Slashdot Mirror
Controversial Trial of Genetically Modified Wheat Ends In Disappointment
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.”
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.
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.
But don't complain when you buy whole foods that cost twice as much.
Transgenics are cheaper to produce, because crops grow faster, require fewer pesticides, yield better/bigger products, etc.
There's yet to me any serious study that proves that trangenic foods kill, cause cancer, kills babies, etc, because the technology is so new and groundbreaking.
I would have expected better from Slashdot than to say the experiment had failed. It might not have produced the result the experimenters had hoped for, but it has produced a result (the GM crop does not significantly deter aphids) and has therefore been a successful experiment. In addition, it appears to have given them other ideas (try to make a crop that only sporadically gives off the pheromone) which will progress this area of science.
It's QUADROTRITICALE!!!
I would agree with the "cry wolf" assessment. Having worked in pest control in my experience pheromones don't work well and/or very long; about the only good use I've found is for monitoring. I once talked to a Chemistry professor working with an Entomologist to synthesize fire ant trail pheromones (how they make paths to food) to see if it could be used to confuse workers. He told me it worked for all of a few minutes before they "figured it out" and started trailing through it like nothing happened. Smell is the primary sense for most insects and can be extremely acute (some moths can sense a few MOLECULES per square foot), so I think it will be relatively difficult to find a way to trick them in that way.
I'm glad they're trying new things, we're ganna need it along with intelligent usage so we don't end up needlessly wasting away their effective life-spans like we've done with previous pesticides and anti-biotics. Shelf what doesn't work but continue encouraging innovation (which I think the current gene patent situation is probably stifling)
"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.”
It's the Netherlands goddamit, use the appropriate 'the dike leaks' metaphor instead of the wolf.
Let's distinguish between genetic manipulation, which includes artificial selection (only plant seeds from plants that have the properties you like), hybridization, etc. and "transgenic organisms" where you put genetic material from one species into another dissimilar one.
We've been doing genetic manipulation since wolves turned into dogs. And Luther Burbank did lots and lots of hybridization and such. Virtually every apple you eat or consume has been manipulated in some way, as have tomatoes, etc.
We've even done it with chemical assistance (using things like colchicine to cause mutations and polyploidy)..
Some work (hybrid corn), some don't (the rabbage)
So when is someone going to cross a Venus Flytrap with Kudzu and reduce
flies and mosquitos in the South?
The story does not indict GMO technology in any way. It just states that a given modification didn't work as intended.
To see what I mean, imagine this headline:
"Use of Hybridization to Cross Labrador and Poodle Results in Dog With Incredibly Ridiculous Name"
Monsanto would have spent the money and had it blocked from market because it does not use any pesticides. (remember their successful round up ready approach lets them charge for GM seeds AND for the pesticides for the genetic disease they unleashed. Oh yes, it's a genetic disease, they didn't make the plant sterile for the same reason they someday will likely create pathogens where only they have the cure. )
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
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.
What?!?! Information can be stolen? Somebody lost their own copy? Oh, no... How can it happen, that the same site, that diligently insists on correcting any attempts to accuse pirates of music and movies of "theft", have moderated a post containing the same misapplication of the Eighth Commandment so highly?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
'If you don't like patented plants, no one is forcing you to use them. Problem solved. "
Really? How do you manage that when
a) nothing is allowed to be labelled with GMO free or not on it
b) any farmer may be sued into using GMOs in the USA because their neighbor did
c) agribusiness buy up all the seed suppliers and close down all non-GMO product lines
d) they put all GMO and non-GMO products of the same use in the same bin, mixing them up hopelessly
Look at how butthurt the USA is with the EU refusing their products because they can't separate out their GMO stuff from the non-GMO.
If they contain frog DNA for example? Is it vegan? I don't think this question has ever been addressed.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
A big part of the 2 million was spent on securing the fields so idiots wouldn't burn them down.
That cost is right on the eco nuts.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
You're not making any sense. The 'they' you are complaining about being paid are the employees, the suppliers, the landlord, the utility company, etc. 'They' are not taking any risk at all, nor should they be expected to.
However, SOMEONE is paying out all that money. THEY are the ones taking a risk. If they never succeed they don't get paid, they are out their entire investment. However, if they DO eventually succeed, then it is perfectly reasonable to use the profits from that success to cover the costs of past and future failures. The reason they can have those profits is that they don't have to compete on price with all the people who just sit on their asses doing nothing until someone else comes along and invents something that works, and thus have NONE of the expenses associated with development, including the cost of failure.
You are entirely wrong about there being no risk - there is huge risk. However, your 'no patent protection' idea means that there is ONLY risk, and no possible reward. That is not exactly how to 'advance the sciences and useful arts'.
I grow heirloom tomatoes on my balcony. when I buy a house, I plan to grow a lot more and try to cross different heirloom to get more amazing flavors.
if you see me, smile and say hello.
The twist is, if they waited just a little longer, all those aphids conditioned to ignore the warning pheromone die off. They no longer protect themselves from the actual dangers! oh yeah. spoiler alert!
Or you're willfully blind. What,exactly "doesn't make sense"?
The price of drugs or GMOs are inflated to cover the lost costs of failed projects. There is NO RISK WHATSOEVER. If they have a success rate of 90% or 10%, there is no change in how much risk they take: NOT ONE of the failed projects will cost them a penny.
The cost of failures are laid upon their customers.
"THEY are the ones taking a risk."
NO THEY ARE NOT.
Unless they NEVER succeed in producing a product AND have NO OTHER LINES to underwrite the loss, THEY RISK NOTHING.
Well that's just not true. People might not be willing to buy the product at the price they need to sell it at to cover for their failures. In that case, they lose.
Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.