As part of an Undergraduate Research Scholars program, I gathered research for Professor Jordan Rosenblum. He is interested in how the slow food and local food movements, as well as the biotechnology revolution relate to Kosher Laws. He is working on writing a book about ancient Jewish dietary practices, and the various arguments for or against it. He is a well-versed scholar on the subject of biblical and rabbinical literature. My role was to help him find modern arguments concerning Jewish dietary laws and culture, and how they are interpreted in the 21st century. I have read and analyzed over a dozen books, journal articles and web links to focus on two modern debates concerning Jewish dietary laws. I wanted to find out how Jewish beliefs influence their views on genetic engineering, and whether there was evidence for the modern argument that certain Kosher laws were based on health considerations.

The first topic that I researched was Jewish views on genetic engineering. I was surprised by what I found because I had assumptions going into it. I thought liberal Jews would be open to genetic engineering because of an “open mind” to modern biotechnology. On the other hand, I assumed conservative Jews would be against genetic engineering because I thought they would view it as a potential threat to their views on social and religious order. I was completely proven wrong.

Liberal Jews tend to be more cautious and reserved about food biotechnology. They employ a different set of ethics compared to their Conservative counterparts, like the use of secular, modern liberal ideology. They feel that not enough is known about its potential drawbacks and benefits to completely integrate its use into modern society. Some also feel, in a very general way, that an organism’s “soul” has been tampered with by manipulating its genome. There is one exception to these feelings of doubt and malaise concerning genetic engineering. This is the Jewish duty of pikuach nefesh – the solemn duty to save a human soul. If genetically engineered food can save lives, then it must be supported.

On the whole, conservative Jews are strongly in favor of biotechnology. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, there is no fear over “playing God.” They regard themselves as “co-creators” with God in improving the natural world. Psalm 115:6 reads ‘the heavens are the heavens of God’ yet ‘the earth he has given to the sons of man.’ Second, the Torah and the Talmud has nothing in it that directly or indirectly forbids genetic engineering. So conservative Jews who strictly follow the holy texts openly embrace genetic engineering and use it to their advantage. Interestingly enough, we also see Amish communities as deeply religious and resistant to modern technologies, yet there are Amish farmers who grow genetically engineered crops because they believe it supports their way of life and it is not directly forbidden in their Scriptures.

Frank and Jordan. Shalom! שָׁלוֹם

The second topic is about modern scientific claims surrounding the kosher laws. Our current understanding of food safety has imbued ancient religious discourses about food and dietary practices. For instance, there are many scholars who argue that ancient injunctions against consuming pork products were a way of avoiding being contaminated with trichinosis. The kosher laws were thought to have been enacted for religious purposes, intent upon purifying one’s soul of “unclean” food sources. The truth is, no scholar is certain as to the origin of the kosher laws. The modern analysis of kosher laws as health prescription is a wholly modern invention, with little Biblical or Talmudic justification. The application of modern scientific ideas to ancient food rules and practices is a way of rationalizing non-rational rituals.

There are various reasons given for the nature of the kosher laws, some are intellectual and others are hukum. Intellectual arguments in favor of kosher laws are laid out by rabbis in the Talmud. Hukum is a non-rational justification for following a rule. Basically, as a Jew, you are expected to follow the kosher laws because God said so. It is like being told to do something that seems irrational by a parent without a good explanation. The Kosher laws are also seen as a form of cohesion within the Jewish community. During ancient times and even today, they were a way of stating one’s unique Jewish heritage. Kosher food rules made it difficult to mingle with Gentiles or non-practicing Jews who did not keep kosher. This definitely solidified social bonds between Jews through food and ceremony. The fact that certain dietary laws may be healthy or sanitary is superfluous to its initial meaning.

My research on the kosher laws will be relevant to me as a trained sociologist and Registered Dietitian. This will be very useful for me as an aspiring dietitian to know the rationale behind religious food rituals. I would know what questions to ask and boundaries to respect concerning these food practices. Given the growing number of practicing Muslims and Jews in the United States alone makes this topic worth researching. Even after having completed my work with the Undergraduate Research Scholars, I plan to keep researching this topic. Food and sociology are two very relevant and important topics for me as an aspiring dietitian!

References:

1. Green, Ronald M. “The Jewish Perspective on GenEthics.” Ed. Pfleiderer, G., Brahier, G., Lindpainter, K. Genethics and Religion. Basel: Karger, 2010. 118-127.
   Hart, Mitchell B. The Healthy Jew. New York, Cambridge, 2007.
   Regenstein, Joe M. and Carrie E. “An Introduction to Kosher and Halal Food Laws.” Ed. Patricia A. Curtis.  Guide to Food Laws and Regulations Iowa: Blackwell, 2005. 163-201.
2. Reichman, Edward. “Why Is This Gene Different from All Other Genes? The Jewish Approach to Biotechnology.” Ed. Michael C. Brannigan. Cross-Cultural Biotechnology. Oxford: Rowman, 2004. 93-102.
3. Schlich, Thomas. “The Word of God and the Word of Science: Nutrition Science and the Jewish Dietary Laws in Germany, 1820-1920.” Ed. Harmke Kaminga and Andrew Cunningham. The Science and Culture of Nutrition, 1840-1940. Amsterdam: Atlanta, 1995. 97-120.
4. Sherwin, Byron L. Golems Among Us: How a Jewish Legend Can Help Us Navigate The Biotech Century. Chicago: Dee, 2004.
5. Tirosh-Samuelson, Hava. “Jewish Philosophy, Human Dignity, and  the New Genetics.” Ed. Sean D. Sutton. Biotechnology: Our Future as Human Beings and Citizens. New York: Albany, 2009. 81-112.
6. Zoloth, Laurie. “When You Plow the Field, Your Torah Is with You: Genetic Modification and GM Foods in the Jewish Tradition(s).” Ed. Conrad G. Brunk and Harold Coward. Acceptable Genes? Religious Traditions and Genetically Modified Foods. New York: Albany, 2009. 81-110.

Sunday evening, I sat down and combed the internet for images to use to make a box. I envisioned a 5×4 box a foot tall, with a flap on the back. Bit by bit it came together, and looked something like this:

(Click to zoom in on the picture)

Grad student life is busy, and I didn’t get to printing this out until Thursday afternoon. I actually printed it on poster material, which I thought might be too thin to work, but it worked out nicely. Getting it home unwrinkled was a challenge given my two-wheeled mode of transportation, and a little razor-blade work and careful creasing later, I had a box ready to glue together. The plastic window was actually one of those old term paper covers sliced to fit. To make Frank stand up inside, I had to cut some slits and twist-tie his rear husk in place. My spouses Ariela provided some skillful handwriting to label the seed packets, although it did not show up in the video. (see below) I should also credit Valerie Lusk, Anastasia’s sister, for her Frank N. Foode artwork which made it into two places on the box.

The following morning, at roughly 6:30 or so, I set things up to record a short video talking about the ‘exciting news’ and showing the box in a very live form. I could have written it out, but I thought that it would not only be faster this way, but seeing the box handled in real-time would make it that much more real. I mean, who wouldn’t consider that maybe this is not a joke if I’m waving a toy box around on camera? Granted, Frank  N. Foode dolls you can buy with corn seeds may not be so fantastic, but adding that the seeds have been genetically engineered puts it over the top.

Naturally, something so fantastic immediately arouses suspicion, on April 1st especially. However, for some it was not so easy to dismiss the possibility. One person searched the Toys R Us website to see if it was up yet. A fake Toys R Us page added later in the day confused things a little more. After all, according to the video, they bought 10,000 units! (The video has now been edited to reflect the post-prank news, with a little commentary.)

Others, such as whomever runs the @MADGEAustralia twitter account (likely Madeleine Love), revealed precisely the worries that many anti-GE people have. GE crops must cause allergies, and the scientists must know this is true which is why they aren’t labeled. Here are some snapshots of tweets, with a few thoughts interpolated:

Screaming with laughter. @franknfoode has put together a [grow your own allergies in your backyard] kids #GMO product. Only this is…

.. the kids seem to have to comply with licence conditions. Guess they’re not allowed to replant their #GMO seeds! @franknfoode

..The #GMO gift for kids that has to be repurchased year after year! ROFSWL Hey @franknfoode you’ve got that marketing edge.

Oh yes, I thought it would be thoroughly hilarious to put a license agreement on the lid, for your enjoyment here is a clear shot of it. But I’ll bet that if this was real something could be worked out similar to the arrangement made for developing countries – small scale home seed saving is not the kind of thing that big commercial seed companies would likely care about. But this is my joke, so I get to make the license agreement laughs:

(Definitely click to embiggen)

I thought that the absurdity of license agreements on a children’s toy would be ripe to make fun of. MADGE continues:

Have you considered the liability attached to this product @franknfoode? Those #GMO seeds are LABELLED. If new allergies dvlp, cd be problem

Before releasing your treasure onto the market @franknfoode, would you like us to go through the #GMO data to assess the risk ur facing?

I’m sure Frank would love to spend time going through the peer-reviewed data, as would I. Consider, however, that GE foods are labeled in many other countries, and no one has traced any novel allergies to it, nor have legitimate liability concerns been raised in those places.

If this is not an #aprilfools joke @franknfoode, can you confirm that it’s Bt-11? #GMO

A number of reports say that Syngenta’s #GMO Bt-11 corn retained the bacterial origin of replication @franknfoode – eww

What about a bacterial origin of replication makes someone who considers themselves qualified to school others on risk assessment go “eww?” Why, the word “Bacterial”!

@franknfoode Did you forget the word ‘bacterial’ in that q’n? Have you got the Bt11 #GMO constrct & addit’l bits sequence?

An origin of replication is merely a sequence of DNA that is recognized by a protein that initiates replication in circular bacterial chromosomes. It is not a protein, nor does it actively do anything, and it is not active in eukaryotic cells such as plants. In other words, this is an inert stretch of DNA and not a cause for “eww.” Note that moments before this “MADGE” was all too quick to play the role of expert on relative risks of genetic sequences, but now can’t get past the word “bacterial.” How does she feel about all the billions and billions of bacterial origins of replication in your average tub of yogurt?

Another Frank [Plughoff], who tweets as @Earthnik, instead started talking about getting royalties from this toy product. If you recall, Frank P. featured our beloved Frank N. Foode in one of his “Earthnik Gazettes”, as a sinister way to market GE foods to children.

.@HendrikRietman If true then @franknfoode owes me residuals because the toy corn was my idea in the EG: http://bit.ly/ans7y9

Which prompted Hendrik to respond thus:

@Earthnik you’re trying to make money out of #GMO? You really dissapoint me. @franknfoode

The check must have gotten lost in the mail. Funny how a “STAUNCH GMO OPPONENT” lights up their eyes with Dollar $ign$ when they think that their intellectual property is being used! (Hint: It was also not your idea.)

Hendrik also added,

@franknfoode Not online yet. http://is.gd/VNBG0K , would love to buy and grow your family! Is it really Bt-corn inside?>Not allowed in EU:-O

Hendrik checked the Toys R Us website looking to see if it was available – and liked the idea. And this, actually, was the majority reaction that I encountered. I sent a notice through some email lists, and one person said they tried to buy 4 on the fake Toys R Us page I put up that afternoon, and realizing it was a joke, said it would be great if this actually happened. April-Fools-savvy readers of the blog registered their belief that it was a prank, followed by a desire to have one. A few other regulars, whom I shall allow to identify themselves if they so choose, were psyched about it and thought it was real. I delight in fooling my friends as much as I do strangers on the internet – actually more! (It was retweeted enough to make the #GMO Daily, too)

I also brought the box to my lab Friday, and each member of my lab (who did not know about it beforehand) thought it was real and wanted to know if they could get a free one since they work with me. One held it up and said, “Yeah, you’re finally selling them!” and when I walked into my adviser’s office to punk him as well, I can safely say he was quite surprised and confused, and likely thinking, ‘How many potential thesis paragraphs were not written last night to put this together?’ But he did like the idea of the corn seeds heterozygous for recessive mutant alleles. ‘Very Entertaining!’ Was his final word.

This part of the Prank Frank Box is I think the best aspect – seed corn heterozygous for recessive kernel mutants. The kids get a packet of normal-looking seeds, with instructions on how to grow and self-pollinate the seeds with bags and paper clips. Then, when the self-pollinated ear develops and matures, all of a sudden these kernel mutants manifest (at a 3:1 ratio), and the kids could have a surprise and a teaching moment about basic genetics. Dominant and Recessive, Punnet Squares, Homozygosity and Heterozygosity, Mendelian Genetics – right in their backyard. This would not only be very easily do-able, but also very educational. As I said in the video, the kids could try more advanced experiments and replant the seeds next year, or perhaps even cross the seeds with their friends’ seeds to make double-mutants. Extra packets of seeds could also be available for more experiments.

As for providing genetically engineered sweet corn seeds, currently only one is available, a Syngenta variety that produces Bt. I know Monsanto is working on their own at the moment but is not yet available. Theoretically, all you need to do is cross GE field corn with sweet corn and keep backcrossing to a good sweet corn variety while hanging on to the transgenes. However, field-corn crosses into sweet corn bring in all kinds of nasty off-flavors (Remember that munching/spitting scene in King Corn? They were eating field corn), and it naturally takes a while to do well to create a high-quality sweet corn with genes that came from field corn. Bt would be the obvious choice for such a toy package, however with small plots of backyard corn there will not likely be much Lepidopteran insect pressure (corn borer, earworm) and it may not make much of a difference to your backyard garden. However, knowing that it is GE and eating and enjoying it will be the main benefit. I wonder, though, if the Bt was put in a sweet corn that’s good for a backyard garden, or just large-scale fields? A question worth considering – because an ill-adapted corn variety for those conditions could have the opposite effect. But right now, Bt corn is just about the only kind of GE crop that could currently apply for a back yard hands-on experiment.

Legal issues are another question, and it would take a forward-thinking seed company to work something out to allow backyard cultivation of their transgenic corn. If sold as hybrid corn, the likelihood of good seed-saving and further planting and cultivation is low. And given that many of these companies have worked out $10,000 or below exemptions for seed saving in developing countries, this is magnitudes smaller and maybe they could be persuaded to help out. There may also be regulatory issues, someone suggested to me that there may be an acreage issue involved – as in, below the minimum acreage for a field to prevent insect resistance. Anybody heard of this? A refuge in a bag would be easy to do – heck the Mystery Mutant seeds could be that refuge. (Another teaching moment about evolution!) And there’s an added benefit to trying to get GE seeds part of the mix – Greenpeace would give it lots of free advertising.

Certainly there would be obstacles both legal and practical (who’s going to maintain those heterozygous seeds for the toys?) to including seeds in a Frank N. Foode doll box, but I think there’s a lot of potential – Especially in filling our photo album with pictures of people with Frank, and the chance to do a little informal education about genetics and maybe help spark the kind of interest that could lead to a future career or a fun hobby. As I was sitting there designing the box graphics or gluing the box together, I kept thinking This could actually work. So maybe this time the Frank N. Foode toy for sale in Toys R Us is a hoax, but maybe the next time it could be for real. So I’m sorry to those who are disappointed to find out that they cannot get their own Frank N. Foode (or the seeds) for now, but this leads me to the second goal I mentioned at the beginning of this post, and that was to test the water. Feels warm, maybe a little choppy, but I’m game to take a swim!

Biofortified is sharing server space with several other sites that I manage, and the time has rolled around again to renew the account. It doesn’t sound like much when you divide it by 12 months, but when it comes all at once it is quite the pretty penny.

No worries, though! I have just brokered a deal with a new partner that will ensure that Biofortified will be able to stay up indefinitely. Stay tuned, I’ll release the details shortly.

UPDATE, 12 pm:

As per the terms of the new agreement, Biofortified is pleased to welcome William Harvey, the director of global GMO policy for Greenpeace. He will be a frequent commenter here and I think we will all find value in his perspective. As an added bonus, his staff has agreed to handle comment moderation and spam filtering, which is great because I’ve been really busy and can take a step back now.

I’m on the phone with him right now helping to get his first post up. So in time, we will all be able to enjoy the additional discussion that his joining Biofortified will allow.

My flight was delayed, so I missed the first part of the conference. Luckily someone filled me in on what happened. Apparently I’m 1.4 percent Helitron! Good deal.

I managed to get there just in time for the first viewing session for posters. But three geneticists barred my way saying “Is this guy legit?” I thought they didn’t recognize me, but they were pulling my leg, I was expected!

That was a relief! I wouldn’t want to miss these posters. This is my favorite part of scientific meetings. Meeting people, seeing what cool stuff they’re working on. Like Patrice, here, who was comparing the chromosomes of some of my cousins by FISH mapping repeat sequences. That means that wherever there were repetitive segments of DNA of different kinds, she made them glow different colors under the microscope! I wish I could show them to you but this stuff is unpublished. And she was simply glowing to see me.

Later that evening, I listened to a big presentation by Pam Johnson from the National Corn Grower’s Association. My favorite part was when she talked about how the connection between corn geneticists, breeders, farmers, and the consumer was the strongest of any crop grown in the states. It was also neat to know that studying me will help them understand switchgrass and more exotic plants like miscanthus.

Saturday I had a blast in the morning talks. All about how I release Jasmonic Acid when I’m injured, or some mutant relatives of mine that look more like a grass than proper corn. And I learned that even though two corn plants may be hybrids of the same parents, it matters which parent is the mom and which one is the dad!

At the second and final poster session, I got to talk to a few people who run websites about plants. Ann, here, works on the iPlant Collaborative, a center for organizing plant biologists to answer the BIG questions in the field.

And the nice folks at the Maize Genome DataBase told me all I wanted to know about my genome and how to access it from anywhere in the world. They even created a database of my weird looking cousins. Here’s to MaizeGDB! (Always jokers, those database types)

Apparently my fans are everywhere, look at this next guy – he dressed up as a giant… me! He even got the glasses right! And who is this other scientist with you?

Oh of course, it was Karl and Anastasia from Biofortified, promoting their stuff. And lo and behold, James from James and the Giant Corn was here too, so we grabbed him for a group shot.

After dinner, it was time for my keynote address. I was pretty nervous, but I think I managed to move the audience. I felt like they could all see through me, so I tried to imagine them without their husks. I sprinkled in a few, heh, corny jokes to get them started, and then I was off! “Compost! Compost alone moves the wheels of history!” I pounded my fists. I think I had an impact.

After that was over, it was time to party. And corn geneticists know how to do that. They tore open the curtain between the posters and the dining area, cleared out a dance floor, and brought forth the ethanol. These two ladies sure knew how to get down.

I’m not much of a dancer, but I play a good game of Euchre. So while everyone was grooving I was winning the kernels off of some grad students.

The next morning there were a few more talks, and then we all adjourned to go our separate ways. Just when I thought I could slip away un-noticed, a fan called down the hallway asking for a photo op. Sure, I can do a favor for last year’s chairman. Heck, Tom was probably the matchmaker that brought one of my ancestors together!

I had a fun time at Maize Genetics. These are definitely my kind of people. They grow hard, and they yield hard. I hope to see them all again in Italy next year.

Oh, the things I’ve seen!

In the Iowa State University Memorial Union

Hello! I’m Anastasia Bodnar, a second year PhD student at Iowa State University. My major is “Interdepartmental Genetics”, an interdisciplinary program that allows me to work in a variety of fields, including plant breeding, biotechnology, and nutrition.

When I’m not in the lab or the field, I write about the science, ethics, politics, economics, etc of genetically modified plants at my blog Genetic Maize. I’m also a contributor at the blog Clashing Cultures where the interactions of science and religion are explored by people from different faiths and different scientific backgrounds. As of now, I’ll also contribute to Biofortified, writing about my favorite topic, plant genetics, and how this field affects the world around us. I’m very exciting to be working with some of my favorite bloggers on this project. I just hope I can find time to do it all!

Genetic engineering is such a complex topic, one that people (both proponents and opponents, scientists and lay people) oversimplify far too often. It is rarely correct to make a blanket statement about “all GMOs”. For example, I think most of us would agree that herbicide resistant crops created by a large corporation are fundamentally different from the flood tolerant rice created by a scientist with public funds and freely distributed to small farmers in developing countries. These two have different ethical, environmental, safety, social justice, and intellectual property issues, just to name a few. It is unfair, unscientific, and possibly unethical to lump together all products produced by genetic engineering. It is also unfair to lump genetic engineering with what is known as conventional agriculture. Some genetically engineered plants might be more suited for large commercial farming, while others are scale neutral and could fit in well with a variety of farming techniques, including organic. I hope that I can elaborate on these ideas through my posts here at Biofortified.

My major professor is Paul Scott, a USDA researcher in ISU’s Agronomy Department. Manju Reddy is our collaborator in ISU’s Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition. I have three main projects that all aim to improve the nutritional qualities of maize. You can read more about the projects after the cut.

Modern corn varieties have been selected and inbred for so many years that a lot of the genetic diversity has been lost. This means that modern corn has a smaller gene pool, so is lacking in traits like disease resistance. Modern corn also has rather un-nutritious seeds, a problem I’m hoping to help alleviate.

I’m screening two relatives of maize, the grasses teosinte and tripsicum, for interesting seed storage proteins. My studies so far have shown that the proteins in seeds from teosinte and tripsicum are much more varied than in modern corn varieties, and that some of those proteins are higher in essential amino acids. Two of my collaborators are using traditional breeding to get desired traits from teosinte and tripsicum into maize, while I plan to use biotechnology. I hope to explain the advantages and disadvantages of these methods in future posts. This type of biotechnology is called “cisgenics” or “intragenics”, using genes from the species of interest or related species. This is distinct from “transgenics”, which uses genes from an unrelated species.

Another example of cisgenics can be found in my second project, developing maize with improved iron bio-availability using the gene for maize hemoglobin. It seems that all plants have a gene for hemoglobin, but don’t produce the protein at detectable levels. We are hoping that overexpressing the hemoglobin protein in maize will cause the plant to uptake more iron from the soil and store it in the seeds in a highly digestible form. This research is important because anemia, or lack of iron, is the most prevalent nutritional deficiency in the world.

My third project aims to find new ways to use biotechnology in plant breeding and to learn how overexpressing a gene in corn seeds will affect the natural seed proteins. I’m using corn plants that have been engineered to express GFP (green fluorescent protein from jellyfish) in their seeds, selecting for plants that produce brighter and brighter seeds. The gene is controlled by the promoter for one of the many seed storage proteins, so we hypothesize that populations selected for brighter fluorescence will also have the highest levels of the corresponding natural protein. If this is true, then GFP might be used as a easily visible marker to help plant breeders select for proteins or pathways that are difficult to measure – including those that produce nutritionally important compounds.

Meanwhile, I got into food. Well, I’ve known how to bake and cook a few things since I was very young, but on my own living in an apartment I was figuring out how to make different kinds of food, across different cultures. I also had a gardening itch, and started supplementing my diet with vegetables that I tended at an organic community garden on campus. Before long, I was thinking about the biological basis for the wonderful flavors I was tasting, and the nutritional value of produce. I thought, could I make any of these plants better?

On the other side of campus, I dug into a different kind of soil. The muck of a political columnist that made outrageously false claims about climate science galvanized my desire to try to write a science column for the school paper, The California Aggie. I called it The Inoculated Mind, and I wrote it for three years before handing it off to another science writer so I could start something else. I loved picking topics every week to write at length about, and explore not only the history and current status of science, but also the social, philosophical, and political aspects as well. A love for writing (that I never knew I would have) and expressing my opinions (this was never a secret to my family) on controversial subjects had me also hooked.

While I was writing for The Aggie, I started doing a weekly science radio show on a local community station. Later, I replaced writing for the newspaper with writing a blog, keeping the naame, The Inoculated Mind. Soon enough, I turned my radio show into a podcast, which I call the Mindcast. It is available in iTunes, and at my site here.

Pulled in two separate directions, my interest in plant genetics and the genetic basis of flavor and nutrition in crops, and my desire to communicate and editorialize about science in the press, were pulling me in opposite directions, so it seemed. Scientist, or Journalist? How about Journalist Scientist? I’ll do both. Many people expressed doubt that plant genetics and journalism could ever go together. I’ll explain how they’re a perfect match for me below.

I worked in another plant genetics lab, screening tomato DNA for mutations in specific genes, and when I was finished with that and my then-girlfriend, now spouse Ariela finished her degree at Davis, I applied for graduate school in plant genetics. I wanted to enroll in a good plant genetics program at a school with a strong journalism program as well. My first pick was the University of Wisconsin, Madison, which was top in plant breeding, and had a great journalism program, as well as a similar program called Life Sciences Communication. When I was visiting schools to check out their programs, I met a professor at Madison named Dr. Shawn Kaeppler, who had a project that fit me perfectly.

He received a grant to fund a research project on a gene in sweet corn called Sugary Enhancer. It makes already sugary corn even sweeter, but we don’t know where it is or how it works. On seed packages at your local nursery, it has this gene (or the recessive allele of this gene, technically) if it says “Sugar Enhanced.” At the same time, funded by the same grant, Shawn had an educational video project he wanted to start up to promote plant breeding to prospective students and the general public.

So that’s where I find myself today. Working through the five or more long years of graduate student level coursework to get my Ph.D., conducting research on the Sugary Enhancer gene, doing a minor in Life Sciences Communication, and on top of it all, a two-year video project. I’m already working on ideas about what I’ll do when that is complete.

I'm the one in the hat - not the best picture of me at work on my vids!

Maybe I might do something about biofuels, perhaps genetic engineering. But I plan to continue this combinatorial approach to life: doing science, and communicating science at the same time. There’s a lot that can be gained by having people who are knowledgeable about a particular topic who can also communicate the issues surrounding that topic to people who don’t have specialist training in those fields. And lately, there has been a widening public knowledge gap and a deepening controversy over one such topic, Genetic Engineering.

It strikes fear in its opponents, and worry in those who have only barely heard about it. Tinkering with the genetics of the crops that grow our food? Moving genes between species? Altering the nutritional content of produce, or adding compounds toxic to insects? How unprecedented! Actually, it’s not.

We’ve been tinkering with the genetics of our crops for thousands of years, we just haven’t known what we were doing. Genes have moved between species on their own (it’s called Lateral Gene Transfer) over the course of evolution, and we’ve been doing it for a long time by crossing our crops with wild relatives. We’ve been duplicating chromosomes, combining entire species together to form new species (ever eaten wheat?), and enhanced the nutritional content of the carrot, which didn’t used to be orange, by the way. As we have come to understand the ways that plants defend themselves from insect pests, we have come to understand that breeding pest resistant plants was all about increasing the activity of compounds that kill insects.

The few genetically engineered crops that have been on the market have been very widely adopted by farmers, yet, there is a steady distrust and rejection of these crops by consumers. Why? Is it because the first traits engineered into crops benefited the farmers and not the consumers? Is it because large companies were the first to take advantage of the new technology, rather than public institutions? Or is it because it is being perceived as ‘more of the same,’ an extension of problematic farming practices that are damaging the environment, and even our own health? Or does it go deeper than that into philosophical views about the nature of life, and humanity’s place in the Universe?

Or does it stem from a vocal contingent of activists that know only a little about the subject, and the lack of scientists communicating this topic effectively?

Count me in on this debate. It is one of the more important scientific discussions of our time, and not everyone realizes this. We have the ability to directly alter the genetics of our crops (and more), with increasing precision and complexity. We need to discuss how to use this technology, and how this will affect our cultural, social, political, and philosophical views. There are problems that can be solved with it, and issues raised by it, but most of all – scientists need to get involved and keep a clear head about what we want out of it. I think I can do that, to help people learn about this fascinating topic, and give the information necessary and arguments that are helpful in forming opinions about genetic engineering.

But I couldn’t do it alone, especially with my busy schedule as a grad student. So that’s why I started the Biofortified blog project, and invited other scientists and grad students who are interested in educating and fostering public discussion. Together, we can build a valuable public resource and public forum for discussing issues and responding to current events related to the field.

I like to cut deep into the scientific details that I love to study, but I also cut deep into the other reasons why people believe what they believe. I like to think of introducing people to new facts as ‘Inoculating’ them with science, and forming arguments against false or ‘pathogenic’ ideas as inoculating people against those ideas, like a mental vaccine. Yes, I like to debunk or ‘fisk’ poor arguments and you’ll see quite a bit of that from me here. I am interested in biofuels, and as UW-Madison is a part of the Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, I sit in on seminars and a few meetings and I will get to see this project progress first-hand. I’m also intimately connected to the food that I eat, and I might post a few recipes or fun genetic facts about foods that you may or may not yet enjoy. Finally, my opinions on ethical topics will be tempered by a humanistic outlook, where my views are based on verifiable facts and human values, rather than prior philosophical commitments.

I hope you’ll stick around and be a part of the discussion.

But as scientist continue to shine light into the dark corners of the world in search of basic truths and their application to our lives, they are sometimes met with resistance. And as research accelerates and discoveries are made at a rapid pace, it can seem like an insurmountable deluge of information.

Change is an important part of this process. New ideas, approaches, and discoveries change the way we look at things. New technologies change the way we do things. And fear of change is often a major reason why the culture pushes back against science and its achievements. But there are many more factors involved, such as perceived benefits, whether these changes require altering deep-seated emotional or philosophical factors, and campaigns to support or oppose them. But one final important factor is knowledge – it is easy to fear something if you do not understand it.

There are many contentious areas of science today, some are more culturally contentious than scientific, but to put together a short list we have:

• Evolution
• Stem Cell Research
• Global Warming and Climate Change
• Nanotechnology
• Genetic Engineering

What do these topics have in common?

The first and most obvious is that they are complicated. Think about piecing together the evolution of billions of organisms from trillions of dead organisms with only millions of dollars in your budget – and at the same time trying to figure out how to break it down simply for those who aren’t very science-savvy to begin with? How about trying to explain how climate scientists tease apart the tiny details of slow changes in a very large, uncontrollable climate system? Or the ways that pieces of DNA are pieced together and spliced into a cell to produce a protein that alters a plant’s metabolism to produce more of a specific vitamin? It practically takes a Ph.D. just to begin to understand these topics!

Another common element is that they are new. (Well, evolution has been around for almost 150 years, but it is still new to many people and keeps getting re-newed as new discoveries are made, or teaching it gets challenged in public schools…) Stem Cell research holds promise but hasn’t produced any therapies yet, Nanotechnology is already here but most people don’t know how it affects their lives, and genetic engineering has only been around for a couple decades. Like a fall lineup on cable TV, how are we to know what’s good and what isn’t when we’ve only just started watching?

Third, many of these are tied up in politics. Save perhaps this presidential election, opposing evolution has been politically-expedient, and although there have been improvements in the last couple of years, political motivations underlie attempts to undermine the acceptance of climate change. Stem Cell research has been picked up in recent political discussions as a lightning-rod to motivate certain groups of voters, and genetic engineering also comes up, particularly in international politics.

Fourth, every single one of these affects how we view ourselves, at a deep philosophical level. The idea that human beings evolved from single-celled organisms and were not dumped here as-is says a lot about who we are as a species. Considerations about when a single-celled organism becomes a person matter both in how we define ourselves as persons but also whether we can take some of those cells to study or treat diseases that affect us. The idea that human beings are affecting the climate of their home planet in a negative way has profound implications for our future, and approaching our world from a microscopic scale makes you wonder how we can think to comprehend our common-sense view of the world when at scales of nanometers there can be so much going on? Finally, we have the technology to know how we have been changing the basic biology of life itself, and can more precisely direct changes in new directions, at a level never before realized. If we could even directly change our own genetics, what are we then?

Sometimes the staunchest opposition to the developments in these fields can be traced to unwillingness to consider, or re-consider some of these basic philosophical elements of our existence.

Fifth, they are all important. there’s no need to explain the significance of climate change, and perhaps not the potential medical benefits coming out of stem cell research. But the others may not be so obvious. Evolution matters a great deal in medicine – understanding how our species evolved to resist diseases, or became prone to other maladies, can directly benefit from discoveries about our own evolution. Knowing how viruses and bacterial pathogens evolve in response to our defenses and our medicines is of even greater importance. Nanotechnology may benefit manufacturing, medicine, building stronger materials, faster computers, and many more areas. Genetic engineering in agriculture can help alleviate hunger, malnutrition, reduce dependence on pesticides, and help agriculture become more sustainable. In other areas it may have untold more benefits.

Sixth, as with all new things, there are risks involved. If global warming science is faulty, there could be economic hardship for little to no reason, or if nanotechnology gets out of hand the surface of the world could be turned into grey goo. (Just kidding) In the case of genetic engineering, what unforeseen consequences could there be from changing the genetics of the plants that we grow, or even ourselves? The potential risks involved in these topics contribute to their controversial nature. But in many of these cases, many of the objections raised have been answered, and risks are comparable or even favorable to the status quo? Sometimes the risk of inaction can be worse than the risks of action.

With new internet communications technologies such as blogs, podcasts, and more, science has gained a new way to reach people. Many scientist bloggers have joined together to form group blogs that have become quite successful in fostering discussion:

The Panda’s Thumb is a world-class resource for discussing new research in evolutionary biology and responding to anti-evolutionary political movements. From creationist quote-mines to new fossils, for some science enthusiasts it is a daily read.

A group of climate scientists also banded together to form Real Climate, where climate myths are flayed and temperature graphs are made readable. Any and all questions about global warming research can be asked here.

Recently, a cadre of medical doctors joined together to respond to medical myths, ‘medicine’ that could practically be called mythological, and discuss other issues related to medicine. They may only talk a little about stem cell research, but Science Based Medicine is another great read.

Another site that is worthy of note isn’t so much a group blog as it is a collective of science blogs, where many of the above topics are discussed. Check out ScienceBlogs.com

But one topic is conspicuously missing from the larger discussion – Genetic Engineering. It gets discussed briefly here or there, but until today there has been no equivalent home for talking about this expanding area of research and development. Until today, that is.

Biofortified is a new group blog devoted to educating the public about genetic engineering, and discussing how it intersects many aspects of our lives. From politics to cultural issues, from genes that affect farmers to those that affect your lunch, there’s going to be a lot to talk about. On the science side, there’s a lot more than genetic engineering itself to discuss, and we’ve got a small but growing group of professors and graduate students who are eager to bring the bring the science behind what’s on your dinner table into your dinnertime conversation.

The name Biofortified comes from biofortification, which is when the bioavailable nutritional content of a food crop is enhanced. Literally, strengthened through biology. Like fortifying foods with vitamins, biofortification through breeding or genetic engineering can allow the plants to produce the nutrients that people need on their own. This can be good for people in industrialized nations, but a boon for developing countries. It is also a topic that several of our authors find personally very interesting!

One by one, our bloggers will introduce themselves to you and then we’ll get this blog going. Over time, we will add more scientists to our ranks, but to start with we have four bloggers. We’ll let them tell you more about themselves, but here they are by name:

• Karl Haro von Mogel
• Anastasia Bodnar
• Pamela Ronald, Ph.D.
• David Tribe, Ph.D.

We will also invite guest experts to write about topics that they are close to, and if you want to write something too, do let us know! We hope that you will stick around and fortify your brains with some food for thought on this increasingly important and expanding aspect of agriculture. Welcome to Biofortified!