ScienceBlogs is supposed to be a place for creative, and sometimes controversial, opinions. My favorite ones are Respectful Insolence and Tomorrow's Table, and all the time, you read things there that plenty of people would get all in a huff about. Does anyone think the Pepsi blog would do that? Do you think they would ever once mention the insanity of the anti-vax movement, or the senselessness of the 9/11 truthers, or call alternative medicine purveyors out on their incoherent conspiracies? Think they'd ever mention politics or evolution or anything else that might upset a customer? No, because this blog was not written by an individual, it was by a company, for a company. And besides, plenty of cluelessconspiracymindednutters would point to this as the link between a scienceblogger, and therefore believe them to be discredited, since no small amount of people already believe scientists to be in on the Big Pharma/Monsanto/Illuminati/New World Order genocide conspiracy, so this would kinda make ScienceBlogs as a whole look a little less independent and reputable if they're willing to put corporate interests there for money.
As for the Brazil nut soybean, it should go without saying that you can use genetic engineering to make things like that. A known allergen in something else, it's not too surprising that it turned out that way. You might as well point out that you can put anthrax in an apple if you wanted. You can put arsenic in a cake, doesn't make baking bad. A better way to put that would be no commercially approved GMOs have been shown to be spontaneously harmful. The only example I know of where GMOs were potentially harmful was detected and discontinued long before it was put into use. I've seen the 'smoking gun' studies, they come and go every now and again, but no one has ever been able to find a reason for the alleged harm, no causative agent, no chemical pathways producing that agent, no genetic reasoning for it.
And yeah, the principles of genetic engineering are a lot like breeding. I didn't say it's the same thing, nor should they always be treated the same, but in both cases, you're still changing the genes. One is just a lot more precise with a wider range of options, and it doesn't really matter that it is less natural, what matters is the end result. Does it matter if you insert a gene from a fish or breed it for a million years for the plant to produce it itself?
And Monsanto, they're not your friends, that's fair to say, but saying that because they're bad GMOs are bad is like saying that because the RIAA are pricks you shouldn't listen to music. What the Monsanto does says nothing of the worth of the product, and it certainty says nothing about unrelated people, just like what the RIAA does says nothing of the actual pieces of music, and absolutely nothing about, say, indie bands.
Do we need GMOs? Do we really need agricultural improvements? We could get by without a lot of things, but that's no reason not to use them, and no small amount of people in relevant fields seem to think biotech will be pretty significant.
Not at all, and you admit it yourself. The reason we don't see tomato varieties like Cherokee Purple or German Striped in supermarkets is because they don't all look or taste the same. Large scale growers want their products to have a uniform look and taste.
And the reason growers want them is because consumers want them. I don't see how that issue relates to genetic engineering, that's something altogether different. Getting people to think of new or diverse crops as a true part of their diet, just like the foods they're accustomed to, it a task in and of itself. I follow exotic pomology too, and it took decades for mangos and kiwis to get to where they are now, and still, people don't see them on the same level as apples and bananas. I think genetic engineering could be an enabler to get more things to consumers, but getting them to step out of their cullinary comfort zone and actually accept a bumpy green, orange, yellow, and red tomato or whatever as more than a novelty is a challenge in and of itself.
Finally, there is no need for GE crops. All they do is enrich the pockets of big agribusinesses.
Tell that to the farmers who's crops were wiped out by papaya ringspot virus before GMO papayas arrived on the scene. Heck, there are even organic farmers who use the herd immunity provided by the GMO ones to keep their crop safe. If plumpox rears its ugly head, you might see the benefits of the GMO Honeysweet plum real fast. And to think that genetic engineering is nothing but some sort of corporate science, that's absolutely false. Monsanto doesn't own genetic engineering any more than Merck or Pfizer own the idea of administering a measured dose of active ingredient (pharmacology). And by 2015, it is estimated that half of GMOs will be non-corporate. To say there's no need for them, I don't get that either. That's like saying there is no need for plant breeding. Genetic engineering isn't a way of life, it's just a tool for changing plants, whether for drought resistance, pest resistance, nitrogen use efficiency, herbicide resistance, increased nutrients, or whatever. We know it works, no one has ever produced a shred of credible evidence to suggest they're dangerous (and considering horizontal gene transfer between unrelated species happens all the time, it be pretty surprising if they were), so I don't see any legitimate reason not to have GE crops.
Not really. Same mindset as all conspiracy theorists.
Well, I can't argue with that. Yeah, I am a bit disappointed too that the people here are falling for classic anti-GMO half-truths and whole lies, I was hoping to see a bit more critical thinking on the issue. I'm a horticulture major, and genetic engineering is kinda my area of interest (that and exotic pomology), and I am just baffled at the ignorance displayed about this topic. I have been at rounds with people about this, and the reaction I get is 'Who's paying you?' And it's a very successful strain of crankery; most people don't even know they're buying into absolute rubbish. They really should have a basic knowledge about food and agricultural science, and the funny thing is, the people with just a bit of knowledge are often the most ignorant. Like the people who think they're saving the world by using inefficient farming practices. Can you imagine it if someone tried pulling that with cars? 'Yeah, my car gets really low millage, and it spits black smoke everywhere, and it leaks fuel as it goes, but I'm doing it for the environment.'
It's just crazy that this is such an issue. I just don't get how we, as a society, ended up here with this pervasive horticultural quackery. GMOs are safe and they are effective, there is hardly a shred of credible evidence that says otherwise, and I don't get how people can possibly think that bullshit conspiracies are a valid rebuttal to mountains of good science. I'm not saying there aren't any issues to work out, with anything there are always new issues to work out, but it is still a legitimate tool for plant improvement. Genetic engineering shouldn't be the controversy it is, it should be something taught in middle school biology.
It's frustrating when one of your professors tells you that there's not much of a future in your area of interest (genetic engineering of fruits in my case) because, while the science is there, it can be done, no one really wants you to do it. Perhaps he was a bit overly pessimistic, and pomology funding is suffering to begin with, but still, but they say the only commercially grown GMO fruit, the Rainbow papaya, would have a much harder time if someone wanted to make it today, so thanks a lot you science hating assholes.
In the world of GMO denialism, accusations of being paid off by Monsanto are considered perfectly valid arguments. That's why you can't trust anyone who knows what they're talking about, because every single relevant expert is 'one of them' and is being paid huge swarths of money by Monsanto (who inexplicably owns an entire field of science used by horticulturists, microbiologists, zoologists, ect. all over the world). I shit you not, in my experience I've found that this is what no small number of them actually believe. If you know what you're talking about, you can't be trusted. I don't know if anti-GMO sentiment is anti-science masquerading as anti-corporatism or if it's the other way around. Funny thing is, they even oppose non-corporate GMOs, like Rainbow papaya, BioCassava, Golden Rice, or HoneySweet plum. In other words, their 'I'm not against science I'm against Monsanto' claim holds no water, but they really are against making a profit on R&D. They're hard to figure out.
People are bitching that that is different, cross breeding and GMOs, but the problem is, while it is true that they are different, many people are against GMOs because they perceive them as unnatural, so it is a valid point. It kinda works like this:
GMO denialist: GMOs are bad because they're unnatural!
GMO proponent: We've been modifying plant DNA for years via breeding.
GMO denailist: Tooootaly different! I'm not against it because they're unnatural, I'm against it because {insert unscientific argument or issue unrelated to science here]
Basically, every time an anti-GMO claim gets rebutted, it comes back in a different form, but the conclusion is always the same. Don't give me this bullshit that you're just against Monsanto when you also oppose things like Rainbow papaya, BioCassava, Golden Rice, or HoneySweet plum. Don't give me this nonsense about concerns about human health when there is not a single shred of credible evidence indicating any health problems whatsoever. And don't give me this crap about environmental concern when GMOs have been shown to be beneficial for the environment (although concerns for cross pollination of wild species is a valid concern). If people were pointing out specific issues with specific GMOs, that would be fine. If they said that a specific crop does not perform as expected, or that certain factors may cause some sort of issue (like the Round-Up resistant weeds produced by over-reliance on a single herbicide*), or that a specific GMO produces a specific compound by a specific means that raises health concerns that would be fine. But they're not. They're against ALL GMOs for every conceivable reason. Sure, some people might have a more nuanced view, but the vast majority of the anti-GMO are just denialists, plain and simple, no better than vaccine denialists or 9/11 truthers or the moon landing guys. When you strip away the other arguments, what you are almost without fail left with is that GMOs do not fit into their naturalistic magical thinking, no matter how hard they try to claim they're reasonable, that is, by and large, the heart of the anti-GMO movement. Of course, some people are just misled by said magical thinkers, just like there are concerned parents who were misled by opportunistic douches like Andrew Wakefield, and these are the people that need to be reached. I am increasingly starting to think that the hard core active denialists may be too deep into the woo to reach.
*Note, over reliance, not over use. There's a difference.
Actually, we can't really do things like taste too well right now. It's a bit too complex. Also, look at heirloom, triploid, and seedless crops. One has had all variability bred out, one is sterile, and one doesn't produce seed. Not the same, but in principle, close. And of course, terminators, their merit aside, are only one small facet of genetic engineering.
You do realize that this has been going on for over a century, right? Farmers using hybrid seed, so they just buy new seed year after year. And the reason for terminator seed was to prevent the possibility of genes going into the wild. If they had darker ulterior motives, who is to say, but people who were concerned about gene spread got what they demanded, then complained about it.
I think heirloom growers should embrace GMOs. Heirloom crops are superior than most things on the market, and genetic engineering can help them expand to wider cultivation. For example, this year I've got two beefsteak tomatoes, Ananas Noire and Kellogg's Breakfast. Why aren't they grown commercially? Probably because of shipping issues; a tomato, no matter how tasty or nutritious, won't sell if it's mush by the time consumers get it. But with new ripening delaying traits, the post harvest lifespan of tomatoes can be dramatically expanded. With this trait, you might see things like Cherokee Purple and White Tomesol and Huge Lemon Oxheart and Green Moldovan on supermarket shelves. I hope someday we see things like Organgelo watermelon and Golden Treasure pepper (got those this year too) and Charentais melon and Dragon's Tongue bean (doing them next year) widely grown, and I hope they will be genetically modified to take advantage of both what they started out with and what science can give them (except, perhaps, the brassicas, as they can cross with way too much). Sure, Monsanto might be doing it wrong, complain about them, fine, whatever, but I think GMO and heirloom would go great together; I don't understand why so many heirloom type people are against genetic engineering (I can't tell if you are, but many are).
Academics Review is a great site. Have you ever been to Biofortified or Tomorrow's Table? I like this one too. I guess you've been to GMO Pundit, since he's one of the guys who wrote Academics Review. They're some great sites for science based info on genetic engineering.
A science based piece, a piece about something totally different, and a site that, if you scroll down, has anti-vax bullshit, all spun up with a hearty amount of GMO denialism. This is a record low even for kdawson.
Herearesome. Now, is there any credible (key word) evidence that GMOs do cause harm? And if so, why? What is the causative agent, the novel protein produced in the GMO, but not in the conventional crop? What is the chemical pathway taken to produce that compound? What is the genetic reason for it being produced like that? Why does it only happen in man made GMOs, and not in natural, uncontrolled horizontal gene transfers? Not a single one of those very critical questions have been answered for a single commercially approved crop by the any of the anti-GMO guys. There's something to be said for requiring something be shown reasonably safe, but there's also something to be said for perpetual goalpost shifting (one more study and a few more years!) requiring that a negative be proven (prove they aren't dangerous) and falsifiability (prove that they will never ever, via any presently unknown mechanisms, be dangerous).
We wouldn't have resistant weeds and bugs if there was a more diverse range of GMOs. Everyone knows what happens if you hit pests with the same thing year after year, it was really a matter of time. It isn't with the use of those traits that is the problem, but with over-reliance on a single trait. It's basically like a GMO monoculture. It isn't that those traits are bad it is that we need more of them. If you grow, say, a rust resistant variety of apple, but only that variety, eventually, something will get it. Say thing happens with GMOs. Eventually, using only one herbicide and relying on one pest control technique will catch up with you, and curb some of the benefits the GMOs already provide. But try being a non-corporate group with a GMO resistant to another type of pest/herbicide. Good luck getting it approved. The luddites oppose Golden Rice with the same fever as Monsanto.
That's about the size of it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I believe they are working on a new type that is pollen sterile so that no cross pollination take place to begin with (could be wrong here though, I don't know much about that particular trait) and what are called 'traitor seeds' where the seeds will not grow without an application of a certain chemical. This is one of those things that really highlight how it is not about the properties of the GMOs themselves, but the fact that they are GMO. The issue that many of the anti-GMO crowd have with GMOs, once you rebut the nonsense and get down to the nitty gritty, is simply that they were made with biotechnology, not for any really rational reason. It's basically just an appeal to nature.
Also, needing to buy new seeds every year is nothing new. Farmers have been doing that since hybrids from seed companies came on the seen in the early 1900s, so the claim that GMOs mean you can't safe seed is not very relevant (some people, however, even encourage people to save their GMO seeds). There is something to be said for saving seed if you have a backyard heirloom garden like I do, but if you want to get the most out of your plants, that increasingly means some sort of GMO, and that is hopefully going to mean some sort of safeguard against genes escaping into the wild. I mean, I haven't heard a whole lot about how much that actually happens in practice, but still, it is something to keep in mind, because the ecology of GMOs is easily the most scientifically complex and controversial aspect of them because you must weight the danger posed to escaped genes with the benefits they provide and damage they can prevent.
Everyone knew the superweeds would come, if that surprises you you must not be following this field too closely. There are only two different types of herbicide resistant GMOs out there (Round-Up Ready and Starlink). When you keep spraying the same thing like that, just like antibiotic resistance, resistant weeds will emerge, and hamper the benefits those GMOs have been providing. Even Monsanto predicted that. As for the mirid bugs, another way of putting that is that GMOs allow for a more diverse insect population. They sprayed less insecticides, so an opportunistic non-target insect attacked (China is working on a new GMO that will also target mirid I think). You're right, it isn't always simple, but no one (Monsanto's marketing team aside) is making it out to be. If anyone is oversimplifying, is is the 'All GMOs are bad' crowd.
It's funny that you mention that, because I've always figured it would go quite a ways to proving creationism if organisms had a built in anti-tampering device, that if altering the genes directly always produced something that was a dangerous. I don't know how you're post got modded troll, because it is spot on. Monsanto pricks? Sure. GMO ecologically damaging? Potentially. That's a very complex area, and you've also got to consider the differences in damage between an escaped gene and the amount of damage that they can prevent. Agriculture is very damaging to the environment. If, say, a nitrogen use efficiency, or pest resistance, or increased output trait can offset any other harm GMOs cause, it might be worth it. GMOs dangerous to your health? There is more evidence to indicate that Elvis is still alive. Genetic engineering, like any applied biology, is complicated. For example, in China, the adopted a GMO strain of cotton, stopped spraying pesticides, which improved insect biodiversity, which meant a once minor pest became a major one. These are certainty interesting times with thins technology, and times they are a' changin. And one thing we don't need is demonizing them based on unscientific fearmongering. The claims of GMOs causing health problems have nomeritwhatsoever, and it doesn't do any good for any one to make shit up. It is a problem that so many people are letting their strange ideology trump science and critical skeptical thinking.
Actually, the thing that showed up on/. a while back alleging organ damage from GMOs is what was debunked. The people who 'debunk' the 'myth' that genetic engineering doesn't give you [insert disease here] are usually the same people who, in their next post, wax about the virtues of homeopathy. As far as science is concerned, no horticulturist or biologist I've ever met could find a shred of evidence that GMOs posses any health risks. Plentysuggestingotherwise though. People claim that Monsanto is covering up all the proof that GMOs are dangerous. Conspiracies are not an arguments, they're a denialism tactic, an ultimate defense against evidence. What, I'm supposed to believe that Monsanto is bribing off the vast majority of relevant horticulturists, botanists, agronomists, microbiologists, geneticists, zoologists, ect in the UK, France, Germany, Denmark, Italy, Switzerland, Israel, Egypt, South Africa, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zeland, Mexico, Canada, Brazil, ect.? Bullshit. Heck, scientists in Iran and China, the last places an American company is going to take over, have developed their own strains of GMO.
Really, I'm sad to see tripe like this on Slashdot. Anti-vaccine=anti-science. Anti-GW=anti-science. Anti-evolution=anti-science. Anti-Genetic engineering=oh so enlightened and wise. I can't believe that so many people have fallen for the agricultural equivalent of vaccine denialism. It's a little disheartening.
And sure, let's be fair, there's always the possibility that a GMO could be harmful. Here's one that was. But that does not imply that they are all harmful. In that case, they found the compound, the harm's causative agent, that was potentially harmful, the chemical pathways that produced that protein, they found the problem, and moved on. How many anti-GMO cranks can name a single causative agent for harm in an commercial GMO? Zero. Never happened. Not once. So, they fall back on vague appeals to long term health, although never say when we will have enough proof for them. Sound familiar? Like people who only want 'one more' transitional fossil? You can make these vague claims about anything, I could claim that the smallpox vaccine has some sort of crazy complex intergenerational side effect that will kill us all in a few years, and you can't disprove that (ain't non falsifiability grand?), but we have no evidence to suggest that is the case. Same with GMOs. I can't disprove that they'll kill us all, but that burden of proof doesn't rest on me. It is like saying that pork should be banned until we know that it won't cause eternal damnation. It's not a very rational position.
We really need to do for science based agriculture what was done for other areas that skeptics espouse, like science based medicine. Sure, Monsanto can be pricks, but I don't care if the CEO eats a bowl of kittens for breakfast everyday, that says nothing of the science behind GMOs, and one company does not own an entire branch of science. More people need to learn about the science, not the weaselly fearmongering you see from NGOs like the Union of Concerned Scientists [sic] or Greenpeace or the Organic Consumer's Union. The actual scientists have done the research, the evidence is in, GMOs are safe, they are effective, and they are the next big thing in agriculture. We need more people to be more aware, more scientifically literate, less magically thinking, about plant science, and to me as a one who studies horticultural, seeing so many poeple, on this site o
Not even close. Don't know if you know this or not, but there was no genetic engineering involved in the Cavendish. Genetic engineering is not a way of life, it's a tool for altering a plant, and like breeding (which brought you things like the 70's corn failure), you can use it well or poorly. Some people want to use genetic engineering to improve biodiversity. For example, introducing ripening delaying traits to heirloom tomatoes and other crops that just don't ship well, or widening the growing range of crops to enable them to be grown in more areas. Yeah, no doubt Monsanto doesn't care about polyculture (although, to be fair, given the choice between a strange, I don't know, White Tomesol tomato, and perfectly round red hybrid #385, what one are consumers going to choose?), but Monsanto does not own GE tech any more than Merck owns pharmacology or the principles of vaccinations. Some people advocate locally developed GMOs. Problem is, thanks to all the scientifically illiterate anti-technology (and yes, it anti-GMO is anti-science, I used to give them much more credit until I really started to grasp the issue) opposition going against GMOs, only companies like Monsanto (and Sygentia, BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Dow, ect) have the resources to get them approved. It would be like if you hated McDonald's so much you wouldn't let any other restaurants open. Anti-GMO sentiment is the best thing that ever happened to Monsanto.
You seem smart enough to get that GMOs aren't going to hurt you (and considering everything has likely had horizontal gene transfer at one point it it's evolutionary history, humans included, it would be surprising if they were inherently dangerous), but understand that monoculture is not the way it has to be. Instead of opposing genetic engineering in general on those grounds, it would be far more constructive to support a better use of the technology. Genetic engineering should be an enabler of polyculture, right now it is more or less just a complement to monoculture systems that have existed before GMOs were a part of the food supply (but of course, so are tractors).
Who's being intolerant? Mocking something does not make one intolerant. Just because someone bashes aspects of Islam (or any religion or idea for that matter) does not mean they are intolerant of Muslims. Plenty of people think Raptor Jesus is funny and hate Christianity, but as long as I'm not going to to try to silence them, that doesn't mean they would not tolerate me (a Christian). It's pretty ignorant to suggest people are intolerant because some people are offended.
Best hack in the world would be to change whatever error message pops up when someone hits something blasphemous so that it redirects to Encyclopedia Dramatica. I like this one.
If he's going to trample on other people's rights over it, you're damn right I should. This isn't about making people mad. I know some Muslims, they're decent enough, and I don't really care for offending people just for the sake of it, but this isn't about offending people. This is about people who want to control other people's inherent right to free speech , and I would rather stand up and say yes, I have free speech, and if you don't like what I, or anyone else, has to say, if you find it offensive, that's fine, you have the right to be offended, but if you want to stop anyone, go fuck a pig. Warning, link NSFP (not safe for Pakistan).
Oh, and maybe your idea that what other people think should influence what I can say is offensive to me, so you should stop.
Possibly because solar power is pretty big in Israel, so high tech batteries are in their best interest. And, just some baseless postulating here, but when you're surrounded by neighbors who don't much care for you whose biggest asset is oil, improving those alternative energy techniques might be a good idea. If Israel perfected solar power & storage, that could conceivably go a ways towards helping the world kick it's oil habit (solar powered batteries for your house and car), which would cut into the cashflow of said neighbors. So, batteries are good for them, and there is a chance that maybe possibly we're seeing some sort of scientific-economic-political strategy at work here.
I'm using it right now right now. It's actually a pretty nice secondary browser because you can plug NoScript into it, and in general, it's nicer than Opera, Safari, Chrome, K-Meleon, or IE. If people aren't using it, they really should give it a go. I don't know what that whole 'social browser' thing is all about (I don't use MySpace or Facebook or any of that crap), but as a second Firefox it's great.
I think the point is that we're holding NASA and the US space program to a different standard. It's been 40 years since we first landed on the moon. Sure, there have been tons of other things since then, rovers and faint traces of molecules possibly-maybe connected with life, but people want something that can top that. People want something as significant and monumental and inspirational as putting humans on another body. And we're just not getting it. I'm not saying the US is a has-been, just an underachiever.
Slashdot Mirror
ScienceBlogs is supposed to be a place for creative, and sometimes controversial, opinions. My favorite ones are Respectful Insolence and Tomorrow's Table, and all the time, you read things there that plenty of people would get all in a huff about. Does anyone think the Pepsi blog would do that? Do you think they would ever once mention the insanity of the anti-vax movement, or the senselessness of the 9/11 truthers, or call alternative medicine purveyors out on their incoherent conspiracies? Think they'd ever mention politics or evolution or anything else that might upset a customer? No, because this blog was not written by an individual, it was by a company, for a company. And besides, plenty of clueless conspiracy minded nutters would point to this as the link between a scienceblogger, and therefore believe them to be discredited, since no small amount of people already believe scientists to be in on the Big Pharma/Monsanto/Illuminati/New World Order genocide conspiracy, so this would kinda make ScienceBlogs as a whole look a little less independent and reputable if they're willing to put corporate interests there for money.
As for the Brazil nut soybean, it should go without saying that you can use genetic engineering to make things like that. A known allergen in something else, it's not too surprising that it turned out that way. You might as well point out that you can put anthrax in an apple if you wanted. You can put arsenic in a cake, doesn't make baking bad. A better way to put that would be no commercially approved GMOs have been shown to be spontaneously harmful. The only example I know of where GMOs were potentially harmful was detected and discontinued long before it was put into use. I've seen the 'smoking gun' studies, they come and go every now and again, but no one has ever been able to find a reason for the alleged harm, no causative agent, no chemical pathways producing that agent, no genetic reasoning for it.
And yeah, the principles of genetic engineering are a lot like breeding. I didn't say it's the same thing, nor should they always be treated the same, but in both cases, you're still changing the genes. One is just a lot more precise with a wider range of options, and it doesn't really matter that it is less natural, what matters is the end result. Does it matter if you insert a gene from a fish or breed it for a million years for the plant to produce it itself?
And Monsanto, they're not your friends, that's fair to say, but saying that because they're bad GMOs are bad is like saying that because the RIAA are pricks you shouldn't listen to music. What the Monsanto does says nothing of the worth of the product, and it certainty says nothing about unrelated people, just like what the RIAA does says nothing of the actual pieces of music, and absolutely nothing about, say, indie bands.
Do we need GMOs? Do we really need agricultural improvements? We could get by without a lot of things, but that's no reason not to use them, and no small amount of people in relevant fields seem to think biotech will be pretty significant.
Not at all, and you admit it yourself. The reason we don't see tomato varieties like Cherokee Purple or German Striped in supermarkets is because they don't all look or taste the same. Large scale growers want their products to have a uniform look and taste.
And the reason growers want them is because consumers want them. I don't see how that issue relates to genetic engineering, that's something altogether different. Getting people to think of new or diverse crops as a true part of their diet, just like the foods they're accustomed to, it a task in and of itself. I follow exotic pomology too, and it took decades for mangos and kiwis to get to where they are now, and still, people don't see them on the same level as apples and bananas. I think genetic engineering could be an enabler to get more things to consumers, but getting them to step out of their cullinary comfort zone and actually accept a bumpy green, orange, yellow, and red tomato or whatever as more than a novelty is a challenge in and of itself.
Finally, there is no need for GE crops. All they do is enrich the pockets of big agribusinesses.
Tell that to the farmers who's crops were wiped out by papaya ringspot virus before GMO papayas arrived on the scene. Heck, there are even organic farmers who use the herd immunity provided by the GMO ones to keep their crop safe. If plumpox rears its ugly head, you might see the benefits of the GMO Honeysweet plum real fast. And to think that genetic engineering is nothing but some sort of corporate science, that's absolutely false. Monsanto doesn't own genetic engineering any more than Merck or Pfizer own the idea of administering a measured dose of active ingredient (pharmacology). And by 2015, it is estimated that half of GMOs will be non-corporate. To say there's no need for them, I don't get that either. That's like saying there is no need for plant breeding. Genetic engineering isn't a way of life, it's just a tool for changing plants, whether for drought resistance, pest resistance, nitrogen use efficiency, herbicide resistance, increased nutrients, or whatever. We know it works, no one has ever produced a shred of credible evidence to suggest they're dangerous (and considering horizontal gene transfer between unrelated species happens all the time, it be pretty surprising if they were), so I don't see any legitimate reason not to have GE crops.
Not really. Same mindset as all conspiracy theorists.
Well, I can't argue with that. Yeah, I am a bit disappointed too that the people here are falling for classic anti-GMO half-truths and whole lies, I was hoping to see a bit more critical thinking on the issue. I'm a horticulture major, and genetic engineering is kinda my area of interest (that and exotic pomology), and I am just baffled at the ignorance displayed about this topic. I have been at rounds with people about this, and the reaction I get is 'Who's paying you?' And it's a very successful strain of crankery; most people don't even know they're buying into absolute rubbish. They really should have a basic knowledge about food and agricultural science, and the funny thing is, the people with just a bit of knowledge are often the most ignorant. Like the people who think they're saving the world by using inefficient farming practices. Can you imagine it if someone tried pulling that with cars? 'Yeah, my car gets really low millage, and it spits black smoke everywhere, and it leaks fuel as it goes, but I'm doing it for the environment.'
It's just crazy that this is such an issue. I just don't get how we, as a society, ended up here with this pervasive horticultural quackery. GMOs are safe and they are effective, there is hardly a shred of credible evidence that says otherwise, and I don't get how people can possibly think that bullshit conspiracies are a valid rebuttal to mountains of good science. I'm not saying there aren't any issues to work out, with anything there are always new issues to work out, but it is still a legitimate tool for plant improvement. Genetic engineering shouldn't be the controversy it is, it should be something taught in middle school biology.
It's frustrating when one of your professors tells you that there's not much of a future in your area of interest (genetic engineering of fruits in my case) because, while the science is there, it can be done, no one really wants you to do it. Perhaps he was a bit overly pessimistic, and pomology funding is suffering to begin with, but still, but they say the only commercially grown GMO fruit, the Rainbow papaya, would have a much harder time if someone wanted to make it today, so thanks a lot you science hating assholes.
In the world of GMO denialism, accusations of being paid off by Monsanto are considered perfectly valid arguments. That's why you can't trust anyone who knows what they're talking about, because every single relevant expert is 'one of them' and is being paid huge swarths of money by Monsanto (who inexplicably owns an entire field of science used by horticulturists, microbiologists, zoologists, ect. all over the world). I shit you not, in my experience I've found that this is what no small number of them actually believe. If you know what you're talking about, you can't be trusted. I don't know if anti-GMO sentiment is anti-science masquerading as anti-corporatism or if it's the other way around. Funny thing is, they even oppose non-corporate GMOs, like Rainbow papaya, BioCassava, Golden Rice, or HoneySweet plum. In other words, their 'I'm not against science I'm against Monsanto' claim holds no water, but they really are against making a profit on R&D. They're hard to figure out.
People are bitching that that is different, cross breeding and GMOs, but the problem is, while it is true that they are different, many people are against GMOs because they perceive them as unnatural, so it is a valid point. It kinda works like this:
GMO denialist: GMOs are bad because they're unnatural!
GMO proponent: We've been modifying plant DNA for years via breeding.
GMO denailist: Tooootaly different! I'm not against it because they're unnatural, I'm against it because {insert unscientific argument or issue unrelated to science here]
Basically, every time an anti-GMO claim gets rebutted, it comes back in a different form, but the conclusion is always the same. Don't give me this bullshit that you're just against Monsanto when you also oppose things like Rainbow papaya, BioCassava, Golden Rice, or HoneySweet plum. Don't give me this nonsense about concerns about human health when there is not a single shred of credible evidence indicating any health problems whatsoever. And don't give me this crap about environmental concern when GMOs have been shown to be beneficial for the environment (although concerns for cross pollination of wild species is a valid concern). If people were pointing out specific issues with specific GMOs, that would be fine. If they said that a specific crop does not perform as expected, or that certain factors may cause some sort of issue (like the Round-Up resistant weeds produced by over-reliance on a single herbicide*), or that a specific GMO produces a specific compound by a specific means that raises health concerns that would be fine. But they're not. They're against ALL GMOs for every conceivable reason. Sure, some people might have a more nuanced view, but the vast majority of the anti-GMO are just denialists, plain and simple, no better than vaccine denialists or 9/11 truthers or the moon landing guys. When you strip away the other arguments, what you are almost without fail left with is that GMOs do not fit into their naturalistic magical thinking, no matter how hard they try to claim they're reasonable, that is, by and large, the heart of the anti-GMO movement. Of course, some people are just misled by said magical thinkers, just like there are concerned parents who were misled by opportunistic douches like Andrew Wakefield, and these are the people that need to be reached. I am increasingly starting to think that the hard core active denialists may be too deep into the woo to reach.
*Note, over reliance, not over use. There's a difference.
Actually, we can't really do things like taste too well right now. It's a bit too complex. Also, look at heirloom, triploid, and seedless crops. One has had all variability bred out, one is sterile, and one doesn't produce seed. Not the same, but in principle, close. And of course, terminators, their merit aside, are only one small facet of genetic engineering.
You do realize that this has been going on for over a century, right? Farmers using hybrid seed, so they just buy new seed year after year. And the reason for terminator seed was to prevent the possibility of genes going into the wild. If they had darker ulterior motives, who is to say, but people who were concerned about gene spread got what they demanded, then complained about it.
I think heirloom growers should embrace GMOs. Heirloom crops are superior than most things on the market, and genetic engineering can help them expand to wider cultivation. For example, this year I've got two beefsteak tomatoes, Ananas Noire and Kellogg's Breakfast. Why aren't they grown commercially? Probably because of shipping issues; a tomato, no matter how tasty or nutritious, won't sell if it's mush by the time consumers get it. But with new ripening delaying traits, the post harvest lifespan of tomatoes can be dramatically expanded. With this trait, you might see things like Cherokee Purple and White Tomesol and Huge Lemon Oxheart and Green Moldovan on supermarket shelves. I hope someday we see things like Organgelo watermelon and Golden Treasure pepper (got those this year too) and Charentais melon and Dragon's Tongue bean (doing them next year) widely grown, and I hope they will be genetically modified to take advantage of both what they started out with and what science can give them (except, perhaps, the brassicas, as they can cross with way too much). Sure, Monsanto might be doing it wrong, complain about them, fine, whatever, but I think GMO and heirloom would go great together; I don't understand why so many heirloom type people are against genetic engineering (I can't tell if you are, but many are).
Academics Review is a great site. Have you ever been to Biofortified or Tomorrow's Table? I like this one too. I guess you've been to GMO Pundit, since he's one of the guys who wrote Academics Review. They're some great sites for science based info on genetic engineering.
A science based piece, a piece about something totally different, and a site that, if you scroll down, has anti-vax bullshit, all spun up with a hearty amount of GMO denialism. This is a record low even for kdawson.
Here are some. Now, is there any credible (key word) evidence that GMOs do cause harm? And if so, why? What is the causative agent, the novel protein produced in the GMO, but not in the conventional crop? What is the chemical pathway taken to produce that compound? What is the genetic reason for it being produced like that? Why does it only happen in man made GMOs, and not in natural, uncontrolled horizontal gene transfers? Not a single one of those very critical questions have been answered for a single commercially approved crop by the any of the anti-GMO guys. There's something to be said for requiring something be shown reasonably safe, but there's also something to be said for perpetual goalpost shifting (one more study and a few more years!) requiring that a negative be proven (prove they aren't dangerous) and falsifiability (prove that they will never ever, via any presently unknown mechanisms, be dangerous).
We wouldn't have resistant weeds and bugs if there was a more diverse range of GMOs. Everyone knows what happens if you hit pests with the same thing year after year, it was really a matter of time. It isn't with the use of those traits that is the problem, but with over-reliance on a single trait. It's basically like a GMO monoculture. It isn't that those traits are bad it is that we need more of them. If you grow, say, a rust resistant variety of apple, but only that variety, eventually, something will get it. Say thing happens with GMOs. Eventually, using only one herbicide and relying on one pest control technique will catch up with you, and curb some of the benefits the GMOs already provide. But try being a non-corporate group with a GMO resistant to another type of pest/herbicide. Good luck getting it approved. The luddites oppose Golden Rice with the same fever as Monsanto.
That's about the size of it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I believe they are working on a new type that is pollen sterile so that no cross pollination take place to begin with (could be wrong here though, I don't know much about that particular trait) and what are called 'traitor seeds' where the seeds will not grow without an application of a certain chemical. This is one of those things that really highlight how it is not about the properties of the GMOs themselves, but the fact that they are GMO. The issue that many of the anti-GMO crowd have with GMOs, once you rebut the nonsense and get down to the nitty gritty, is simply that they were made with biotechnology, not for any really rational reason. It's basically just an appeal to nature.
Also, needing to buy new seeds every year is nothing new. Farmers have been doing that since hybrids from seed companies came on the seen in the early 1900s, so the claim that GMOs mean you can't safe seed is not very relevant (some people, however, even encourage people to save their GMO seeds). There is something to be said for saving seed if you have a backyard heirloom garden like I do, but if you want to get the most out of your plants, that increasingly means some sort of GMO, and that is hopefully going to mean some sort of safeguard against genes escaping into the wild. I mean, I haven't heard a whole lot about how much that actually happens in practice, but still, it is something to keep in mind, because the ecology of GMOs is easily the most scientifically complex and controversial aspect of them because you must weight the danger posed to escaped genes with the benefits they provide and damage they can prevent.
Everyone knew the superweeds would come, if that surprises you you must not be following this field too closely. There are only two different types of herbicide resistant GMOs out there (Round-Up Ready and Starlink). When you keep spraying the same thing like that, just like antibiotic resistance, resistant weeds will emerge, and hamper the benefits those GMOs have been providing. Even Monsanto predicted that. As for the mirid bugs, another way of putting that is that GMOs allow for a more diverse insect population. They sprayed less insecticides, so an opportunistic non-target insect attacked (China is working on a new GMO that will also target mirid I think). You're right, it isn't always simple, but no one (Monsanto's marketing team aside) is making it out to be. If anyone is oversimplifying, is is the 'All GMOs are bad' crowd.
It's funny that you mention that, because I've always figured it would go quite a ways to proving creationism if organisms had a built in anti-tampering device, that if altering the genes directly always produced something that was a dangerous. I don't know how you're post got modded troll, because it is spot on. Monsanto pricks? Sure. GMO ecologically damaging? Potentially. That's a very complex area, and you've also got to consider the differences in damage between an escaped gene and the amount of damage that they can prevent. Agriculture is very damaging to the environment. If, say, a nitrogen use efficiency, or pest resistance, or increased output trait can offset any other harm GMOs cause, it might be worth it. GMOs dangerous to your health? There is more evidence to indicate that Elvis is still alive. Genetic engineering, like any applied biology, is complicated. For example, in China, the adopted a GMO strain of cotton, stopped spraying pesticides, which improved insect biodiversity, which meant a once minor pest became a major one. These are certainty interesting times with thins technology, and times they are a' changin. And one thing we don't need is demonizing them based on unscientific fearmongering. The claims of GMOs causing health problems have no merit whatsoever, and it doesn't do any good for any one to make shit up. It is a problem that so many people are letting their strange ideology trump science and critical skeptical thinking.
Actually, the thing that showed up on /. a while back alleging organ damage from GMOs is what was debunked. The people who 'debunk' the 'myth' that genetic engineering doesn't give you [insert disease here] are usually the same people who, in their next post, wax about the virtues of homeopathy. As far as science is concerned, no horticulturist or biologist I've ever met could find a shred of evidence that GMOs posses any health risks. Plenty suggesting otherwise though. People claim that Monsanto is covering up all the proof that GMOs are dangerous. Conspiracies are not an arguments, they're a denialism tactic, an ultimate defense against evidence. What, I'm supposed to believe that Monsanto is bribing off the vast majority of relevant horticulturists, botanists, agronomists, microbiologists, geneticists, zoologists, ect in the UK, France, Germany, Denmark, Italy, Switzerland, Israel, Egypt, South Africa, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zeland, Mexico, Canada, Brazil, ect.? Bullshit. Heck, scientists in Iran and China, the last places an American company is going to take over, have developed their own strains of GMO.
Really, I'm sad to see tripe like this on Slashdot. Anti-vaccine=anti-science. Anti-GW=anti-science. Anti-evolution=anti-science. Anti-Genetic engineering=oh so enlightened and wise. I can't believe that so many people have fallen for the agricultural equivalent of vaccine denialism. It's a little disheartening.
And sure, let's be fair, there's always the possibility that a GMO could be harmful. Here's one that was. But that does not imply that they are all harmful. In that case, they found the compound, the harm's causative agent, that was potentially harmful, the chemical pathways that produced that protein, they found the problem, and moved on. How many anti-GMO cranks can name a single causative agent for harm in an commercial GMO? Zero. Never happened. Not once. So, they fall back on vague appeals to long term health, although never say when we will have enough proof for them. Sound familiar? Like people who only want 'one more' transitional fossil? You can make these vague claims about anything, I could claim that the smallpox vaccine has some sort of crazy complex intergenerational side effect that will kill us all in a few years, and you can't disprove that (ain't non falsifiability grand?), but we have no evidence to suggest that is the case. Same with GMOs. I can't disprove that they'll kill us all, but that burden of proof doesn't rest on me. It is like saying that pork should be banned until we know that it won't cause eternal damnation. It's not a very rational position.
We really need to do for science based agriculture what was done for other areas that skeptics espouse, like science based medicine. Sure, Monsanto can be pricks, but I don't care if the CEO eats a bowl of kittens for breakfast everyday, that says nothing of the science behind GMOs, and one company does not own an entire branch of science. More people need to learn about the science, not the weaselly fearmongering you see from NGOs like the Union of Concerned Scientists [sic] or Greenpeace or the Organic Consumer's Union. The actual scientists have done the research, the evidence is in, GMOs are safe, they are effective, and they are the next big thing in agriculture. We need more people to be more aware, more scientifically literate, less magically thinking, about plant science, and to me as a one who studies horticultural, seeing so many poeple, on this site o
Not even close. Don't know if you know this or not, but there was no genetic engineering involved in the Cavendish. Genetic engineering is not a way of life, it's a tool for altering a plant, and like breeding (which brought you things like the 70's corn failure), you can use it well or poorly. Some people want to use genetic engineering to improve biodiversity. For example, introducing ripening delaying traits to heirloom tomatoes and other crops that just don't ship well, or widening the growing range of crops to enable them to be grown in more areas. Yeah, no doubt Monsanto doesn't care about polyculture (although, to be fair, given the choice between a strange, I don't know, White Tomesol tomato, and perfectly round red hybrid #385, what one are consumers going to choose?), but Monsanto does not own GE tech any more than Merck owns pharmacology or the principles of vaccinations. Some people advocate locally developed GMOs. Problem is, thanks to all the scientifically illiterate anti-technology (and yes, it anti-GMO is anti-science, I used to give them much more credit until I really started to grasp the issue) opposition going against GMOs, only companies like Monsanto (and Sygentia, BASF, Bayer, Dupont, Dow, ect) have the resources to get them approved. It would be like if you hated McDonald's so much you wouldn't let any other restaurants open. Anti-GMO sentiment is the best thing that ever happened to Monsanto.
You seem smart enough to get that GMOs aren't going to hurt you (and considering everything has likely had horizontal gene transfer at one point it it's evolutionary history, humans included, it would be surprising if they were inherently dangerous), but understand that monoculture is not the way it has to be. Instead of opposing genetic engineering in general on those grounds, it would be far more constructive to support a better use of the technology. Genetic engineering should be an enabler of polyculture, right now it is more or less just a complement to monoculture systems that have existed before GMOs were a part of the food supply (but of course, so are tractors).
Who's being intolerant? Mocking something does not make one intolerant. Just because someone bashes aspects of Islam (or any religion or idea for that matter) does not mean they are intolerant of Muslims. Plenty of people think Raptor Jesus is funny and hate Christianity, but as long as I'm not going to to try to silence them, that doesn't mean they would not tolerate me (a Christian). It's pretty ignorant to suggest people are intolerant because some people are offended.
Best hack in the world would be to change whatever error message pops up when someone hits something blasphemous so that it redirects to Encyclopedia Dramatica. I like this one.
If he's going to trample on other people's rights over it, you're damn right I should. This isn't about making people mad. I know some Muslims, they're decent enough, and I don't really care for offending people just for the sake of it, but this isn't about offending people. This is about people who want to control other people's inherent right to free speech , and I would rather stand up and say yes, I have free speech, and if you don't like what I, or anyone else, has to say, if you find it offensive, that's fine, you have the right to be offended, but if you want to stop anyone, go fuck a pig. Warning, link NSFP (not safe for Pakistan).
Oh, and maybe your idea that what other people think should influence what I can say is offensive to me, so you should stop.
But how else will they rake in the money for the state?
Stop spending money on gimmicks that will cost more than they pull in until they 'naturally' recover?
Psychopaths blame the victims for their own crimes. That's the pattern. Look for it.
"Look what you made me do with the bottle rockets our own Mossad organized you into firing at us so we could have an excuse to steal your land!"
Irony.
Possibly because solar power is pretty big in Israel, so high tech batteries are in their best interest. And, just some baseless postulating here, but when you're surrounded by neighbors who don't much care for you whose biggest asset is oil, improving those alternative energy techniques might be a good idea. If Israel perfected solar power & storage, that could conceivably go a ways towards helping the world kick it's oil habit (solar powered batteries for your house and car), which would cut into the cashflow of said neighbors. So, batteries are good for them, and there is a chance that maybe possibly we're seeing some sort of scientific-economic-political strategy at work here.
I'm using it right now right now. It's actually a pretty nice secondary browser because you can plug NoScript into it, and in general, it's nicer than Opera, Safari, Chrome, K-Meleon, or IE. If people aren't using it, they really should give it a go. I don't know what that whole 'social browser' thing is all about (I don't use MySpace or Facebook or any of that crap), but as a second Firefox it's great.
I think the point is that we're holding NASA and the US space program to a different standard. It's been 40 years since we first landed on the moon. Sure, there have been tons of other things since then, rovers and faint traces of molecules possibly-maybe connected with life, but people want something that can top that. People want something as significant and monumental and inspirational as putting humans on another body. And we're just not getting it. I'm not saying the US is a has-been, just an underachiever.