be the only way to meet our growing food requirements in the only environment we have - Earth. Succesful controls, not blatant road-blocks, are what is required.
Andrew Mumford, UK

Science has given so many benefits to mankind that it is worth continuing to take the risk of making a mistake. Genetic engineering is playing with fire, but then if our ancestors had not played with fire then which ever animal was the first to do so would be using and eating us instead of the other way round.
Noxas, UK

Re. your headline "scientists earn their crust" about the gene in wheat that makes bread softer. I have enough trouble finding real bread without being confronted with no choice. I do not like soft bread!
Eileen Bedford, England

Genetic engineering, just like atomic research, can be heaven or hell. With strong control, without high profit pressure, genetic engineering could improve our lives with new medicines, less pollution, and so on. But, for instance, genetic engineering is endangering the environnement, our health and is about to put on slavery farmers.
Alain Darrigade, France

There is far too little accountability within the field of genetic engineering and research. There is no public debate. These discoveries are announced as if the scientists are saying "Aren't we clever? Look what we can do now". We don't need tomatoes with a longer shelf life, or soya that is supposedly resistant to insects. We just need clean, wholesome food that is free of interference. As an IT professional, I am not a Luddite and I find science is making exciting leaps forward e.g. the space programme, but to genetically mutate crops (let alone animals or people), without being sure of the long-term effects, is playing with a loaded gun, and the scientists in this case seem to believe that their expertise gives them carte blanche to do what they like and to hell with public opinion or accountabiliy. For the record, I am not a vegetarian and I will not be buying any genetically altered food. I would like to see more compassionate farming of animals, and more organic produce.
Ben Lovegrove, England

Genes enable protein synthesis. We eat many different proteins. Genetic engineering places a gene in a target organism where it was not previously found. We now get this genes protein in both the source and target organism. We eat the source and target organisms. We eat many different proteins. So, try eating sausage and mash together - got the idea - good.
Mike S, Bath, England

To spread these products without complete knowledge of their consequences can produce fatal results. The population should not be exposed to such incalculable risk.
Sabine Kahle, Germany

My prediction? Scientists start off by producing super-crops but end-up designing super-humans. Is this what we want???
Catherine Senger, UK

This is a one way process. We are in danger of unleashing organisms into the environment which have the potential to cause untold problems. We cannot re-call these man-made genetic combinations if and when this happens. Genetic Engineering is being driven primarily by business imperatives, so why are we toerating the potential and real risks of this technology?
Michael Sullivan, UK

Genetic engineering, seems to me to be nothing more than a money making excercise for large multinationals disguised as something good for the third world.
Fred Logue, Ireland

The answer is 'no' provided it doesn' t play God and it is concentrated in treating diseases and alleviating human pain and misery.
G. Athanassoulis, Greece

Genetically engineered foods should not be placed on the market until clear evidence of long-term effects have been evaluated. Let not the economics of genetic engineering overrule good science and common sense!
M. Pillay, Netherlands, Netherlands

The effects of genetic engineering are unknown. It scares me that developments are just being developed for the sake of development and NOT for the sake of the world and its inhabitants. Genetic engineering threatens biodiversity. Genetic engineering will benefit the rich, the inequality between the South and the North will grow.
Gerbina, The Netherlands

Today's scientists are too narrow-minded to foresee the effects of their experiments. I want natural food that has improved itself over the centuries. Please stop this awful experiment.
Paul Glossop, USA

Think of the story of the mineral, Asbestos. Some decades ago it was considered a wonder-material for many purposes. Today - fifty years later - we know about its health risks. Genetic engineering should not be a commercial issue, but a matter for science only, under strict regulations and control by the state.
Michael H Mayer, Germany

It's not a simple issue. The research can continue but introducing engineered food and products into the environment and food chain should be stopped. The new products should also be pulled from the market until long-term research performed on the researchers' immediate families is completed.
David Ederer, USA

So many of the world's food production problems can be fixed with this technology. It is one of the safest technologies and the most productive, so to ban it would represent a disaster caused by media hype and destructive radical "green" minority groups.
Chris Blanchard, Australia

Nature has developed extremely sophisticated mechanisms for evolution that we are just beginning to uncover, let alone understand. The gross adjustments made by plant engineers today are being made with nearly total ignorance of the processes and mechanisms that are being interrupted. We will pay a heavy price in the future for the minor economic gains of today.
Gregory M Monokian, USA

Genetically modified foodstuffs have no history of use - safe or otherwise. The precautionary principle should apply. It is not ok for us to be the experiment. Crops genetically modified for specific herbicide tolerance eg roundup ready soya contains up to 200% higher residues of roundup - so much for less chemical on crops.... We have already had enough of the madness in the food supply. Government pushed by industry has failed to put human health and safety before industry profits.
There are already far too many synthetic substances in our food which contribute to food sensitivities, asthma and behaviour disorders. Let us not be subject to the madness of science in something as basic as our food. Stop fiddling the food supply. We need to get back to food grown without chemical inputs. We also don't need additives, colourings etc that are there purely for cosmetic purposes.
Clean up the food supply - would it be too much to ask that we have natural unfiddled food that will sustain and nourish us. Let us not play with gene technology in food. It is imprecise science - we don't know enough about it eg the role of junk genes. Put the health of people before mad science and industry profits.
Dorothy M Bowes, Australia

All technologies can be used for good or for bad. Genetic engineering is the same. Used judiciously, genetic engineering can assist greatly in both animal and plant breeding.
Jake Jacobsen, Australia

Nature's functioning is holistic, intelligent and wise. GE is unholistic, of limited intelligence and lacking wisdom and therefore not only dangerous but very dangerous and very poisonous to life.
A Pfeiffer, Germany

Genetic engineering's purpose is not to destroy bio-diversity by melding the world's crops into one super-vegetable. It is, instead, about allowing each crop to reach its fullest potential for the survival of the human race.
Richard Kidd, US

We know too little about the long-term effects of modified organisms to allow them into our environment and local ecosystems. There is not enough research into these effects and governments are permitting the contamination of our world without sufficient knowledge.
Laura Burrows, England

It would be foolhardy to lose the opportunity of taking advantage of the considerable benefits of controlled genetic engineering based on the fear-mongering that is going on.
Michael Samuel, Australia

What is the rush? Could it be short-term gain? Humanitarian benefits are a distraction - famine can be cured now by fairer distribution? Let's look forward to new levels of inequality and fascism - the ultimate New World Order is coming...
Hamish Hag, UK

People who want GE stopped probably don't realise what this would mean to medical research. 95% of medical research would stop. No AIDS cures. No AIDS vaccines. No cures for cancer etc. Is this what we want?
Roger Morton, Australia

When a German intercity express goes off the track 100 people die and the damage is localised. When an atomic power plant goes off the track thousands of people die and a whole region is polluted. When DNA is pushed off the track by our limited technical skills the whole ecological system is disturbed and millions will die. Genetic engineering does not deal with an engine but with life and only an holistic approach can deal with life.
Franz Richter, Germany

Genetic manipulation offers real opportunities for advancement in many areas of human endeavour. Better medicines, reduced reliance on pesticides and insecticides, better food quality are just a few of the existing benefits. Others will follow. However, like all novel advances there is a need for regulation to ensure that the benefits are those that the community wants.
Prince Charles' statement appears to not consider the total picture and suggests that he may not be as well-informed as he should be. Blanket denial of new technology has never been a successful approach.
Richard Simpson, Australia

Genetic engineering is the newest form of colonialism.
Davie Philip, Ireland

I believe that all gene-spliced foods should be banned or at least labelled. With food allergies it will be almost impossible to monitor what one has eaten with viruses, bacterium and other foods gene-spliced into our food supply.
Mistakes have already been made and I believe that there will be more (and greater) mistakes in the future.
The boys have new toys - and are waving them proudly. Who has the biggest, the longest, the weirdest, the best?! God help us!!
Colleen Robison-Spencer, United States

Erwin Chargaff once wondered whether we are "engineering a molecular nightmare?" Coming from one of the fathers of molecular biology, this should make us think. The human race has a tendency to rush into things which we only superficially understand. Natural Selection must be allowed to have its say, and we definitely don't need a "Brave New World."
B.Vijayaraghavan, India

It is pathetic that some people consider ourselves an advanced species when we still have millions of people around the world starving or dying of preventable disease. The general public in the comfortable consumer world will not give up their standard of living to improve the lives of those we so easily neglect. It would be too costly for us. Hence there is not the political will to change the situation using our current technology. Generic engineering offers us some cheaper alternatives with the potential for tougher food crops, richer energy crops and cheaper production of medicines. All of these potential technologies could transform the plight of the third world. Similarly growing our energy could significantly increase our chances of developing truly sustainable lifestyles. For me these are worthy goals for which GE could be invaluable as long as the potential dangers of GE are also taken seriously. Therefore a complete ban would be excessive. However, tight regulation is imperative and I am not convinced that this is happening yet. If tight regulation means that the use of GE becomes commercially unviable, so be it. I would rather the research and use of GE was funded by governments for non-commercial humanitarian uses anyway.
Oliver Sharpe U.K.

Science is generally good but this time is going too far. What next? Genetically engineered human beings who are resistant to disease? When will we stop tempting God? Does our environment mean so little to us? And also, it will not necessarily reduce third world famine. Political and economic stability would do a much better job.
Ada O, UK

Perhaps we should ban this, but I think not. There are downsides to a lot of things, should we ban them all? We could start with cars and aeroplanes. This is a developing science still in its early stages. Who knows what benefits it may bring? In the end the planet has played gene roulette extensively in the past and I think it is unlikely we will cause any lasting harm.
Chris Hann, USA

Genetics and the search for cures to many illnesses have been ongoing for the last 20 years. If we are able to genetically alter seed to produce crops that will feed the world we have a moral obligation to do so! The control of such research must be a factor though and guards put in place to ensure that the results of the work are not twisted, as in so many cases, to destructive uses.
Colin Clarke, UK

We have been doing genetic engineering for centuries, in some cases making whole new species by combining old ones. Most of our current crop plants and farm animals are totally artificial. Many of the plants are invented hybrids, and a lot of the animals have been quite radically altered by generations of breeding. We have made some spectacular blunders, and we will make more, but the standard of life of people in the west is at an all time high, because of generations of breeders, geneticists, and farmers. We need sensible regulations, and helpful guidelines, but the problem is too big to be a petty national issue. It must be at least a pan-European debate, but preferably worldwide.
Adam, USA

Genetic engineering is based on an outdated understanding of science. New research shows that the genes are not stable units acting in separation from everything else. They are "fluid" substances that respond to the outer as well as the inner environment, and therefore, you cannot just take just one gene out of its wholeness and place it in some other ecosystem, without messing up the whole intelligence of the two ecosystems. Everything in the universe is connected with everything else, and the laws of nature function in perfect order and harmony. Who are we to disrupt that order?! And why take the chance of messing up the whole thing, with the risk of creating new diseases, when itīs not even nessessary?!
Sabina S Nybo Rasmussen, Denmark

Genetically altered crops, grown in the open, can affect the present crops in ways which we have no means of controlling. The possible harm to existing crops, or to the ability to control weeds or insect pests, could lead to food production becoming uncontrollable. In addition we do not know what damage could result to those who consume affected crops. Experimentation should only be conducted under strictly controlled laboratory conditions.
Geoff Hinchliffe, England

Prince Charles was quite correct in raising this matter; genetic engineering is a dangerous science. The promises of better crops are not the real driving forces behind research; this is corporate profit. There is no such thing as a free lunch. This meddling will return to haunt us. I would have thought that the BSE fiasco would have taught us that lesson by now.
The mixing of GE modified materials and their natural counterparts into this country is outrageous. Yet the government hasn't even murmured a complaint; another sign that they are tied much too closely to the farmers and industry. We should be entitled to explicit labelling as a right so that we can choose whether we want to join this worldwide experiment!
Ian, UK

The companies involved in this research are actively removing choice from consumers, and their motives have more to do with profit than science.
Sally-Ann Russell, UK

Gene patenting should be outlawed. Attempts (such as those of Monsanto) to use GE technology to establish control over the food supply chain should be stamped out with all possible vigour. But GE per se should not be stopped. The pursuit of understanding of the genome should not be restricted.
Robin Houston, UK

All food containing genetically-modified sources should be clearly labelled so we can avoid it if we wish. On a wider scale, releasing GMOs into the environment cannot be defended ethically and may give rise to the worst ecological disaster ever. Once out there you can't call them back!
Chris Hand, UK

Because the full implications of genetic engineering are unknown, it should certainly be treated with the utmost caution. Genetic research may be justified, it is far too early to open the doors to full-scale genetic engineering - the potential risks are too great! It should certainly not be used purely to line the pockets of multi-national companies!
Herbert Eppel, England

Whether you agree with genetic engineering or not, the fact that seems to have been overlooked by many commentators is that the "pest resistant" crops are not intrinsically more pest resistant; rather they allow more pesticides to be sprayed on the crop. To me that is as bad as the genetic modification itself.
Richard Hanby, UK

Although I work in the plant protection industry I am a consumer and have no concerns about eating GM food. The regulations for approving GM products are rigorous and should be respected.
Mark Peatman, UK

Regardless of one's viewpoint on whether this process should continue, all foodstuffs containing GE products should be clearly labelled until a decision is made. This way, consumers at least have the right to choose.
Anna Ferguson, UK

Genetic engineering should not be banned but tight safeguards must be introduced, as we know very little about what the long term consequences of the work will be. As they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
M Ridcully, UK

Banning genetic engineering means abandoning those who suffer from hereditary disease to suffering. As with most technology it's capable of being misused but its potential for improving the human condition is too great to ignore.
Trevor, UK

No scientist even claims to fully understand the complex nature of DNA. There may well be knock on effects that nobody has thought of. These genetic modifications may well be "the flap of a butterfly's wings". I'd even go so far as to say, I agree with Prince Charles on this one! These things should be left in the hands of God.
Jeremy Voisey, Bath, UK

We already have so many problems, including all the health-related carcinogens, which have resulted from our interventions in the natural world that it has to be more intelligent to use our resources to find solutions to these problems, solutions more in accord with the grain of nature, than to rush on into another and deeper level of human interference. There needs to be at least a moratorium on GE to allow proper public consultation on these issues.
Jonathan Matthews, England

Genetic engineering will continue in nature as it always has since the beginning of time, with or without our approval. Many lethal organisms have developed immunity to our best antibiotics, without the help of scientists and laboratories. Should we simply sit back and allow the next strain of Bubonic Plague to decimate our cities and say 'Oh! it's Gods will', or should we study and control this genetic process? Go figure!
Pearse Kelly, USA

I always thought dinosauria were created by human/intellectual beings. I am looking forward to those creatures appearing on the Earth again.
Jaak Aru, Estonia

Although I am not against progress, my feelings are that in the case of GE, progress very often means profit. We are forced into accepting modifications of the building blocks of our very existence. Very often we do not even realise we are being forced into it, it is just done to us. But as long as we have not got a clue of what the effects will be in the long term, we should stick to research, and avoid worldwide implementation. For what we eat every day will influence our body every day and will indirectly influence the bodies of our children.
I think that the pharmaceutical industry has shown us during the last five decades what, in a negative way, chemicals produced and sold under the flag of compassion and ethics can do to people. And those were the products targeted at specific problems very often said to enhance or improve the body's impoverished natural reactions. GE has left that narrow band of criteria.
The least we can expect is the possibility to have a choice; to be able to pick between a GE pepper and a "normal" one. But then, what will be done with the research? Will there and can there be any independent research? Or will they modify input and results of research as well, the way we know it is often done in the case of new drugs?
The real problem is that there is no objective science and no objective chance of progress any more. For there is far too much money involved.
Drs Lodewijk Bos, The Netherlands

Ever since life on earth began it has been mutating into different life forms. This natural process is going to be augmented by genetic engineering. We should not attempt to stop progress but should find ways to control misuse of these scientific breakthroughs.
Michael A Caruana, Malta

The decisions of regulatory authorities with respect to the development of genetically modified crops should be made on the basis of the best scientific advice, objective assessment and subjective fears that are commonly based on ignorance.
Stephen Crossley, United Kingdom

The question is misleading and utterly irrelevant. It assumes that genetic engineering can be stopped, while it, just like all scientific research that has potential use, cannot, and will not be. Its tremendous potential in the military, commercial and medical fields guarantees that SOMEBODY somewhere will be more than interested in funding it. If the democracies ban it, the dictatorial regimes in the world will probably be happy to pick up the pieces.
What is saddening and laughable about this whole debate on genetic engineering is how predictable and cliched it is. The "Yes" side always tempts us with the "benefits" - imaginary or real - and naively assumes that we can control the potential misuse of such a powerful technology. The "No" side tries to scare us with apocalyptic visions without ever admitting that genetic engineering has already done many goods (the Green Revolution being one of the many). What should be obvious is that genetic engineering, similar to atomic energy and other technologies, can do both great good AND evil. And unfortunately, with our imperfection and limited intelligence, we can neither predict nor control what a technology will do, once it has been made known to the world. The recent nuclear tests in India and Pakistan brilliantly demonstrated the impossibility of ever "containing" a technology.
So let us not waste any more time and energy on such a futile discussion. It is clear that genetic engineering should not be banned because it cannot be. Of course, the consequences of genetic research may be dire, but it may also be vital to our survival. We just have to take it with courage and march into the "Brave New World" - for better or for worse.
Lewyn Li, USA

It is impossible to predict the long term effects that a new gene or set of genes will have on an organism, on the environment and on our health. With large scale releases of genetically manipulated organisms, the only thing that is certain is that extremely rare events will occur. Growing genetically manipulated crops releases genetic pollution into the wild. The genetically manipulated plants could cross breed with wild relatives, and so pass on some of their new characteristics. Once this has happened, it will be impossible to control or stop.
Gee Monfort, USA

Developments in science are some of this millenium's greatest phenomena. Genetic engineering has contributed a lot to this 'scientific revolution'. If we proceed sensibly, we are only making use of God's creation and it may well be the solution to the next millenium's human, animal and plant problems such as scarcity of resources and preservation of life (genetic vaccines and treatments).
Faisal Guhad, Sweden

Genetic engineering is a good thing if it helps those with hereditary diseases, but like everything, it will get abused. We already have genetically modified foods, with no evidence that it will not cause harm to those consuming it. We have already seen a growth in using chemicals on crops and antibiotics in animals in order to help produce disease-free goods. But there is now concern that these chemicals could be causing cancer, and the antibiotics creating strains of diseases that are difficult, if not impossible, to cure. The same problems will occur with genetic engineering and the unscrupulous few who will try to use it to their advantage.
S Gee, UK

We are told that there is enough food produced in the world to feed us all easily. So, question: why do we need genetic engineering? Answer: so land owners and farmers can become richer than they already are.
Colin Gaunt, UK

Given the recent food scares it is foolhardy to deliberately introduce such mutations into the food chain with no idea of the long term consequences. Feeding the world is a smoke screen.
Simon Molloy, UK

What makes Prince Charles an authority on this subject? The monarchy should stay well out of these issues.
Nicholas Blockley, United Kingdom

Genetic engineering research or any other scientific research and development will never stop as a response to any kind of puerile medieval insubstantial rant such as 'can't mess with god', 'no right' and so on. There's absolutely no way the world's visionaries and great discoverers are going to be held back by any modern day witch hunters with their moronic fear born out of total ignorance of the real facts; these people are much more concerned with living in a world of delusions and subterfuge.
It's too late for turning back now, the vision of the future is clear. There is no place in this new high-tech world for backward thinking. Fear and ignorance has had its day, so now it's time to look to the future. It may not be as bright as we'd all like, but at least there's a strong hope that we may become something more and leave our barbaric, autonomic and objectively ridiculous past well behind us. Peace man.
Rob Harris, England

Seeing as how the technology already exists, asking whether or not it should be used from a moral standpoint seems rather moot as less scrupulous organisations will endeavour to use it regardless; much in the same way that making drugs illegal will not stop people taking them. That being the case, it would be better to endorse genetic engineering with tighter regulations rather than banning it altogether.
Tony Breckner, UK

Genetic engineering should not be banned altogether. However, more straight regulations and restrictions should be applied to the research. In fact, the research should be monitored closely by the related agents. Genetic engineering is a tool with great potential for us. It has great range of development from medical aspect to our daily food. Thus, it just like any tools, we need not only a skilled worker who is able to handle it but also a responsible one who can use it appropriately. If it is mishandled, it would be a threat to all of us.
Yatman Hui, Australia

Back to top | BBC News Home | BBC Homepage | Đ