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.”

Comments

GMOs have so many different problems

[pubwvj]

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.

Re:GMOs have so many different problems

[Anonymous Coward]

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").

Re:GMOs have so many different problems

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Life finds a way

[Cazakatari]

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)