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.”

11 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 CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Informative

      Of course, the GMO proponents will oppose this.

      Of course they will. Because if it costs money to develop GMOs, then there had better be a return on investment. Or noone will bother.

      And since GMOs, like any new drug, includes a lot of trial & error (mostly error), your successful new GMO (or drug) has to carry the costs of all your unsuccessful ones. So you have to be able to make a lot of money on any success, or noone will bother.

      Note that the cost of developing this failed GMO will have to be paid, down the line, by higher costs on other products produced by the same people.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:GMOs have so many different problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You are wrong on the law. Isolating or identifying genes is not patentable, at least after Myriad: http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Assn_for_Molecular_Pathology_v_Myriad_Genetics_Inc_No_12398_2013_

      Even if you isolate a gene and use that gene to splice into another creature/plant, it's obvious to a person of skill in the art once isolated that splicing this gene will lead to expression of certain effects. To that extent it is not patentable.

      Now, you might argue that the wheat failed in the above instance, so it involves experimentation. Yes the wheat failed, but not because of gene expression, but because of how the natural predators found out they were being gamed. Had nothing to do with producing the pheromones, which worked as anticipated. So, not patentable anyways.

      The only trouble is proponents of GMO's have too much money and will continue to peddle, oh only isolation is not patentable, we can work around that using patent language. Look at Alice from the supreme court, where they decry the use work around language to get around judgements.

      I am sorry, I have no love lost for GMO's and the companies that peddle them. They are evil as they get. They sue farmers. They even allege, if its 90% GMO crop, they own the entire bunch. You only have to look at monoculture issues like cavendish bananas to see that we could have human mass extinction, because of GMO crops and monoculture.

      If you get a 20 year patent on GMO's. Unlicensed folks cannot use these plants to create other plant varieties, i.e., selective breeding. So, you are encouraging monoculture. If there is a natural predator which takes a liking to a GMO, all of the crop across the world will be wiped out in a matter of years. So, we will at best lose that one crop. Imagine if that happens to corn or wheat? 90% of the products on our supermarket shelf will disappear.

      Patents on GMO's are horrible. Plant variety protection act thought of these difficulties and issues and balanced the rights of framers and the dangers of monoculture. But Monsanto had enough money to pull of the Bowman v. Monsanto win. None of these monoculture issues were highlighted in the case. Sad really.

      Just so we are clear. I don't have a problem with GMO's. I have a problem with patents on GMOs and monoculture because of patent rights for 20 years. Let me give you a hint. A GMO crop won't change all that much for 20 years, and is sold as standardized seed. But the natural pathogens evolve at a frightening pace for those 20 years. It's a problem waiting to happen. PVP on the other hand gives crops a fighting chance, when farmers breed them.

    4. Re:GMOs have so many different problems by pubwvj · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People have done research before without all the greed that is surrounding GMOs. I do research. I release my results open source. No need for the likes of Monsanto to control the world. They're too greedy. Denying them patents would help.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.
  2. Life finds a way by Cazakatari · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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)

    1. Re:Life finds a way by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Doesn't the cry wolf effect make the predators of the aphids that much more effective?

      No. The pheromone is normally emitted by the wheat when it is under attack by aphids, thus attracting predators. But the GMO wheat emits the pheromone all the time, so the predators show up, and ... no lunch. So this would make them less effective. The goal was not to make the predators more effective, but to scare away the aphids, which are normally not attracted to wheat that is already emitting the pheromone.

  3. Re:Bash transgenic foods all you want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are two points to this. In crops where insect damage is a big deal, the Bt trait has actually reduced total pesticide use. Where weeds are more prominent of a threat, pesticide use in the form of herbicides has increased. However, in the case of herbicide resistance traits (i.e. roundup-ready), the use of less-toxic pesticides (i.e. Roundup) has increased because that is what the crop has been designed to tolerate. Prior to the use of the RR trait, farmers primarily used various selective herbicides like atrazine which are a lot more toxic than Roundup. So this is actually a net benefit since Roundup can replace all of the toxic selective pesticides that were being used previously. Compare the LD50's of Roundup vs. the older pesticides to see proof.

    http://www.crediblehulk.org/index.php/2015/06/02/about-those-more-caustic-herbicides-that-glyphosate-helped-replace-by-credible-hulk/

  4. Look around by nospam007 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "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.