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."
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."
In true slashdot fashion, I comment before reading the article.
If the carbon gets fixed into the soil, how does that change the soil chemistry? It is something that can be done for a couple of years, and then the soil is saturated and can't support life any more? Does it deep down with the water and poison the ground water? I hope that it would be something that could be useful, and not an egypt-sized carbon landfill.
Looks like this is long term:
All plants produce suberin, a waxy, water-repellent, carbon-rich compound, also known as cork, that protects roots and resists decay. Coastal grasses make a lot of it to keep water out of their roots. It is one of the most stable substances around, persisting in soil for hundreds, possibly thousands of years. One of Chory’s goals is to develop perennial plants that make more suberin than existing varieties.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Yes, I know the original poster was being foolish, but it is a little more complex than this also.
When plants die, some of their carbon can compost to soil, some of their carbon is released as methane, etc and some of it as CO2 if they get burnt.
So, the benefits are much more complex.
One interesting factor that is rarely talked about is the grasses actually absorb and compost large amounts of CO2, by some estimates more than common trees.
People get all 'green' about trees, and you ignore grass, most likely because trees are 'big' and 'nice' and grass is just too common?
Then they tend to want more treesplanted, however they also often plant nice pretty SLOW GROWING trees... which contribute very very little.
Could this 'super plant' contribute more? sure, DEPENDING ON HOW IT WAS USED. It is common to burn the straw left over from processing chickpeas..
That would reduce its contribution to very little.
The larger question is not about how it is created, how will suitable care be taken about evaluation if its actual environmental impact.
The idea that activists are stopping you creating this magical solution to climate change because they're focused on use of CRISPR reeks of bullshit.
indeed. It isn't clear from TFA if the scientist is an idiot, the journalist is an idiot, or perhaps both. The Salk Institute is in La Jolla, California. La Jolla is the world's biggest center for biotech research. It is about the last place on earth where "GMO activists" are going to hinder research. TFA gave zero examples of any actual interference. GMO activists are toothless in America. They can't even pass ballot initiatives for labelling laws. It's over. Science won, scare-mongering lost.
I think the real reason her research hasn't yet saved the world is that capturing CO2 by "growing plants" isn't particularly innovative.
I guess it is just due to ignorance about science that most people don't understand that GM, CRISPR, etc. just mimic the same processes that nature does trillions of times a day. Lots of mutations and viruses take genes from one species and insert them into others. Nature does this in a random manner, not targeted like scientists but the method is the same.
I think some people fear some mad scientist creating a super-organism which will take over. That's hard to do. Nature does routinely create more hardy organisms through the same mechanism and humans have created a few hardy organisms.
The most dangerous are superbugs created in industrial animal farms by bathing animals in antibiotics. No GM required. Nature just does its thing.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
The idea that activists are stopping you creating this magical solution to climate change because they're focused on use of CRISPR reeks of bullshit.
What sort of idiot wouldn't want CRISPR lettuce?
No sig today...
No, the activists haven't lost: Their fear campaign has already caused a lot of damage, and continues to do so. It's hard to sell produce that doesn't bruise (which reduces huge amounts of waste, including waste of what is needed to grow the plant, such as water) because anti-GMO activists have convinced the masses that it causes cancer or that it will make your dick fly off. This even applies to GMO tech that aims to eliminate the chance of acrylamide (a strong carcinogen) from showing up in cooked plant matter (including coffee.) Somebody has already created a potato with this gene, but they're not going to sell it because the mere fact that it is advertised as such also advertises that it is GMO, and for that reason alone, many will not buy it, hence it is not marketable. Furthermore, entire countries have banned it entirely based on anti-GMO bullshit, in fact it's even banned in most of Europe, which activists use as yet another talking point to try to validate their bullshit. Some cities in California forbid it as well, but California already proved that it was anti-science last week, so that isn't any surprise.
https://gmo.geneticliteracypro...
The best thing you, or anybody else can do, is to actively debunk these shitheads (start by pointing out that every bit of research papers against GMO is either false, outright scientific fraud (this is the most common ), or misleading. Also, Greenpeace does by far the most damage. They spend HUGE amounts of money on an ongoing FUD campaign, and believe me, their war chest is quite big. I'd lobby your Congress critters to revoke their tax exempt status, especially given their more about politics than anything else, and they certainly don't give a shit about science (this is the same reason many other countries have revoked their tax exempt status. People have proven them wrong so many times on this, and every time this happens, they just shift their argument. GMO is a huge opportunity to preserve the environment, and when this is shown to them, they still want it banned. Doesn't sound much like an environmentalist organization to me, rather it sounds more like Scientology, who also claim to be environmentalists.
Interestingly, my wife has the exact same reactions; can't eat American wheat but can scarf down German butter pretzels all day long. No idea why, but a physician friend of ours thinks it might have something to do with the number of proteins in modern wheat. 50 years ago, there were less than ten but now, in our effort to feed the world, there's more than 40. (I'm in the middle of a term paper, so you smug "citation needed" types can sod off.)
Then next day, she ates bread. Boom. Major cramps that night.
Except that there is no "GMO wheat" sold anywhere in the world.
I hear more and more people like that.
You should learn how to use a search engine and work on your critical thinking skills. Before you claim that "X causes Y", you should make sure that X exists.
Your objections apply equally to normal selective breeding, or even to any change to anything. The future can't be predicted with perfect accuracy, but that is not a good argument for doing nothing.
We have no evidence that GMO is harmful, and no plausible mechanism why it should be.
You may have missed the part of the "extremely unlikely changes" propagating geometrically. Any sort of breeding creates changes that are statistically not that far from natural selection processes in terms of probability. Typical GMO changes are statistically incredibly unlikely to happen during the dominant statistical processes we call "natural" and for which has the process of evolution adjusted. That makes the process more unpredictable, and justified in doing only in extreme situations.
Kind of like giving highly experimental drugs to very sick patients without prospect of recovery otherwise is justified, while giving Ritalin to overactive kids -- or, for a darker shade of dark, giving thalidomide to mothers experiencing typical labor pains -- isn't.
The status of ArmoredDragon financial or other potential gains from GMOs is also very important to judge the value of the information in his post, I think you will agree.
Uh, the first sentence of that article is "As of 2015, no GM wheat is grown commercially, although many field tests have been conducted."
Are you suggesting he was eating test bread he got from the researchers?