Content deleted Content added
Artoria2e5 (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
HeyElliott (talk | contribs) m MOS:DOC |
||
| (38 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{short description|
{{Pollution sidebar|Biological}}
'''Genetic pollution''' is a controversial<ref name="mixing">{{cite journal | vauthors = Rhymer JM, Simberloff D | year = 1996 | title = Extinction by Hybridization and Introgression | journal = Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics | volume = 27 | pages = 83–109 | doi = 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.27.1.83 }}</ref><ref name="heartland">{{cite web | url = http://www.heartland.org/PrinterFriendly.cfm?theType=artId&theID=14035 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20061124234512/http://www.heartland.org/PrinterFriendly.cfm?theType=artId&theID=14035 | title =What's Wrong with the Environmental Movement: an interview with Patrick Moore | author = [[Competitive Enterprise Institute]] staff | website = Environment News | date = 2004 | publisher = The Heartland Institute | url-status = dead | archive-date = 24 November 2006 }}</ref> term for uncontrolled<ref name="Genetic Pollution in Italian Wolfs 1983">{{cite web | url = https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1D81638F930A25751C1A965948260&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=2 | title = Italy's Wild Dogs Winning Darwinian Battle | first = Philip M. | last = Boffey | name-list-style = vanc | date = December 13, 1983 | website = The New York Times | quote = Although wolves and dogs have always lived in close contact in Italy and have presumably mated in the past, the newly worrisome element, in Dr. Boitani's opinion, is the increasing disparity in numbers, which suggests that interbreeding will become fairly common. As a result, ''genetic pollution'' of the wolf gene pool ''might reach irreversible levels,'' he warned. ''By hybridization, dogs can easily absorb the wolf genes and destroy the wolf, as it is,'' he said. The wolf might survive as a more doglike animal, better adapted to living close to people, he said, but it would not be ''what we today call a wolf.''}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | first = Norman C. | last = Ellstrand | name-list-style = vanc | year = 2001 | title = When Transgenes Wander, Should We Worry? | journal = Plant Physiol | volume = 125 | issue = 4 | pages = 1543–1545 | doi = 10.1104/pp.125.4.1543 | pmid = 11299333 | pmc = 1539377 }}</ref> [[gene flow]] into wild populations. It is defined as "the dispersal of contaminated altered genes from genetically engineered organisms to natural organisms, esp. by cross-pollination",<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.dictionary.com/browse/genetic-pollution?s=t|title=the definition of genetic pollution|website=Dictionary.com|access-date=2018-04-30}}</ref> but has come to be used in some broader ways. It is related to the [[population genetics]] concept of gene flow, and [[genetic rescue]], which is genetic material intentionally introduced to increase the fitness of a population.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Waller|first=Donald M.|date=June 2015|title=Genetic rescue: a safe or risky bet?|journal=Molecular Ecology|volume=24|issue=11|pages=2595–2597|doi=10.1111/mec.13220|issn=1365-294X|pmid=26013990|s2cid=11573077}}</ref> It is called genetic pollution when it negatively impacts on the fitness of a population, such as through outbreeding depression and the introduction of unwanted phenotypes which can lead to extinction.▼
{{see also|Invasion genetics}}
▲'''Genetic pollution''' is a
Conservation biologists and conservationists have used the term to describe gene flow from domestic, feral, and non-native species into [[wildlife|wild]] [[indigenous species]], which they consider undesirable. They promote awareness of the effects of introduced [[invasive species]] that may "''hybridize with native species, causing genetic pollution''". In the fields of [[agriculture]], [[agroforestry]] and [[animal husbandry]], ''genetic pollution'' is used to describe gene flows between genetically engineered species and wild relatives. The use of the word "pollution" is meant to convey the idea that mixing genetic information is bad for the environment, but because the mixing of genetic information can lead to a variety of outcomes, "pollution" may not always be the most accurate descriptor.
Line 18 ⟶ 20:
Conservation biologists and conservationists have, for a number of years, used the term to describe gene flow from domestic, feral, and non-native species into wild [[indigenous species]], which they consider undesirable.<ref name="Genetic Pollution in Italian Wolfs 1983" /><ref name = "Butler_1994" /><ref name="potts" /> For example, [[TRAFFIC]] is the international wildlife trade monitoring network that works to limit [[trade]] in wild plants and animals so that it is not a threat to conservationist goals. They promote awareness of the effects of introduced invasive species that may "''hybridize with native species, causing genetic pollution''".<ref name="TRAFFIC">{{cite web|url=http://www.traffic.org/wildlife/wild6.htm|title=When is wildlife trade a problem?|website=TRAFFIC.org, the wildlife trade monitoring network, a joint programme of WWF and IUCN|publisher=The World Conservation Union|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071224231437/http://www.traffic.org/wildlife/wild6.htm|archive-date=24 December 2007}}</ref> Furthermore, the [[Joint Nature Conservation Committee]], the statutory adviser to the [[Government of United Kingdom|UK government]], has stated that invasive species "will alter the genetic pool (a process called ''genetic pollution''), which is an irreversible change."<ref name="JNCC">[http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1532 Effects of the introduction of invasive/non-native species] - ''Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC)'', a statutory adviser to Government on UK and international nature conservation. Accessed on November 25, 2007. : "''Occasionally non-native species can reproduce with native species and produce hybrids, which will alter the genetic pool (a process called ''genetic pollution''), which is an irreversible change.''"</ref>
Invasive species can invade both large and small native populations and have a profound effect. Upon invasion, invasive species interbreed with native species to form sterile or more evolutionarily fit hybrids that can outcompete the native populations. Invasive species can cause extinctions of small populations on islands that are particularly vulnerable due to their smaller amounts of genetic diversity. In these populations, local adaptations can be disrupted by the introduction of new genes that may not be as suitable for the small island environments. For example, the ''[[Cercocarpus traskiae]]'' of the Catalina Island off the coast of California has faced near extinction with only a single population remaining due to the hybridization of its offspring with ''[[Cercocarpus betuloides]].''<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Levin|first1=Donald A.|last2=Francisco-Ortega|first2=Javier|last3=Jansen|first3=Robert K. | name-list-style = vanc |date=1996-02-01|title=Hybridization and the Extinction of Rare Plant Species|journal= [[Conservation Biology]] |volume=10|issue=1|pages=10–16|doi=10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10010010.x|bibcode=1996ConBi..10...10L |issn=1523-1739}}</ref>
=== Domestic populations ===
Increased contact between wild and [[Domestication|domesticated]] populations of organisms can lead to reproductive interactions that are detrimental to the wild population's ability to survive. A wild population is one that lives in natural areas and is not regularly looked after by humans. This contrasts with domesticated populations that live in human controlled areas and are regularly, and historically, in contact with humans. [[Gene]]s from domesticated populations are added to wild populations as a result of reproduction. In many crop populations this can be the result of pollen traveling from farmed crops to neighboring wild plants of the same species. For farmed animals, this reproduction may happen as the result of escaped or released animals.
A popular example of this phenomenon is the gene flow between wolves and domesticated dogs. ''[[The New York Times]]'' cites, from the words of biologist Luigi Boitani, "Although wolves and dogs have always lived in close contact in Italy and have presumably mated in the past, the newly worrisome element, in Dr. Boitani's opinion, is the increasing disparity in numbers, which suggests that interbreeding will become fairly common. As a result, 'genetic pollution of the wolf gene pool might reach irreversible levels', he warned. 'By hybridization, dogs can easily absorb the wolf genes and destroy the wolf, as it is,' he said. The wolf might survive as a more doglike animal, better adapted to living close to people, he said, but it would not be 'what we today call a wolf.'"<ref name="Genetic Pollution in Italian Wolfs 1983" />
==== Aquaculture ====
[[Aquaculture]] is the practice of farming aquatic animals or plants for the purpose of consumption. This practice is becoming increasingly common for the production of [[salmon]]. This is specifically termed [[Aquaculture of salmonids|aquaculture of salmonoids]]. One of the dangers of this practice is the possibility of domesticated salmon breaking free from their containment. The occurrence of escaping incidents is becoming increasingly common as aquaculture gains popularity.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-atlantic-salmon-20170903-story.html|title=More than 160,000 non-native Atlantic salmon escaped into Washington waters in fish farm accident|last=Anderson|first=Rick | name-list-style = vanc |website=
The [[Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife]] cites that "commonly expressed concerns surrounding escaped Atlantic salmon include competition with native salmon, predation, disease transfer, hybridization, and colonization."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://wdfw.wa.gov/ais/salmo_salar/|title=Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) - Aquatic Invasive Species {{!}} Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife|website=wdfw.wa.gov|access-date=2018-05-01}}</ref> A report done by that organization in 1999 did not find that escaped salmon posed a significant risk to wild populations.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00922/|title=Atlantic Salmon in Washington State: A Fish Management Perspective - WDFW Publications {{!}} Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife|last=Appleby|first=Kevin H. Amos and Andrew|website=wdfw.wa.gov|access-date=2018-05-01}}</ref>
==== Crops ====
[[Crop]]s refer to groups of plants grown for consumption. Despite domestication over many years, these plants are not so far removed from their wild relatives that they
=== Genetically engineered organisms ===
Line 37 ⟶ 41:
An early use of the term "''genetic pollution"'' in this later sense appears in a wide-ranging review of the potential ecological effects of genetic engineering in [https://web.archive.org/web/20110728094824/http://exacteditions.theecologist.org/exact/browse/307/308/6481/3/8?dps= The Ecologist magazine in July 1989]. It was also popularized by environmentalist [[Jeremy Rifkin]] in his 1998 book ''The Biotech Century''.<ref>{{cite book | first = Jeremy | last = Rifkin | name-list-style = vanc | year = 1998 | title = The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking the World | publisher = J P Tarcher | isbn = 978-0-87477-909-7 | url-access = registration | url = https://archive.org/details/biotechcenturyha00rifk }}</ref> While intentional crossbreeding between two genetically distinct varieties is described as [[hybrid (biology)|hybridization]] with the subsequent [[introgression]] of genes, Rifkin, who had played a leading role in the ethical debate for over a decade before, used genetic pollution to describe what he considered to be problems that might occur due to the unintentional process of (modernly) [[genetically modified organisms]] (GMOs) dispersing their genes into the natural environment by breeding with wild plants or animals.<ref name="FAO_document1">{{cite web | url = http://www.fao.org/biotech/biotech-forum/conference-7/en/ | title = Gene flow from GM to non-GM populations in the crop, forestry, animal and fishery sectors | website = Background document to Conference 7: May 31 - July 6, 2002; Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food and Agriculture | publisher = Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) }}</ref><ref name="WorldWideWords_MichaelQuinion">{{cite web | first = Michael | last = Quinion | name-list-style = vanc | url = http://www.worldwidewords.org/turnsofphrase/tp-gen1.htm | title = Genetic Pollution | website = World Wide Words }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | first = Amy | last = Otchet | name-list-style = vanc | year = 1998 | url = http://www.unesco.org/courier/1998_09/uk/dires/txt1.htm | title = Jeremy Rifkin: fears of a brave new world | website = an interview hosted by The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) }}</ref>
Concerns about negative consequences from gene flow between genetically engineered organisms and wild populations are valid. Most corn and soybean crops grown in the midwestern USA are genetically modified. There are corn and soybean varieties that are resistant to herbicides like glyphosate<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Waltz|first=Emily|date=June 2010|title=Glyphosate resistance threatens Roundup hegemony|url=https://www.nature.com/articles/nbt0610-537|journal=Nature Biotechnology|volume=28|issue=6|pages=537–538|doi=10.1038/nbt0610-537|pmid=20531318|issn=1087-0156}}</ref> and corn that produces [[neonicotinoid]] pesticide within all of its tissues.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last1=Krupke|first1=C. H.|last2=Holland|first2=J. D.|last3=Long|first3=E. Y.|last4=Eitzer|first4=B. D.|date=2017-05-22|title=Planting of neonicotinoid-treated maize poses risks for honey bees and other non-target organisms over a wide area without consistent crop yield benefit|journal=Journal of Applied Ecology|volume=54|issue=5|pages=1449–1458|doi=10.1111/1365-2664.12924|issn=0021-8901|doi-access=free|bibcode=2017JApEc..54.1449K }}</ref> These genetic modifications are meant to increase yields of crops but there is little evidence that yields actually increase.<ref name=":0" /> While scientists are concerned genetically engineered organisms can have negative effects on surrounding plant and animal communities, the risk of gene flow between genetically engineered organisms and wild populations is yet another concern. Many farmed crops may be weed resistant and reproduce with wild relatives.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/jul/25/gm.food|title=GM crops created superweed, say scientists|last=Brown|first=Paul|date=2005-07-25|website=the Guardian|access-date=2018-05-01}}</ref> More research is necessary to understand how much gene flow between genetically engineered crops and wild populations occurs, and the impacts of genetic mixing.
==== Mutated organisms ====
Line 45 ⟶ 49:
====Preventive measures====
Since 2005 there has existed a [[GM Contamination Register]], launched for [[GeneWatch]] UK and [[Greenpeace]] International that records all incidents of intentional or accidental<ref name="2001may11">{{cite web|url=http://archive.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/geneng/2001may11.html|title=Illegal Genetically Engineered Corn from Monsanto Detected in Argentina|website=GM Contamination Register|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110622031622/http://archive.greenpeace.org/pressreleases/geneng/2001may11.html|archive-date=2011-06-22|url-status=dead|access-date=2010-07-08}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org/index.php?content=re_detail&gw_id=131®=cou.13&inc=0&con=0&cof=0&year=0&handle2_page=
[[Genetic Use Restriction Technologies|Genetic use restriction technologies]] (GURTs) were developed for the purpose of property protection, but could be beneficial in preventing the dispersal of transgenes. GeneSafe technologies introduced a method that became known as "Terminator." This method is based on seeds that produce sterile plants. This would prevent movement of transgenes into wild populations as hybridization would not be possible.<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last1=Sang|first1=Yi|last2=Millwood|first2=Reginald J.|last3=Neal Stewart Jr|first3=C.|date=2013-06-04|title=Gene use restriction technologies for transgenic plant bioconfinement|journal=Plant Biotechnology Journal|volume=11|issue=6|pages=649–658|doi=10.1111/pbi.12084|pmid=23730743|issn=1467-7644|doi-access=free}}</ref> However, this technology has never been deployed as it disproportionately negatively affects farmers in developing countries, who save seeds to use each year (whereas in developed countries, farmers generally buy seeds from seed production companies).<ref name=":1" />
Physical containment has also been utilized to prevent the escape of transgenes. Physical containment includes barriers such as filters in labs, screens in greenhouses, and isolation distances in the field. Isolation distances have not always been successful, such as transgene escape from an isolated field into the wild in [[herbicide resistance|herbicide-resistant]] bentgrass ''[[Agrostis stolonifera]]''.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last=Gressel|first=Jonathan|date=2014-08-15|title=Dealing with transgene flow of crop protection traits from crops to their relatives|journal=Pest Management Science|volume=71|issue=5|pages=658–667|doi=10.1002/ps.3850|pmid=24977384|issn=1526-498X}}</ref>
Another suggested method that applies specifically to protection traits (e.g. pathogen resistance) is mitigation. Mitigation involves linking the positive trait (beneficial to fitness) to a trait that is negative (harmful to fitness) to wild but not domesticated individuals.<ref name=":2" /> In this case, if the protection trait was introduced to a weed, the negative trait would also be introduced in order to decrease overall fitness of the weed and decrease possibility of the individual’s reproduction and thus propagation of the transgene.
Line 57 ⟶ 61:
Not all genetically engineered organisms cause genetic pollution. Genetic engineering has a variety of uses and is specifically defined as a direct manipulation of the genome of an organism. Genetic pollution can occur in response to the introduction of a species that is not native to a particular environment, and genetically engineered organisms are examples of individuals that could cause genetic pollution following introduction. Due to these risks, studies have been done in order to assess the risks of genetic pollution associated with organisms that have been genetically engineered:
<!--why do we need a list here? better as text, but doubt if it's appropriate to list studies anyway-->
# Genetic In a 10-year study of four different crops, none of the genetically engineered plants were found to be more invasive or more persistent than their conventional counterparts.<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Crawley MJ, Brown SL, Hails RS, Kohn D, Rees M | title = Biotechnology: Transgenic crops in natural habitats | journal = Nature | date = 8 February 2001 | volume = 409 | issue = 6821 | pages = 682–683 | doi = 10.1038/35055621 | pmid = 11217848 | s2cid = 4422713 }}</ref> An often cited claimed example of genetic pollution is the reputed discovery of transgenes from GE maize in [[landrace]]s of maize in Oaxaca, Mexico. The report from Quist and Chapela,<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Quist D, Chapela IH | title = Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico | journal = Nature | volume = 414 | issue = 6863 | pages = 541–3 | date = November 2001 | pmid = 11734853 | doi = 10.1038/35107068 | bibcode = 2001Natur.414..541Q | s2cid = 4403182 }}</ref> has since been discredited on methodological grounds.<ref>{{cite journal|first=Paul|last=Christou | name-list-style = vanc |title=No Credible Scientific Evidence is Presented to Support Claims that Transgenic DNA was Introgressed into Traditional Maize Landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico|journal=Transgenic Research|volume=11|issue=1|pages=3–5|year=2002|doi=10.1023/A:1013903300469|pmid=11874106 |s2cid=12294956 }}</ref> The scientific journal that originally published the study concluded that "the evidence available is not sufficient to justify the publication of the original paper."<ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Metz M, Fütterer J | title = Biodiversity (Communications arising): suspect evidence of transgenic contamination | journal = Nature | volume = 416 | issue = 6881 | pages = 600–1; discussion 600, 602 | date = April 2002 | pmid = 11935144 | doi = 10.1038/nature738 | bibcode = 2002Natur.416..600M | s2cid = 4423495 | url = http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6881/abs/nature738_fs.html
# A 2009 study verified the original findings of the controversial 2001 study, by finding transgenes in about 1% of 2000 samples of wild maize in Oaxaca, Mexico, despite Nature retracting the 2001 study and a second study failing to back up the findings of the initial study. The study found that the transgenes are common in some fields, but non-existent in others, hence explaining why a previous study failed to find them. Furthermore, not every laboratory method managed to find the transgenes.<ref>{{cite web | title = 'Alien' genes escape into wild corn | url = https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126964.200-alien-genes-escape-into-wild-corn.html | website = New Scientist | date = 18 February 2009 }}</ref>
# A 2004 study performed near an Oregon field trial for a genetically modified variety of creeping bentgrass (''[[Agrostis stolonifera]]'')
Not only are there risks in terms of genetic engineering, but there are risks that emerge from species hybridization. In Czechoslovakia, ibex were introduced from Turkey and Sinai to help promote the ibex population there, which caused hybrids that produced offspring too early, which caused the overall population to disappear completely.<ref
== Controversy ==
=== Environmentalist perspectives ===
The use of the word "pollution" in the term genetic pollution has a deliberate negative connotation and is meant to convey the idea that mixing genetic information is bad for the environment. However, because the mixing of genetic information can lead to a variety of outcomes, "pollution" may not be the most accurate descriptor. Gene flow is undesirable according to some [[environmentalist]]s and [[conservation movement|conservationist]]s, including groups such as [[Greenpeace]], [[TRAFFIC]], and [[GeneWatch UK]].<ref name="GE agriculture and genetic pollution">[http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering/ge-agriculture-and-genetic-pol GE agriculture and genetic pollution] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100411211802/http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/genetic-engineering/ge-agriculture-and-genetic-pol |date=2010-04-11 }} web article hosted by Greenpeace.org</ref><ref name="2001may11" /><ref name="gmcontaminationregister.org" /><ref name="Say no to genetic pollution">{{cite web|url=http://www.greenpeace.org|title=Say no to genetic pollution|publisher=Greenpeace}}</ref><ref name="Butler_1994" /><ref name="TRAFFIC" /><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.greenpeace.org/sweden/PageFiles/497049/genetic_pollution.pdf|title=Genetic Pollution a Multiplying Nightmare|last=Greenpeace|access-date=2018-04-30|archive-date=2018-05-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180501004626/http://www.greenpeace.org/sweden/PageFiles/497049/genetic_pollution.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>
<blockquote>"''Invasive species have been a major cause of [[extinction]] throughout the world in the past few hundred years. Some of them prey on native wildlife, compete with it for resources, or spread disease, while others may hybridize with native species, causing "'''genetic pollution'''". In these ways, invasive species are as big a threat to the balance of nature as the direct overexploitation by humans of some species.''"<ref name="mixing">{{cite journal | vauthors = Rhymer JM, Simberloff D | author-link2=Daniel Simberloff | year = 1996 | title = Extinction by Hybridization and Introgression | journal = Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics | volume = 27 | pages = 83–109 | doi = 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.27.1.83 }}</ref> </blockquote>
It can also be considered undesirable if it leads to a loss of [[Fitness (biology)|fitness]] in the wild populations.<ref>{{cite journal|vauthors=Milot E, Perrier C, Papillon L, Dodson JJ, Bernatchez L|date=April 2013|title=Reduced fitness of Atlantic salmon released in the wild after one generation of captive breeding|journal=Evolutionary Applications|volume=6|issue=3|pages=472–85|doi=10.1111/eva.12028|pmc=3673475|pmid=23745139|bibcode=2013EvApp...6..472M }}</ref> The term can be associated with the gene flow from a [[Mutation breeding|mutation bred]], [[synthetic biology|synthetic organism]] or [[Genetic engineering|genetically engineered]] organism to a non GE organism,<ref name="FAO_document1" /> by those who consider such gene flow detrimental.<ref name="GE agriculture and genetic pollution" /> These environmentalist groups stand in complete opposition to the development and production of genetically engineered organisms.
=== Governmental definition
From a governmental perspective, genetic pollution is defined as follows by the [[Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations]]: <blockquote>"Uncontrolled spread of genetic information (frequently referring to transgenes) into the genomes of organisms in which such genes are not present in nature."<ref name="Glossary of Biotechnology for Food and Agriculture - A Revised and Augmented Edition of the Glossary of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations">{{Cite book|url=http://www.fao.org/biotech/biotech-glossary/en/|title=Glossary of Biotechnology for Food and Agriculture - A Revised and Augmented Edition of the Glossary of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering|date=26 October 2007|series=A FAO Research and Technology Paper|publisher=Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations|isbn=978-92-5-104683-8|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071026141019/http://www.fao.org/biotech/biotech-glossary/en/|archive-date=26 October 2007|vauthors=Zaid A, Hughes HG, Porceddu E, Nicholas F}}</ref></blockquote>
=== Scientific perspectives ===
Use of the term 'genetic pollution' and similar phrases such as ''genetic deterioration'', ''genetic swamping'', ''genetic takeover'', and ''genetic aggression'', are being debated by scientists as many do not find it scientifically appropriate. Rhymer and [[Daniel Simberloff|Simberloff]] argue that these types of terms:
<blockquote> <blockquote> == See also ==
Line 94 ⟶ 95:
* [[Genetic monitoring]]
* [[Introgression]]
* [[Miscegenation]]
* ''[[Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation]]''
* [[Starlink corn recall]]
| |||