Home Page Link AgBioWorld Home Page
About AgBioWorld Donations Ag-Biotech News Declaration Supporting Agricultural Biotechnology Ag-biotech Info Experts on Agricultural Biotechnology Contact Links Subscribe to AgBioView Home Page

AgBioView Archives

A daily collection of news and commentaries on

Subscribe AgBioView Subscribe

Search AgBioWorld Search

AgBioView Archives





April 30, 2000


Multiple Contributions May 1, 2000


(Five Postings Below)

From: Pudenzia@cs.com
Subject: high school project

hello again, my name's priscilla cheng and i'm a senior at oceana high school
in pacifica, california. i'm doing a project on genetic engineering that is
based on the question: has mankind taken genetic engineering too far? So, in
order to conclude my paper, i must analyze both viewpoints. so, please take
a few minutes of your time to answer these five simple questions.
1. how do you feel about the genetic engineering of agriculture?
2. how do you feel about the cloning of animals?
3. how do you feel about xenotransplantation?
4. what are the dangers and benefits of each?
5. do you think mankind has gone too far with genetic engineering?
i really appreciate you taking the time to read my email and answering these
questions, thank you.
re detailed
information. There is simply not enough time to wax philisophic or apply
detailed logical thought processes about biotechnology risks and
benefits during
a short commercial. We have been so demonified by the anti-biotechnology
movement (I refuse to refer to them as environmentalist on this issue) that it
is necessary to counterbalance that with a more glowing dream about
where we are
hoping to go with this technology and praise ourselves a little about what we
have accomplished.

I am a genetic engineer at Novartis and also a Sierra Club member and have been
an activist on other Sierra Club issues such as Smart Growth. In my activist
training we learned that people are not concerned with data, you get on TV and
start talking about parts per million of some pollutant in the water and you
loose people. What you have to do is repeat your core message over and over.
If you get asked a question don't necessarily answer the question but
be sure to
repeat your core message. This message should be concise and easy to remember
and include an idea that people hold dear (i.e. protecting our rivers or
streams). If these type of adds did not work, Madison Avenue would not be so
fond of them. Now I know we aren't selling jeans or cars but we want
to be seen
as American Pie as them and we need a positive image put forward. I don't
disagree that some of the adds in the future could include a little more info
and talk in more detail to our audience but we need a positive simple core
message campaign.

David Nicholl

Dear Colleagues
I saw my first BCI TV ad last night, very late ( 2 AM ) on TV. It was
slick, on prozac in its mollifying timbre, and expensively produced. It
linked medicine, agriculture and health as all progressing with
From: Ray and June Shillito
Subject: Re: Council for Biotechnology Information TV ad

While I understand your comments, the ads are, I believe, more like the
ads for plastics etc. which have been generally successful. Any hard
edged ads coming from the CBI may be received with negative reactions.

My family saw one of the ads, and thought it was a good ad, and well
produced, and was positive. The target is the general public,
not the scientists like us.

Ray Shillito

From: Zeami2000@aol.com

Subject: Re: Council for Biotechnology Information TV ad

In a message dated 4/30/00 9:42:42 AM Central Daylight Time,
rsirvine@epublicrelations.org writes:

The BCI PR/advertising campaign will be ineffective. The reasons why
are presented at www.epublicrelations.org

Dear Colleagues
I would like to strongly recommend you look at this website, offered above
It includes some well analyzed perspectives on the biotech PR campaign. I
was stunned to learn the entire $50 million dollars was awarded to ONE
company, BSMG Worldwide! That alone indicates a complete lack of creativity.
There is so much that could be accomplished with $50 million dollars and
instead we have it entirely awarded to a single glossy multi-national PR
firm. What lack of foresight or daring i
From: Andrew Apel

Subject: Re: nuclear power plants and substantial equivalence

It is quite easy to answer the question about substantial equivalence
vs. patents.
The substantial equivalence is in the product, i.e., the soybean, not
the process
which leads to it, i.e., the genes involved. For the same reason, if
one devises a
new way to produce organic yogurt, one is entitled to a patent.

Jean-Pierre Zryd wrote:


> b) Ann Oaks made an interesting comment which I have heard
>many time but to