Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Controversial Trial of Genetically Modified Wheat Ends In Disappointment

Posted by samzenpus on from the no-wheat-for-you dept.

sciencehabit writes: A controversial GM wheat trial has failed after more than £2 million of public money was spent protecting it from GM opponents. Researchers had hoped that the wheat modified to produce a warning pheromone would keep aphids away and attract their natural enemies, reducing the need for insecticides. Despite showing promise in the laboratory, the field trial failed to show any effect. “If you make a transgenic plant that produces that alarm continuously, it’s not going to work,” ecologist Marcel Dicke of Wageningen University in the Netherlands says. “You have a plant crying wolf all the time, and the bugs won’t listen to it any longer.”

9 of 188 comments (clear)

  1. GMOs have so many different problems by pubwvj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Proponents of GMOs tend to focus on the opposition to GMOs based on perceived health risks but there are many other reasons that GMOs are problematic. A huge issue is that patents are being granted on life, on genes. The patent applicants did not invent these genes. Rather they stole them and now want to patent them so they can control the use and make money. All GMO work should be open source and open license. This doesn't solve the many other problems but it chips away at the problems. Of course, the GMO proponents will oppose this.

    1. Re:GMOs have so many different problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm somewhat a proponent of GMOs, being a Molecular Biologist I suppose helps, but I don't oppose what you say.

      You are right that granting patents to genes is stupid - the researchers didn't invent the genes at all as they exist in nature, much like gravity exists and cannot be patented.

      Rather, the novel application of a gene should be allowed to be patented, not the gene itself (and by extension all applications regardless of any innovation). Simply making everything open source and license won't solve anything, it only creates problems with RnD recovery. The real issue is that the basic discovery of a gene can be patented even if no novel use is applied, which is actually quite trivial these days (i've just done this myself, and it wasn't that hard to "discover").

    2. Re:GMOs have so many different problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This article, and others, make me think what is long term benefit from genetic manipulation of plants, because often it seems to be arms race with nature where GMO tends to lose.

    3. Re:GMOs have so many different problems by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep. People oppose the various big company made ones, claiming they don't like big companies. But then they'll also oppose things like the Arctic Apple (developed by a small company), the Rainbow papaya (developed by the University of Hawai'i), Golden Rice (developed by non-profit International Rice Research Institute), and Honeysweet plum (developed by the USDA), among plenty of other examples. Many will oppose university, NGO, and government developed GE crops, then say it's just about Monsanto...not buying that. Even this wheat in question was publicly funded and developed by Rothamsted Research,and what happened? This group called Take the Flour Back wanted to destroy it, which is better than what happened to CSIRO's publicly funded GE wheat research in Australia, where some book burners from Greenpeace successfully did destroy the research. All that aside, there are plenty of patented non-GE plants which vary rarely encounter controversy. The only consistent thing that gets controversy it genetic engineering, not public or private, patented or not. This controversy is not about patents, or quite bluntly any of the other common excuses for opposition to genetic engineering for that matter.

    4. Re:GMOs have so many different problems by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you don't like patented plants, no one is forcing you to use them. Problem solved.

      You have some research to do in biology. GMO genes do have a bit of a tendency to spread out. Nature and all.Eventually it will be a bit difficult to avoid the altered genes.

      http://www.gmocompass.org/eng/...

      Then comes the question of who owns the now altered plant.

      I'm pro GMO by the way, just wanted to make a little correction.

      The Monsanto donnybrook muddies the waters of GMO, because their particular version is not per se to increase yields, but to have plants that resist Roundup get big doses of Roundup to kill other plants. That's arguably an irresponsible use of GMO. Certainly it makes Roundup a short lived herbicide, as plants develop resistance to it. And they will.

      But plants with increased nutrition, resistance to diseases, with more energy put into seed or fruit production than stalks or other inedible parts simply makes sense.

      We also have to encourage "heirloom" crop growing in order to have as much genetic stock as possible. Everyone can win at this game. As long as they aren't asshats about it.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    5. Re:GMOs have so many different problems by Stuarticus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some of the greatest research ever done was done in Universities with grant money with no thought of any commercial applications. The problem with current research is the assumption that it must produce a monetary reward. Obviously commercialisation and testing is a different issue, that is where capital becomes relevant. Knowledge should be it's own reward.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
    6. Re:GMOs have so many different problems by Zalbik · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Some of the greatest research ever done was done in Universities with grant money with no thought of any commercial applications.

      Yes, but most of it wasn't.

      Obviously commercialisation and testing is a different issue, that is where capital becomes relevant.

      Commercialization and testing are almost entirely irrelevant compared to the capital required to research and develop new technologies...particularly in biology/medicine.

      As with most things, this shouldn't be a black or white "patents are good" or "patents are evil". The question is how long should patent protection last and when should patent protection start. Some people think forever, others think zero years. The answer is most likely somewhere between those two :-).

      I will agree that with the rate of technological change today, the current 20 year protection is ridiculous. Technologies are typically woefully outdated by the time patents expire. IMHO patents should last significantly less time than currently (say 5 years or so), and should require that the product be commercially produced within some reasonable amount of time after applying for the patent.

      Knowledge should be it's own reward.

      Unfortunately, you can't eat, drink, live in or wear knowledge. At some point monetary compensation is required. The question is how much and how is this compensation provided.

  2. Unsuccessful experiments still have value by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is easy to explain why an experiment failed after the event, but that does not mean the result was obvious. This is a case in point. Had the experiment succeeded, cheaper, safer food with reduced environmental impact would have been possible. Sadly, it failed. Now, we need to look at other approaches.

  3. Huge differences, though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That form of transfer only occurs in a very small population and expands only very slowly, and in a situation where the rest of the ecosystem can adapt to the changed scenario.

    Moreover, since it happens slowly, the bad effects can be seen before a massive problem is inevitable from the size of the mutated population.

    However, in agribusiness, a billion acres of the same modified organism will be produced. So before any assessment of a problem can be found, the problem will already be massive in scale. Moreover, since it will be bred with active culling of other species and their coadaption limited, any coadaptive action that causes a problem will become a huge problem before it's able to be measured and explained.

    Since the business makes massive profits nearly immediately and, long before any long term issue can arise (see Thalidomide), the ones who benefited from introducing the new product will be unreachable and the company held "blameless" because nobody there now is responsible for actions taken by others.

    Lastly, the money involved will ensure that any problem will be swept under the carpet of "unreasonable doubt" and the problem peddled as "alarmist eco claptrap" because the profit is reaped now by the people able to do something about it, whereas the storm will be reaped by everyone and avoidable by those who have enough money (e.g. via profiting from the problematic product) to isolate themselves.

    Such crossbreeding and transgenic transfer occur so infrequently and progress so slowly, nobody makes a quick killing off it before the problems can be seen.