June « 2009 « Biofortified

Frog legs

by Anastasia on 25 June 2009

Another mystery of science has been solved, which gives me hope that the origin of CCD is only a little research away, or perhaps just a flash of inspiration. Strangely, the only coverage of this discovery that I could find is at the BBC Legless frog mystery solved, even though mysteriously deformed frogs have been found all over the world. Since the late 1980s, frogs have been found with missing legs, additional legs, and other deformities (actually, hideously deformed frogs have been found much earlier than that, but the numbers seemed to increase in the late 1980s). Various causes were suggested, but most people were convinced that the cause was chemical in nature.

Who is Jeffrey Smith?

by Anastasia on 22 June 2009

Someone sent me a link to some YouTube videos of Jeffrey Smith promoting one of his books. I’m not sure what this person expected to accomplish, but it gives me a great opportunity to discuss the important issues of credibility and bias. I just started reading Lies, Damned Lies, and Science, about these and other issues surrounding science communication, so these sorts of things have been very much on my mind. I’ll be posting more on the book once I finish it. Be careful if you pick it up, there are a few errors about biotechnology in the beginning, but otherwise it’s great so far.

I’m frustrated by Smith’s star status among anti-GMO activists for quite a few reasons, but the main one is: who the heck is he?

Ethical and Practical Issues of GMOs

by Anastasia on 20 June 2009

Jim Martin-Schramm, an Associate Professor of Christian Ethics at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa, wrote a fully inclusive investigation of the role that genetically engineered crops may or may not play in Sub-Saharan Africa that may easily be extrapolated into the role of biotechnology in other situations. I’ve read a lot of articles and case studies that tried to summarize the GMO debate but none have come close to this one, particularly when it comes to neutrality and allowing readers to make conclusions on their own. The document is written as a case study, which seems to be is a really effective way to get the information across. While it is from December 2003, little if anything has changed.

I urge everyone who has ever had a question about the risks, benefits, ethics, or science of GMOs to read this. As always, I welcome readers to comment on the subject at hand so that all participants may better understand the issues.

Rotten corn

by Anastasia on 18 June 2009

The National Corn Growers Association is an important trade group. Their mission is to advocate and lobby on behalf of corn growers, or as they say “to create and increase opportunities for corn growers”. At the Maize Genetics Conference, I got to listen to their Chair of the Research and Business Development Action Team, Pam Johnson (you can find my summary of her remarks in my post Research and the Recession). She was a little overenthusiastic, but generally made sense, advocating for better cooperation between government and industry to produce more useful research. I hate to say it, but, was all that just for show?

Is opposition to GE crops in Europe a Scientific Flip-Flop?

by Karl Haro von Mogel on 18 June 2009

Just out today, Seed Magazine has assembled a “Scientific Flip Flop” about Genetically Engineered crops. The article begins with an introduction into the curious case of European nations who embrace scientific conclusions in other areas of science, but not in this area.

Most Europeans don’t consider themselves to be anti-science or particularly technophobic. In fact, Europe’s full embrace of the scientific consensus on another environmental issue, global warming, has enabled the continent to take the clear lead on climate change, with the most ambitious emissions targets, the first carbon trading market, and the greenest urban infrastructure plans on the planet.

Europe’s scientific disconnect is more broadly true of eco-minded citizens worldwide: They laud the likes of James Hansen and Rajendra Pachauri but shrink in horror at the scientist who offers up a Bt corn plant (even though numerous studies indicate that Bt crops—by dramatically curbing pesticide use—conserve biodiversity on farms and reduce chemical-related sickness among farmers).

So why the disconnect? Why do many environmentalists trust science when it comes to climate change but not when it comes to genetic engineering? Is the fear really about the technology itself or is it a mistrust of big agribusiness?

Contributing their views (in order) are Pam Ronald, Raj Patel, Nina Fedoroff, and Noel Kingsbury. Read the article, I’ll offer a few opinions about it after the jump.