by Anastasia Bodnar on 16 April 2008 The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has created a site that responds to the recently released movie “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, called “Expelled Exposed”. I’m not sure what is on the site, as it is currently down (digg effect), but I am sure that they do a good job of exposing Expelled, judging by the material on their home site. The producer of Expelled has spent millions of dollars promoting Expelled, so science bloggers are responding with an attempt to get Expelled Exposed moved up in search results for the word Expelled.
As blogger TubiGuy says:
We need to get the NCSE’s counter-site to the hideous little propaganda film, Expelled, to rank higher in the search engines. The way to do this is for lots and lots of you to link to the Expelled Exposed site with the word Expelled. It’s not hard: just copy this code into a blog post.
<a href=”http://expelledexposed.com/”><i>Expelled</i></a>
I’m offended by the movie Expelled because of the dirty tricks the filmmakers used. Back in September 2007, I posted:
A filmmaker questioned scientists, including Richard Dawkins, for video interviews about their views on science intersecting with religion for a movie to be called “Crossroads.” The filmmaker instead put their interviews in a movie called “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” a pro-intelligent design film. The scientists are angry, with good reason. Being misquoted is one thing, but it’s completely another to have your statements misused in a propaganda film [NY Times].
by Anastasia Bodnar on 10 April 2008 The 10 April Nature presents the results of a survey that aimed to determine how many scientists are using cognition enhancing drugs. Caffeine is of course the most widely used stimulant, but it seems that quite a few people are using other substances to improve concentration.
For those who choose to use, methylphenidate was the most popular: 62% of users reported taking it. 44% reported taking modafinil, and 15% said they had taken beta blockers such as propanolol, revealing an overlap between drugs. 80 respondents specified other drugs that they were taking. The most common of these was adderall, an amphetamine similar to methylphenidate. But there were also reports of centrophenoxine, piractem, dexedrine and various alternative medicines such as ginkgo and omega-3 fatty acids.
The article, Poll results: Look Who’s Doping, reports that 1 in 5 respondents said they had used the drugs, and that all ages reported use. The whole thing started with an April Fool’s Joke by the Academic Editor in Chief of PLoS Biology! Evolutionary biologist Jonathan Eisen of UC Davis discloses all on his blog. Even thought it started with a joke, this brings up some very interesting ideas about human enhancement. Would it be so bad if people who need pinpoint concentration had the option of using a drug like Ritalin? Would they (we) be more productive, better scientists? I’m not sure. My recreational drug use currently consists of coffee and the occasional glass of wine. I don’t know if I’d try anything else. Even if I didn’t choose to use, I wouldn’t prevent others from using – the same way I feel about low-side-effect drugs like marijuana.
The editorial Defining ‘natural’, in the same issue of Nature, explores the idea that the definition of ‘natural’ should change over time, as technology makes more things possible.
Devices such as glasses, hearing aids, pacemakers and artificial hips are unnatural. Yet they are widely accepted as legitimate ways to enhance the human experience. By the same token, if drugs enhance performance on a standardized test, what is so ‘natural’ about prep courses designed to improve scores?
I heartily agree. We should always examine the ethical issues – but not let ethics overwhelm us. An aside of the Look Who’s Doping article, Worrying Words, lists the four major ethical problems associated with neuroenhancing drugs, confirmed by quotes from poll respondents:
Safety – “The mild side effects will add up to be profound in due course and may even require stronger therapy to control the addiction.” 26–35 years old from Nigeria
Erosion of character – “I wouldn’t use cognitive enhancing drugs because I think it would be dishonest to myself and all the people who look to me as a role model.” 25 or younger from Guyana
Distributive justice - “Morally puts a disadvantage to people without access.” 55–65 years old from the United States
Peer pressure – “As a professional, it is my duty to use my resources to the greatest benefit of humanity. If ‘enhancers’ can contribute to this humane service, it is my duty to do so.” 66 or older from the United States
These are all valid issues, but we can not ignore the possible positive ramifications of these drugs. All sorts of professionals might benefit from enhanced concentration. Breakthroughs in science may take less time. This idea of ethical problems vs benefits is so similar to the arguments for and against genetic engineering. I hope we can all come to a satisfactory compromise on these and other issues facing science.
Note: A lot of scientist bloggers include some posts about academia, graduate student life, etc. I plan to start posting more on these topics.
by Anastasia Bodnar on 6 April 2008 Author Robert Paarlberg reported that the Gates Foundation would be contributing to the development of drought tolerant maize varieties for Africa. Details can be found in a press release from AATF (African Agricultural Technology Foundation), via ISAAA‘s March 28 Crop Biotech Update. I’ve posted the release below the cut for your convenience.
One of the most exciting parts of the WEMA (Water Efficient Maize for Africa) project is that it pulls in such a diverse group – including research entities from the participating countries, the well known non-profit CIMMYT, and the corporations Monsanto and BASF.
In this project, the corporations will not charge any royalties to small scale farmers. I’m assuming they plan to make their profits from large farmers in the developed world that are now or will soon be experiencing destructive droughts, such as Australia. Clearing up licensing issues before a project begins seems to be the best course, especially if we consider the fate of Golden Rice. This ensures that the people who most need the technology will be able to afford it, and that protracted legal battles will be avoided.
It’s easy to hate Monsanto at times (especially if you are anti-establishment), but it seems that the company is trying to be a better global citizen, if not for any other reason than to increase their potential customer pool. Who, besides Monsanto and a handful of other biotech companies, has the resources to conduct the research and produce desperately needed varieties like WEMA? Non-profits and government programs will never be able to do it alone.
Monsanto has information about the WEMA project on their website, including this telling photo with the caption: “Field trial of corn with the drought tolerant gene (on right) and control hybrid (on left). Note the greater size and healthier structure of the drought tolerant corn.”
Continue reading…
by Anastasia Bodnar on 30 March 2008  University of Calgary archaeologists found corn starch residues in ancient pottery shards. “Their discovery shows the spread of maize out of Mexico more than 9,000 years ago occurred much faster than previously believed and provides evidence that corn was likely a vital food crop for villages in tropical Ecuador at least 5,000 years ago (U of C website, EurekAlert).” As described in the paper “Directly dated starch residues document early formative maize (Zea mays L.) in tropical Ecuador”, residues of maize with both soft and hard endosperm were found on cooking pots and grinding tools, indicating that both types were grown by the people there.
Importantly, although we do not deny that maize played a significant role in Andean ceremonial life, our results show that it was indeed consumed as food as part of a diverse subsistence system. Our results indicate that a greater percentage of hard endosperm versus soft endosperm maize was cooked in the pots analyzed from Loma Alta. The higher percentage of soft endosperm maize present on the grinding stones may indicate extensive milling of soft endosperm maize to produce flour, resulting in a higher recovery rate from those artifacts. Other starches identified in the ceramic residues show that maize was one of a complex of crops exploited [including manioc, arrowroot, chili peppers, and jackbeans].
In other words, the evidence shows that early Ecuadoreans started using the traditional ingredients of Central American cooking from a very early date. The authors of this paper remind us that “There are dietary reasons why maize, beans, and chili peppers would be cooked together. Whereas maize is deficient in the essential amino acids lysine and tryptophan, and in niacin, legumes contain these essential dietary components and the consumption of maize and beans together complement each other and are nutritionally complete; chili peppers are high in vitamin C, which increases the absorption of iron.” The evidence also shows that the Ecuadoreans had been farming crops such as squash and beans well before the arrival of maize. To me, this shows that these people were willing to adopt new farming strategies, even if they had not seen them before.
The residues also show that the people were cooking in very sophisticated ways, such as “the addition of lime (calcium hydroxide) Ca(OH)2, lye (sodium hydroxide) NaOH, or wood ash (potassium hydroxide) KOH” to “increase the temperature at which starches gelatinize, as does the addition of salts and/or sugars to the water.” This is known as alkali or alkaline cooking, and is a good way to improve the amount of bioavaliable iron in maize tortillas. Lactic acid works too, as described by Amy Proulx in her interesting paper “Fermentation and Lactic Acid Addition Enhance Iron Bioavailability of Maize”.
It so amazing that these people knew what were the best ways to obtain nutrients from their available plant foods over 5000 years ago! We might all be better off if we took their advice.
by Anastasia Bodnar on 30 March 2008 Reason magazine has always had rational articles on technology, including genetic engineering. Their commenters are also surprisingly lucid, understanding that technology can be used to help people live better lives while also protecting the world around us. A recent article titled “Demon Seed: How fear of life-saving technology swept through Africa” discusses an new book, “Starved for Science: How Biotechnology Is Being Kept Out of Africa” with author Robert Paarlberg.
He doesn’t say it overtly, but in his words I hear that we need a compromise. People in the US and Europe want a greater personal connection to their food, as evidenced by the organic and local food movements. This is certainly not a bad thing, but we can not reject all technology. Rejection of all technology would mean a return to a type of civilization that few Americans or Europeans would like – one where most people must spend the majority of their time producing their own food.
Genetic engineering is a solution for a lot of problems in agriculture. Of course it isn’t the solution, but there is no legitimate reason to reject it. Even if we in affluent societies can justify the rejection of technology in agriculture, we have no right to force our opinions on people in societies that we can barely understand.
In the article, Paarlberg says that corporations have no monetary incentive to develop seed for subsistence farmers, so we need to use public and philanthropic money to develop new genetically engineered crops. He ends on a positive note:
Just last week in Nairobi the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and African Agricultural Technology Foundation announced that they would be going forward with the drought-tolerant maize project that I describe in chapter 5 of my book. I’m very pleased that the Gates Foundation has seen the opportunity that this new technology provides. It would be too bad if drought tolerant corn were being grown in Iowa in 2010 and not available to the farmer who really needed it in Africa.
|
About Biofortified Biofortified's volunteer authors are devoted to providing factual information and fostering discussion about agriculture, especially plant genetics and genetic engineering. The site is written by grad students, professors, and guest experts. Meet our authors on the Authors page.
|
Recent Comments