Jonathan Code
Example 1
The Enviropig (from the University of Guelph website):
(University of Guelph website)The EnviropigTM was developed by the introduction of a transgene construct composed of the promoter segment of the murine parotid secretory protein gene and the Escherichia coli phytase gene (Golovan et al 2001) into a fertilized porcine embryo by pronuclear microinjection, and this embryo along with other embryos was surgically implanted into the reproductive tract of an oestrous synchronized sow. After a 114 day gestation period, the sow farrowed and piglets born were checked for the presence of the transgene and for phytase enzyme activity in the saliva. When the mature genetically modified pig was crossed with a conventional pig, approximately half of the pigs contained the phytase transgene. This showed that the transgene was stably inserted into one of the chromosomes of the pigs and was inherited in a Mendelian fashion. Through breeding, this line of pigs is in the 8th generation.
Example 2
Preparation 505 (from the Agriculture Course)
The Enviropig and preparation 505 (or what is often referred to as the Oak Bark prep) come into the agricultural domain through, it would appear, a synthetic thinking process that is attempting to create, out of this new synthesis, a beneficial solution to specific farming issues. Out of ‘parts’ – genetic information from mice, ecoli bacteria, skulls, oak bark – a new synthesis or ‘whole’ is created. In the case of the Enviropig a thought process is evident and explicit that, through its mechanistic or ‘cause and effect’ elements, reveals a familiar type of logic. It runs something like this (in a much abbreviated version); pigs don’t digest phosphates in their feed well - pig effluent is high in phosphates - these become an environmental pollutant - through genetic engineering pigs can be genetically altered to produce phytase in their saliva – through this intervention a more complete digestion of the phosphates can be achieved – lower levels of phosphates pass into their effluent – lower environmental pollutant risk6.We collect oak-bark, such as we can get. We do not need much — no more than can easily be obtained. We collect it and chop it up a little, till it has a crumb-like consistency. Then we take a skull — the skull of any of our domestic animals will do, it makes little or no difference. We put the chopped-up oak-bark in the skull, close it up again as well as possible with bony material, and lower it into the earth, but not too deep. We cover it over with peat moss, and then introduce some kind of channel or water pipe so as to let as much rainwater as possible flow into the place. (We might even do it as follows: Take a barrel where rainwater is constantly flowing in and out. Put in it vegetable matter such as will bring about the continued presence of some vegetable slime. Let the bony vessel, which contains the crumbled oak-bark lie in the slime in the water). This, once again, must hibernate. Snow-water is just as good as rainwater. It must pass through the autumn and winter in this way. What you add to your manuring matter from the resulting mass will lend it the forces, prophylactically to combat or to arrest any harmful plant diseases. (Steiner, 1993, p.101)
In terms of the Oak Bark preparation it is not so easy to grasp the synthesis of plant and animal substances, their process of preparation or, in fact, their application protocol. The familiar logic that seems to lie behind the choice of ‘parts’ and their combination that the creators of the Enviropig have chosen seems to be missing in the instance of preparation 505. A causal connection between the skull of a domestic animal, oak bark, and a specified period of time for internment in the ground is not initially apparent. What is Steiner proposing?