[Kryptid]

This topic isn't intended to provide arguments against GMO or synthetic biology

So what would you consider to be a good use of GMOs?

Do you think something bad would happen to me if I ate a blue tomato every day of my life that would not happen to me if I had been eating a regular tomato and blueberry every day of my life instead?

[alancalverd]

there has never been a famine in a democracy.

That depends on how many foodbanks you count before you accept there's a fundamental problem

Sen was writing before the present UK government came into office. But the point remains: there is plenty of food, it's just that the poor must be punished for taking low-paid jobs. If we fed them at the taxpayer's expense, what incentive would their children have to do better? For heaven's sake, if people can't be bothered to manage their trust funds and make sensible overseas investments, why should the government bail them out? Public funds are for bankers' bonuses, railway shareholders' subsidies, and Carillion directors' salaries, not for wasting on the undeserving losers who will probably vote Labour whatever we do for them. Who needs food banks anyway? Fortnum's shelves are full and there will be plenty of Big Macs at the next State banquet.

[cleanair (OP)]

So what would you consider to be a good use of GMOs?

As a science it is certainly important.

When paired with an ethical and theoretically sound foundation it may have important applications for human survival.

Do you think something bad would happen to me if I ate a blue tomato every day of my life that would not happen to me if I had been eating a regular tomato and blueberry every day of my life instead?

Effects of consuming genetically engineered food may be subtle and may go unnoticed due to lack of an ability to compare outcomes.

Genes are not fixed. Mutation and genetic recombination insure that.

You keep dodging the question. How does the body know whether an anthocyanin gene came from a blue tomato or a blueberry? If it can't tell the difference, then whether the gene came from a GMO or not can't possibly have an impact on the body's functioning.

The concept in which the genes would be structured would be fixed. It would be a product for a defined result that should remain as it is.

There may be vital information within the coherence of genes that is impossible to see from an external perspective because it reaches into the future. A top down construction of food may therefor not be healthy.

[Kryptid]

When paired with an ethical and theoretically sound foundation it may have important applications for human survival.

Can you give a specific example?

Effects of consuming genetically engineered food may be subtle and may go unnoticed due to lack of an ability to compare outcomes.

And what do you think those effects would be? Using existing scientific terminology and accepted mechanisms, what would cause those effects to be different from eating normal food?

The concept in which the genes would be structured would be fixed. It would be a product for a defined result that should remain as it is.

What do those sentences even mean?

There may be vital information within the coherence of genes that is impossible to see from an external perspective because it reaches into the future. A top down construction of food may therefor not be healthy.

How could that make any difference when the genetic sequence is identical? If an anthocyanin gene ended up in human DNA, the coherence of the genes would be the same whether it came from a blue tomato or blueberry. So if a blue tomato is unhealthy, then regular tomatoes plus blueberries must also be unhealthy. You can't have it both ways.

[cleanair (OP)]

When paired with an ethical and theoretically sound foundation it may have important applications for human survival.

Can you give a specific example?

If there were to be a valid theory about the origin of life, among other things, it would be possible to determine an optimum which could guide the applications of GM technologies and may improve chances of human survival.

An important question is: what is the origin of life? And if there is no answer yet, would it be wise to let companies on the loose to drive a synthetic biology revolution?

Effects of consuming genetically engineered food may be subtle and may go unnoticed due to lack of an ability to compare outcomes.

And what do you think those effects would be? Using existing scientific terminology and accepted mechanisms, what would cause those effects to be different from eating normal food?

It may be that humans are connected to nature is a more complex way. It would be logical that humans retrieve vital information about successful evolution. Not just from a past perspective or for short term results, but also for reaching far into the future.

The concept in which the genes would be structured would be fixed. It would be a product for a defined result that should remain as it is.

What do those sentences even mean?

Science is essentially looking back in time. It is an attempt to define. Creating a plant or animal on the basis of such would therefore produce a fixed result that should remain as it is.

There may be vital information within the coherence of genes that is impossible to see from an external perspective because it reaches into the future. A top down construction of food may therefor not be healthy.

How could that make any difference when the genetic sequence is identical? If an anthocyanin gene ended up in human DNA, the coherence of the genes would be the same whether it came from a blue tomato or blueberry. So if a blue tomato is unhealthy, then regular tomatoes plus blueberries must also be unhealthy. You can't have it both ways.

I intended to point at the total: all genes together that are part of a tomato plant as "creature".

[Kryptid]

If there were to be a valid theory about the origin of life, among other things, it would be possible to determine an optimum which could guide the applications of GM technologies and may improve chances of human survival.

An important question is: what is the origin of life? And if there is no answer yet, would it be wise to let companies on the loose to drive a synthetic biology revolution?

What does the origin of life have to do with any of that? Whether life came into existence billions of years ago from a natural chemical pathway, completely random chance or divine help doesn't change what we know about its behavior.

It may be that humans are connected to nature is a more complex way. It would be logical that humans retrieve vital information about successful evolution. Not just from a past perspective or for short term results, but also for reaching far into the future.

(1) That doesn't tell me what you think the specific effects of eating GMOs would be.
(2) That doesn't use existing scientific terminology and mechanisms to explain how it works.

Science is essentially looking back in time. It is an attempt to define. Creating a plant or animal on the basis of such would therefor be fixed. It would produce a result that should remain as it is (or grow within the boundaries of that same fixed concept).

Even GMOs can mutate and evolve.

I intended to point at the total: all genes together that are part of a tomato plant as "creature".

That still doesn't explain how the body can tell the difference between an anthocyanin gene from a blue tomato or one from a blueberry. If I happened to have an anthocyanin gene in my DNA, do you propose that there is an experiment that could determine whether that gene came from a GMO or natural organism? How would the experiment work?

[alancalverd]

Science is essentially looking back in time. It is an attempt to define.

a bizarre definition. Science is no more or less than the iterative process of observe, hypothesise, test. Engineering is the business of using what we know (mostly through science) to make  stuff that people want. Agriculture is a very old branch of engineering.

[cleanair (OP)]

Science is essentially looking back in time. It is an attempt to define.

a bizarre definition. Science is no more or less than the iterative process of observe, hypothesise, test. Engineering is the business of using what we know (mostly through science) to make  stuff that people want. Agriculture is a very old branch of engineering.

(knowledge from) the careful study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by watching, measuring, and doing experiments, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/science

Knowledge is a concept that resides within a historical context. Before knowledge is present, it requires actions to have taken place: observing, testing and describing (i.e. defining) the results. The outcome of such is history.

[cleanair (OP)]

What does the origin of life have to do with any of that? Whether life came into existence billions of years ago from a natural chemical pathway, completely random chance or divine help doesn't change what we know about its behavior.

If you consider to alter the fabric of it's essence, then empirical evidence does not suffice for a valid theoretical foundation. It may be possible to create a robot or AI that mimics life's evolution but that would not mean that it is serving the purpose of existence in a good way.

(1) That doesn't tell me what you think the specific effects of eating GMOs would be.
(2) That doesn't use existing scientific terminology and mechanisms to explain how it works.

It has been established that the origin of life is unknown and that is an indication that much else that is related to the evolution of life (for example what would be optimal) may also be unknown.

Even GMOs can mutate and evolve.

Yes, but it would be a human construct based on knowledge of the past. Considering such evolution as a healthy concept would be based on the assumption that successful evolution is driven by random chance.

I intended to point at the total: all genes together that are part of a tomato plant as "creature".

That still doesn't explain how the body can tell the difference between an anthocyanin gene from a blue tomato or one from a blueberry. If I happened to have an anthocyanin gene in my DNA, do you propose that there is an experiment that could determine whether that gene came from a GMO or natural organism? How would the experiment work?

If a complex coherence of genes would contain vital information about successful evolution into the future, then a blueberry gene in a tomato plant (or maybe when taken to a more extreme, when the genetic fabric is more severely modified) may result in influences that in a very complex total (e.g. 1000s of similar influences) could offset processes within human evolution that could have disastrous effects.

My main concern is: plants have a will to go further than what exists, to reach into the future. When humans would attempt to control the genetic construct for a concept that should remain as it is, they would undermine what is essential for the plant to have been able to come into existence.

[Kryptid]

If you consider to alter the fabric of it's essence, then empirical evidence does not suffice for a valid theoretical foundation.

I don't see why not. Evidence is better than non-evidence or speculation.

It may be possible to create a robot or AI that mimics life's evolution but that would not mean that it is serving the purpose of existence in a good way.

How are you defining "good"?

It has been established that the origin of life is unknown and that is an indication that much else that is related to the evolution of life (for example what would be optimal) may also be unknown.

If a complex coherence of genes would contain vital information about successful evolution into the future, then a blueberry gene in a tomato plant (or maybe when taken to a more extreme, when the genetic fabric is more severely modified) may result in influences that in a very complex total (e.g. 1000s of similar influences) could offset processes within human evolution that could have disastrous effects.

You say the word "may" a lot. Do you have any actual scientific evidence to support your claims or is it all speculation?

Yes, but it would be a human construct based on knowledge of the past.

All genes are based on what happened in the past.

Considering such evolution as a healthy concept would be based on the assumption that successful evolution is driven by random chance.

Do you have evidence that anything more than random chance (within a limited use of the term "random", as some mutations are known to be more likely than others) is necessary to explain the existing scientific knowledge about evolution? Merely saying "maybe" is not evidence, it is just speculation. More importantly (and I really want to know the answer to this question), what is the mechanism that you propose causes non-random evolution? Has it been detected yet?

My main concern is: plants have a will to go further than what exists, to reach into the future.

I'm going to need a link to a reputable source for you to support that statement.

[evan_au]

When humans would attempt to control the genetic construct for a concept that should remain as it is, they would undermine what is essential for the plant to have been able to come into existence.

Could you perhaps be talking about the loss of genetic diversity that occurs when humans propagate one inbred strain of a crop, at the expense of the wide variety of strains that exist in the wild?

These widely-planted monocrops are more likely to be wiped out by some pathogen to which they have no immunity, while a diverse wild population would be minimally affected by such a pathogen.

Biologists are aware of this risk, and this is one of the drivers for the creation of seed banks, where seeds of many wild strains are stored. These seed banks can be searched for protective genes that could be bred into high-yield strains used in agriculture.

If this cross-breeding is required on a short timescale, then insertion of the gene via genetic engineering techniques will be much faster than waiting many years for traditional cross-breeding.

Since the "green revolution", it has only been factory-scale agriculture that has kept ahead of the increase in human population (at a cost to many other species).

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_bank

[cleanair (OP)]

If you consider to alter the fabric of it's essence, then empirical evidence does not suffice for a valid theoretical foundation.

I don't see why not. Evidence is better than non-evidence or speculation.

It is not a foundation for a claim that life's evolution is driven by random chance.

It may be possible to create a robot or AI that mimics life's evolution but that would not mean that it is serving the purpose of existence in a good way.

How are you defining "good"?

The argument is essentially that it would only be possible to define 'good' when the origin of life can be explained.

You say the word "may" a lot. Do you have any actual scientific evidence to support your claims or is it all speculation?

A lack of answers to fundamental questions about life simply means that it is not possible to make assumptions. Speculation could give direction for research and discovery of answers.

I may not be the right person to defend philosophy or ethical thinking. I am just a regular user who originally joined to forum to search for feedback/information regarding a solution to prevent air pollution for bike users. I noticed that this forum intended to connect the public with science and that it was accessible for anyone so I was hoping that it could lead to new insights that would also help the purpose of this forum (making science easy to consume for non-scientists).

I initiated this topic to learn new perspectives, not to present my own idea's/theory although I did try to provide an example of arguments to give the topic a start.

I wondered what users on this forum may think of the synthetic biology revolution. E.g. scientists who work in nature conservation and have a direct connection with nature on a daily basis. What do they believe that would be the result of top-down re-structuring of the fabric of plants and animals?

Yes, but it would be a human construct based on knowledge of the past.

All genes are based on what happened in the past.

That may not be true. The complex coherence of genes may contain information that reaches into the future.

Considering such evolution as a healthy concept would be based on the assumption that successful evolution is driven by random chance.

Do you have evidence that anything more than random chance (within a limited use of the term "random", as some mutations are known to be more likely than others) is necessary to explain the existing scientific knowledge about evolution? Merely saying "maybe" is not evidence, it is just speculation. More importantly (and I really want to know the answer to this question), what is the mechanism that you propose causes non-random evolution? Has it been detected yet?

The source of life is unknown. If it is not known where life came from, it is not possible to claim that what has been observed is limited to what has been observed. The origin of life cannot be factored out because it hasn't been observed.

Logically, the physical can't be the source of itself. That may explain why it hasn't been observed. It also means that I have no evidence for an alternative to random chance.

Maybe it would be possible to provide evidence with philosophy.

[cleanair (OP)]

When humans would attempt to control the genetic construct for a concept that should remain as it is, they would undermine what is essential for the plant to have been able to come into existence.

Could you perhaps be talking about the loss of genetic diversity that occurs when humans propagate one inbred strain of a crop, at the expense of the wide variety of strains that exist in the wild?

No, I was pointing at the concept as a whole that would be limited to information of the past (a fixed state).

[Bored chemist]

No, I was pointing at the concept as a whole that would be limited to information of the past (a fixed state).

As opposed to what?
do you think other stuff relies on reading the future?

[Kryptid]

It is not a foundation for a claim that life's evolution is driven by random chance.

Why not?

The argument is essentially that it would only be possible to define 'good' when the origin of life can be explained.

So then you don't even know what counts as "good" and can't say whether any given action is good or not. Why bother trying to say what we should or should not do with GMOs when we can't even know what the "good" thing to do in the first place is?

A lack of answers to fundamental questions about life simply means that it is not possible to make assumptions. Speculation could give direction for research and discovery of answers.

Speculation devoid of evidence isn't grounds for saying what we should or should not do.

What do they believe that would be the result of top-down re-structuring of the fabric of plants and animals?

That depends on what is done specifically.

That may not be true. The complex coherence of genes may contain information that reaches into the future.

Aliens "may" have bases on the Moon. Claiming that DNA has some kind of psychic ability to know what the future holds is just as extraordinary of a claim as that one. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is the extraordinary evidence?

The source of life is unknown. If it is not known where life came from, it is not possible to claim that what has been observed is limited to what has been observed.

Non-sequitur.

Logically, the physical can't be the source of itself.

What exactly do you imply by bringing this up anyway? That physical things must have spirits or what? Rocks are physical objects. Do they have spirits?

It also means that I have no evidence for an alternative to random chance.

Enough said.

Maybe it would be possible to provide evidence with philosophy.

If such evidence isn't testable then it isn't scientific.

[cleanair (OP)]

No, I was pointing at the concept as a whole that would be limited to information of the past (a fixed state).

As opposed to what?
do you think other stuff relies on reading the future?

As opposed to a being that came into existence by itself.

In regards to the relevance of the 'future'. If a person has a desire, a striving, for example to marry the (wo)man of his/her dreams, it will result in a process that reaches into the future. When looking at species level, or even one step higher, on a complex interconnected natural system level, there may be something similar at play.

Some essential processes may span thousands of years.

[cleanair (OP)]

It is not a foundation for a claim that life's evolution is driven by random chance.

Why not?

Because there is a major unknown involved. Believing in random chance would be similar to believing that a God created the universe.

The argument is essentially that it would only be possible to define 'good' when the origin of life can be explained.

So then you don't even know what counts as "good" and can't say whether any given action is good or not. Why bother trying to say what we should or should not do with GMOs when we can't even know what the "good" thing to do in the first place is?

Philosophy and ethics may provide a foundation for a concept of "good" in a context in which the origin of life is unknown or can't be known.

Using the inability to explain the origin of life for a belief that evolution is driven by random chance is similar to religions using that same inability to make people believe in a God.

My position is essentially to not pick sides. Not an atheistic belief, no God belief, and not factoring out potentially immeasurable factors.

A lack of answers to fundamental questions about life simply means that it is not possible to make assumptions. Speculation could give direction for research and discovery of answers.

Speculation devoid of evidence isn't grounds for saying what we should or should not do.

I disagree in regards to the 'do not do' part. It could be an argument that more research is needed BEFORE an (unguided) "scientific revolution" is initiated.

That may not be true. The complex coherence of genes may contain information that reaches into the future.

Aliens "may" have bases on the Moon. Claiming that DNA has some kind of psychic ability to know what the future holds is just as extraordinary of a claim as that one. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is the extraordinary evidence?

The evidence that you seek is physical. Logic shows that what is pointed at as a potentially crucial but yet unknown factor can't be physical in nature because the physical can't be the origin of itself.

Logically, the physical can't be the source of itself.

What exactly do you imply by bringing this up anyway? That physical things must have spirits or what? Rocks are physical objects. Do they have spirits?

It provides an argument for why it may be possible that the origin of life hasn't been observed yet and that there is no justification to rule out it's potential importance in evolution.

[Kryptid]

Because there is a major unknown involved. Believing in random chance would be similar to believing that a God created the universe.

There are unknowns involved in literally everything. You can always add any number of additional pieces of unfalsifiable complexity to any theory in existence. But why should we bother? What do we gain from it?

Philosophy and ethics may provide a foundation for a concept of "good" in a context in which the origin of life is unknown or can't be known.

So then we don't need to know how life originated in order to know what is good.

Using the inability to explain the origin of life for a belief that evolution is driven by random chance is similar to religions using that same inability to make people believe in a God.

It would be nice if you could explain how the origin of life would impact the way evolution works and do so by using terms and mechanisms that are accepted by modern science.

I disagree in regards to the 'do not do' part. It could be an argument that more research is needed BEFORE an (unguided) "scientific revolution" is initiated.

Haven't you already said that evidence for non-random evolution can't be detected? If so, then how could you ever do the needed research in the first place?

The evidence that you seek is physical. Logic shows that what is pointed at as a potentially crucial but yet unknown factor can't be physical in nature because the physical can't be the origin of itself.

This sounds like a case of, "DNA might be psychic, but any evidence for that can never be detected."

It provides an argument for why it may be possible that the origin of life hasn't been observed yet and that there is no justification to rule out it's potential importance in evolution.

What would that impact on evolution be and more importantly, can it be detected even in principle?

[cleanair (OP)]

Because there is a major unknown involved. Believing in random chance would be similar to believing that a God created the universe.

There are unknowns involved in literally everything. You can always add any number of additional pieces of unfalsifiable complexity to any theory in existence. But why should we bother? What do we gain from it?

My argument is mainly that there must be a reason that The Economist states that the synthetic biology revolution is unguided. It could be a red flag that something is wrong.

A human wisdom is "think before you act".

@alancalverd called philosophy bunk.

It appears that the "unguided" nature of synthetic biology may be intentional for what at most can be described as a belief that evolution is driven by random chance, i.e. the belief that life is meaningless.

Is there a scientific consensus? Or might it be that a contentious practice is being forced for financial motives?

Philosophy and ethics may provide a foundation for a concept of "good" in a context in which the origin of life is unknown or can't be known.

So then we don't need to know how life originated in order to know what is good.

That would be something to be discovered.

A belief that evolution is driven by random chance may result in the idea that thinking isn't needed and that anything random will count as "good".

Using the inability to explain the origin of life for a belief that evolution is driven by random chance is similar to religions using that same inability to make people believe in a God.

It would be nice if you could explain how the origin of life would impact the way evolution works and do so by using terms and mechanisms that are accepted by modern science.

As long as the origin of life is unknown there is likely no evidence available. It would be something to be discovered.

I disagree in regards to the 'do not do' part. It could be an argument that more research is needed BEFORE an (unguided) "scientific revolution" is initiated.

Haven't you already said that evidence for non-random evolution can't be detected? If so, then how could you ever do the needed research in the first place?

No. I suggested that the physical cannot be the source of itself, but that does not mean that no evidence can be discovered to prove that life is not driven by random chance.

[cleanair (OP)]

There is a lot unknown about plants and animals. Some claim that plants are intelligent beings who can develop a love relationship with animals and humans.

What would love mean in such a relation? Would it be based on the past or based on a (shared) future? If the future, how could science be a guiding principle for evolution?

Evolutionary ecologist Monica Gagliano insists that plants are intelligent, and she’s not speaking metaphorically. “My work is not about metaphors at all,” Gagliano tells Forbes. “When I talk about learning, I mean learning. When I talk about memory, I mean memory.”

Gagliano’s behavioral experiments on plants suggest that—while plants don’t have a central nervous system or a brain—they behave like intelligent beings.

Gagliano, who began her career as a marine scientist, says her work with plants triggered a profound epiphany. “The main realization for me wasn’t the fact that plants themselves must be something more than we give them credit for, but what if everything around us is much more than we give it credit for, whether it’s animal, plant, bacteria, whatever.”

Source: https://qz.com/1294941/a-debate-over-plant-consciousness-is-forcing-us-to-confront-the-limitations-of-the-human-mind/

What is the origin of 'love'? Similar to the origin of life, the origin of love is not yet known. Love may be a guiding principle that reaches into the future and that's essential for successful evolution.

With regard to the relevance of the 'future' for evolution. If a person has a desire, a striving, for example to marry the (wo)man of his/her dreams, it will result in a process that reaches into the future. When looking at species level, or even one step higher, on a complex interconnected natural system level, there may be something similar at play.

Some essential processes may span thousands of years.

BBC: Plants can see, hear and smell – and respond

Plants, according to Jack C Schultz, "are just very slow animals".

This is not a misunderstanding of basic biology. Schultz is a professor in the Division of Plant Sciences at the University of Missouri in Columbia, and has spent four decades investigating the interactions between plants and insects. He knows his stuff.

Source: http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170109-plants-can-see-hear-and-smell-and-respond

Science is looking back in time. The product of science is history and research has shown that paradigm shifts in science are often based on social values instead of what's actually true.

An example is the Big Bang theory which may indirectly be at the basis for some of the idea's for a synthetic biology revolution.

Big Bang theory wrong? Star older than Universe discovered - threat of ‘scientific crisis’

The Big Bang theory has been thrown into question after scientists discovered a star which appears to be older than the Universe itself – and it could lead to a “scientific crisis”.

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1162808/big-bang-theory-how-old-is-universe-physics-news-astronomy-space-2019

Big Bang theory wrong: Black hole found that's so big and old it makes Big Bang impossible

Astronomers have spotted a black hole that is as old as the universe itself, putting a huge question mark over the Big Bang theory.

Source: https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/889405/black-hole-big-bang-theory-wrong-big-bounce-universe-space

No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning
https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

The Big Bang was invented by catholic priest Georges Lemaître from Belgium for "a day without a yesterday". Lemaître was a personal friend of Albert Einstein.

Albert Einstein initially criticized the theory but ultimately yielded to his friend's theory.

Albert Einstein was socially involved. In his time, society was very unstable. He called his own theory for the cosmological constant his "biggest blunder" while recent evidence has proven it to be correct.

Einstein's 'Biggest Blunder' Turns Out to Be Right
Source: https://www.space.com/9593-einstein-biggest-blunder-turns.html

Even the fundamental laws of physics are merely an assumption and recent evidence has shown that the laws of physics can change in time, indicating that the Universe may be infinite and has no beginning.

Laws of physics may change across the universe

Another author on the paper, Michael Murphy of Swinburne University in Australia, understands the caution. But he says the evidence for changing constants is piling up. “We just report what we find, and no one has been able to explain away these results in a decade of trying,” Murphy told New Scientist. “The fundamental constants being constant is an assumption. We’re here to test physics, not to assume it.”

...

"The discovery, if confirmed, has profound implications for our understanding of space and time and violates one of the fundamental principles underlying Einstein's General Relativity theory,"

The findings may also imply the Universe is much larger than our observable part of it, possibly infinite.

Source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm

Considering these developments, even if quality knowledge could provide a foundation for a synthetic biology revolution, it may not be wise to per sue it with the current state of human science/knowledge.

Further. It appears that the synthetic biology revolution is primarily driven by companies on the loose, for a short-term financial interest. Companies are proven to be corruptible and the corruption for financial motives goes far. Some time ago it was revealed that the publisher of The Lancet (Elsevier) published 6 fake scientific journals for pharmaceutical companies, to mislead scientists and doctors.

Reputational damage for medical publisher Elsevier, which publishes The Lancet, among others. Last week the Dutch-English company admitted that from 2000 to 2005 it had published six fake journals that were issued for scientific journals. In reality, they were marketing magazines paid for by pharmaceutical companies. The papers published in Australia had names such as Australasian Journal of General Practice and Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine. The magazines look solid, also because the name Elsevier is prominent on the front page and the sponsor's name is not.

There have been many scandals in which side effect have been kept hidden. Complete medical practices have been proven to be based on fraud.

Effectiveness of antidepressants: an evidence myth constructed from a thousand randomized trials?
prof. John P. A. Ioannidis (Standord University)
Source: https://philpapers.org/rec/JOHEOA-2

Imagine the endeavor to corrupt science in such profound way just to make billions of USD in profit.

Companies have a simple mindset: "if you don't do it, another company will. Either take a billion USD extra or lose the fight to survive.". In this case humans are involved (medicine) and there may be pretty strong ethical forces at play, although obviously not (yet) efficient enough to prevent profound corruption.

What if companies are let on the loose for a synthetic biology revolution? Who will speak for the plants and animals? The potential for damage may be much greater as there will logically be less control and oversight.

To return to the question of the topic: is the synthetic biology revolution purely driven by market (money) or is it based on philosophy / sound theories in the interest of humanity?