Slashdot Mirror


Anti-GMO Activists Slow Scientists Breeding a CO2-Reducing Superplant (thebulletin.org)

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists calls it "a plant that could save civilization, if we let it." Slashdot reader meckdevil writes: A "super chickpea plant" now in development could remove huge amounts of excess atmospheric carbon dioxide and fix it in the soil, greatly diminishing the impacts of climate change (not to mention producing large amounts of tasty hummus). But fear of anti-GMO activists has so far deterred her from using the CRISPR gene-editing tool to speed work on the plant.
The effort is led by Joanne Chory, director of the Plant Molecular and Cellular Biology laboratory at the Salk Institute for Biological Sciences -- who according to the article will make much slower progress without CRISPR. "Even with advanced breeding techniques, Chory estimates that developing a super plant in this fashion would take around 10 years..."

"She estimates that if 5 percent of the world's cropland, approximately the total area of Egypt, were devoted to such super plants, they could capture about 50 percent of current global carbon dioxide emissions."

4 of 211 comments (clear)

  1. The squeaky wheel by pablo_max · · Score: 1, Troll

    It sure seems like with everything that matters, the squeaky wheel gets the oil.
    Why does anyone who makes decisions actually care what the fringe fuck-balls are screaming? In reality, the people who are screaming about things like this, or transgender people needed bathrooms, or chem trails, or peoples right to make up their own sexes aside from the scientific fact that only two exist are a tiny fraction of the voting public.

    It's like these fat people making a stink that clothing companies are fat shaming" then because fat people clothes cost more. Hello... if you need double the material in your genes that I do in mine, why TF should I pay the same price? To subsidize you being fat?
    This shit gets in the news because the 30 people who give care through a bloody tantrum and of course, the media circus sees blood in the water and easy click bate... so it makes the cycle.
    I'd wager to bet that 90% of the people would have a hard time giving one single fuck less about it.

  2. Science vs Science by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why do the same people who believe science can do no wrong when it comes to modifying genes also believe that 98% of scientists are wrong when it comes to climate change?

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:Science vs Science by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 0, Troll

      Because people get the 97% claim wrong when it comes to climate. It's a fallacious statement on the face of it; by no means do 97 (not 98, but what's a little inflation, eh?) percent of climate scientists agree that we have man-made global warming. It was a bad study, cooked for a desired result, and it got fools to believe it and quote it out...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  3. Re:Objections to GMOs by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 1, Troll

    It's clear you didn't read your own link -- it repeats exactly what I said:

    Monsanto has stated it will not "exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seed or traits are present in farmer's fields as a result of inadvertent means."[15] The Federal Circuit found that this assurance is binding on Monsanto, so that farmers who do not harvest more than a trace amount of Monsanto's patented crops "lack an essential element of standing" to challenge Monsanto's patents.[16]

    The usual claim involves patent infringement due to intentionally replanting patented seed.