I'll bet there were cavemen who thought replacing wooden clubs with stone arrowheads (Granite Manipulation Weapons) was unnatural.

no no, I am not a luddite but there are serious issues with GM foods for instance - mainly related to the ravening behaviour of the likes of Monsanto and their lying promises of an end to world hunger etc. - when in reality, it simply means that they have the patent on seeds which can only be ordered through them instead of being open pollinated for seed saving and re-sowing.

Whats the chances it will be a hardy non hybrid tea =P...Very little I assume, so I couldnt go it in my area anyways. I dont mind breeding for new colors, form etc.. but really, do we need a blue rose!!! Grow some cranesbill or delphiniums or monkshoods already, plenty of "blue" plants out there.

BTW I think the only concern I have about GM foods is the possibilty of non diversity of crops.. You do not have to go back that far in history to see a gross example of too much common stock, IE the Irish Famine.

{{gwi:228612}}

{{gwi:228613}}

{{gwi:228614}}

{{gwi:228615}}

Silverkelt

No I would not.

Silverkelt - I was thinking the same thing - I use blue companion plants for my roses, so what would I use with a "blue" rose?. There was a thread on the Rose Forum a few months ago about a blue rose created by a Japanese company. There was something nasty about the color of that rose.

Here is a link that might be useful: Blue Rose Thread

AFAICS, that blue rose ain't actually BLUE.
If it WAS blue, it's still an HT, and for the most part they're not the top choices for our garden.

I really do love a touch of blue in the garden, but I'm happy to find those tones in Irises and sages, and other things.

So while I am NOT a Luddite, and I'm not too much worried about such a rose affecting anything else here, I just don't have garden-space for such a "novelty" item.

I'd rather have a bottle tree, with many blue bottles.

Jeri

Unnatural travesty, hmmmm...sounds good to me! My whole garden is an unnatural travesty. A blue rose would kick it up a notch. ;^)

If I like how it looks and it is fragrant and healthy, I will buy it.
I think single blue rose with yellow stamens can be nice, like big forget-me not :)

Olga

No, and no, and a thousand times no,
I would not grow a Franken-Rose.
I call it that after reading English newspapers that write of genetically modified foods and calling them Franken-foods, after Frankenstein.
Though in the photo "Applause" appears to me to be a medium lavender, nothing more, not true blue as blue-bells are, it is still genetically modified and since each country must deem if it is safe enough to import, I hope the U.S. says no thank you.

Still, I cannot help thinking of what our ancestors might have said about Pernetiana roses when those bright beauties were being introduced in the early 1900's.
Perhaps they claimed that;
-"deep yellow is for daffodils"
"an orange rose is a travesty." I feel that way myself on some days, on others I admire my neighbors "Gingersnap'

I love roses that appear more natural which is why I love wild rose species and Old Garden Roses, and cannot help but think that the blue rose "Applause" is as as ugly as it is artifical in style of bloom and in its' hue of an unnatural color. For those who love "Applause", I respect your viewpoint as well.
Luxrosa

I was going to emphatically say NO, until Olga mentioned a single blue rose with yellow stamens. I lean toward the purples and don't really care for a true blue in the garden that much, but one would really have to see it. A double blue rose - noooo.

Ingrid

I wouldn't grow one either BUT, I'm not opposed to one in someone else's garden. Ok, I suppose if it were supremely disease resistant, bloomed non-stop for 12 months a year in zone 7 and had a fragrance that surpassed Mme. Isaac P, gardenias and lavender all rolled into one (and wafted on the breeze)--THEN I might consider it. But that's just me.

About the 'unnatural' Pernettianas, don't forget that bright yellow and orange species roses have always existed: R. foetida and its sport 'Austrian Copper'. So yellow and orange are part of the natural genetic wealth of roses, while blue isn't.
Never say never, but I suspect I wouldn't want a blue rose--perhaps after it had been in other people's gardens twenty or thirty years and I'd had time to get used to it, and always assuming it was a really good rose and otherwise suited my tastes. But I don't know: I never did get accustomed to blueish rhododendrons in Washington state after growing up with red-pink-white Indica azaleas all over the place in Florida. Those rhododendrons always looked wrong to me, even though they were genetically perfectly natural. Lavender Gallicas with a fine boss of stamens suit me just fine.
Melissa

A nice blue single along the lines of a Larkspur or even Geranium Magnificum blue could be quite nice.

If it were truly BLUE (and not some permutation of lavender-mauve-violet) and fragrant AND repeat blooming, then yes - IN A NEW YORK MINUTE! I'd also pay top dollar. I love blue in the garden and an azure rose would be a wish come true.

Image of a Himalayan Blue Poppy by LarryBob-z8-OR at Hortiplex.

Yes, because my garden is something of a "history" of roses, even tho there is no nor reason to placement. But something of everything is here. I have the Green rose. It's a conversation piece, a part of the developmental history of roses, but it isn't a rose to be enjoyed as a rose. And certainly a true blue rose is a big archetype.

I confess to being slightly disappointed that only Luxrosa and SilverKelt were emphatically opposed to a blue rose. While some of you refused on purely aesthetic grounds, I had hoped, that as gardeners, we could see a larger, more ethical and anvironmentally sound picture. I realise that genetic manipulation is a huge and complex issue which repays a careful, objective and thoughtful examination....but really, a blue rose is surely meretricious, ridiculous, unneccessary meddling - which we, as a species, have had a proven track record of
catastrophically bad judgement.

I don't normally comment on GW anymore, but I felt it was worthwhile adding my thoughts on this particular subject.

No, no, and absolutely no. I won't allow GM roses into my collection for one very important reason: I cannot afford to have GM rose genes contaminating my work. GM organisms contain genes that have been patented (always, as far as I know) and if those genes end up in someone's breeding work, whether it be Monsanto genes in food crops or the Japanese blue genes in roses, you can be sued for "using" those genes illegally. Rose pollen is easily transported by insect pollinators, and so the odds of GM rose genes straying into my own hybrids is probably close to 100% if that rose is within an insect's reach of my breeding plants. I can't afford to have my work contaminated in that way.

I don't have nearly as much of a problem with the manipulation of an ornamental plant for aesthetic reasons as I do regarding the manipulation of food crops, since we know next to nothing about the long term effect of some of these genetic changes. I think we are poised to have serious regrets in another 50-100 years. I hope I'm wrong, but. Worse than that, perhaps, is the effect of such practices on farming techniques and principles: genetic diversity is being squeezed out in favor of GM crops, and farmers are discouraged from the age old practice of saving seed from year to year. If you save seed from a variety and it is discovered that the saved seed has been contaminated with GM genes, you can be sued. :-( I have a real problem with that.

Hmm I wouldn't want it then thanks Paul

Didn't know all that--me neither, then. Glad to know.

Hi, trospero! Good to see you!!
I've read about the potential problems you cite and think you're probably right about them. The European Union is more suspicious than the U.S. about OGMs, and I'm glad that it is.
Good points, campanula.
Melissa

It is quite possible that stamens and stigmas will be used to create the first true blue rose. Some of the mauve roses have a pigment called rosacyanin which is bluer than the delphinium blue and all you have to do is to keep crossing the mauve roses with each other so they can accumulate this pigment. Yes it would take a long time with thousands of crosses but the Japanesse are persuing this avenue as well as the unnatural one. Don't ever say never and don't ever say will guarantee that stamens and stigmas will not be involved.

Patrick

Well, never say never is what I have learned in the past couple of years. As in, "I will NEVER get a lavender rose, that color is just too sad"... and of course now Angel Face's wavy blooms are the most cheerful in the garden. Or "I just don't like red roses", but you guessed it, Olympiad, Lavaglut, Europeana... all stars in my garden today.

Pocajun, yes, it is feasible that colours of roses can change through a more natural selection - after all, pelargonidin, the geranium-red pigment which was not naturally occurring in roses, was only introduced in 1960 (Superstar). Mauve, though, is still a long way (thankfully) from blue.

It seems like a paradox:

I always think flowers "want to be" somewhere close to their original, native or species colors:

It seems like roses should be warm colors, not blue, & daisies should be white or yellow, not blackish purple, & irises should be, well, almost any color but lipstick red.

It seems like a blue rose would contradict its own "roseness".

like panne velvet:
Velvet, it seems to me, is defined by its dense pile & deep texture that absorbs light, & panne velvet has has its pile smashed flat & it reflects light.

The thought of a rose in my garden being mistaken for one of the silk ones in the craft store kind of turns my stomach. I'd much rather have that authentic Himalayan Poppy. Some things should stay the same - or at least not change THAT much. Maybe in 3 or 4 or 5 generations people will think of them as normal - or maybe not.

Sherry

This is a color chart with rosacyanin being the last on the list with the bluest color. Very pretty and not mauve at all. It is possible and would look much better than the delphinium colored fake roses.

Patrick

Here is a link that might be useful: color chart

That's a very cool chart, Patrick. Do you know if specific roses have been tested to see which compounds and what concentrations make up their color? I would like to see that.

Sherry

Would we be against genetic manipulation to increase black spot resistance or great fragrance, if done by laboratory means and not by the "natural" way being pursued by hundreds of hybridizers and probably millions of seedlings. How sinister is using modern technology for attempting to increase food production by incorporating a weed killing chemical neutralizer, or the attempts to cure human disease using genetic information. Was the human genome project a great mistake of mankind? This technology is not Franken-stuff. I am not frightened by scare words. And I do not falt persons and organizations that put forth great effort and expenditures for being compensated for those efforts. Where human safety is involved, rational risk assessment should evaluate all of the critical aspects. In flowers, is it anything more than esthetics or should a risk assessment also me made here as well? Perhaps we may let each eye make a personal judgement for its own garden.

I am also aware that virtully all of our food producing plants and animal lines are the result of very significant genetic manipulation as are most of the flower varieties that we grow. I remember seeing Pioner 535 on signs by corn fields all along the road going to my grandfather's home in Kentucky 55 years ago. However, there are now modern methods to help focus on desired traits and to incorporate them potentially more quickly. Best, Nick

As an addendum, there may be a few characteristics such as disease resistance that may be addressed more rapidly with the aid of genetic technologies. And there are those who more aware than myself as to which they may be. Furthermore, the cost of such efforts puts a large damper on those studies as well. I do believe that the genius of hybridizers to create desireable forms and other characteristics for the rose will not be replaced in the forseeable future. My plea is that reason rather than emotion be used when evaluating technology as well as how and when to use it. At the same time, I am confident that emotion will continue to play a central role in the hybridizer's work along with reason. Best, Nick

Well said, Nick. I wanted to say this, but you did it better. Almost any good thing can harm if you use it wrong. Fire can burn, water can drawn, etc. It doesn't mean we shouldn't use them.
Olga

"How sinister is using modern technology for attempting to increase food production by incorporating a weed killing chemical neutralizer..."

I am not suggesting that the technology is sinister, but I can attest to the fact that some of these biotech corporations do have an agenda that is all about profit and stifling traditional agricultural practices that promote genetic diversity. If you look at Percy Schmeiser's case, you can see how far the legal arm of some of these corporations reach into the lives of traditional farmers, and how it threatens their way of doing business. Which is more important? The genetic diversity of food crops, or corporate profit? I think the corporate agenda is sometimes very sinister indeed, but that is not the technology itself, it is how the technology is being used.

Back to the subject at hand: I cannot afford to allow patented biotech genes to find their way into my workspace, simply because I would be liable for damages if those genes were found to have migrated into my work. (again I cite Percy Schmeiser's case) This isn't about emotional responses to "franken-roses", (I didn't use that term, and wouldn't: I think it is a judgmental term bordering on the irrational) this is about safeguarding a traditional breeding program from a very real threat: all it would take is one Bee carrying pollen from a biotech rose to one of my seed parents and my work would be hopelessly contaminated and compromised. You can be sure I am not the only hybridizer having these thoughts.

thank you tprospero - may I suggest you read Michael Pollen for an overview of agricultural practices which are distinctly sinister. Indeed, the technology is not the problem as much as the agenda of the biotech companies. The Human Genome Project was a massive and inspiring undertaking.....but the efforts to patent genetic material reveal exactly what the imperatives are - corporate profit and power. Also, it is naive to imagine we have some sort of choice in this and rational risk assessment will be employed where human safety is concerned - this is nonsense. At the very least, we ought to arm ourselves with as much objective information as possible, since a degree of healthy scepticism is the best defence against emotive and irrational reasoning. I note that many of you have a no-spray garden so I can only imagine that you also feel uneasy about glib suggestions that such sprays are essentially harmless, and, in fact, are looking for a more holistic, ecological and engaged way to exist in a fragile and threatened environment.

campanula, it would not even occur to me to believe allegations that a spray of any kind for rose diseases is safe when we know so well that corporations and even the government have conspired to hide the existence of toxic chemicals that have caused cancer in whole communities (think Love Canal). I'm fortunate that I have little disease in my garden but, were that to be different, I would find the roses that don't need to be sprayed. If that meant I had to plant multiples of perhaps five varieties instead of 80 different roses, I would accept that happily. Because what I do have are frogs and lizards and snakes and bees and cactus mice and coyotes, all happily sharing the same environment with me, and let's face it - they were here long, long before I was.

Ingrid

Sheesh,

Not to go unto a downword spiral here.. but even though I do not belive its necessary to tamper with the genetic background of roses to achieve a azure blue rose, I also think we stand on perilous ground when we seek out conspircy and fears.

This is a ongoing trend in society and I for one find it disturbing, somehow the profit is also evil, as IF making money was a problem! Not every move a corporation makes is designed to destroy our fabric of lives!

Lets not look at every shadow and imagine a monster...

(and thats all I will comment on this)

Silverkelt

All the techno-stuff aside, those "blue" roses are just creepy looking. What would you use for companion plants?

Those "black" roses advertised are on the creepy side as well. I love the "photos" of the pitch black ones, like they are actually that color.

If it's truly blue in a heartbeat.

ah well, this debate could run and run, again, not scare-mongering here, just a reminder that there is always a bigger picture and our actions have consequences, frequently leading to the malaise of other species which share our planet. Nor am I venting against making profits but I believe a bit more transparency and willingness to avoid the political corruption of science would not go amiss. Finished now.

Silverkelt,

The following item is not conspiracy, it is headline news from a couple of years ago. Most everyone knows about this case and it sets precedents for some of the issues we are discussing:

Here is a link that might be useful: Percy Schmeiser VS Monsanto

Paul,

I dont disagree , Im not in favor of genitically altered food... I just dont want to see any debate turn into the governments of the world, are in align with evil corporations to destory our lives theories.... Its just tooooo much to take! Ive met some of these individuals... who either watched way too much xfiles, or are to paranoid by half! (BTW Im a huge xfile fan =)...

Silverkelt