The way I understand it, patenting scientific discoveries is not about fame or about establishing "a grasp of the entire industrialized world" - it's about money. Research is very very expensive, and patenting allows people and institutions to benefit financially from their discoveries and fund further research.
If you want all scientific discoveries to be put in the public domain, how do you propose to fund the research that makes those discoveries in the first place?
What an odd comparison. The Hindenberg was using Hydrogen gas as a source of buoyancy, not fuel. Although you're right about the explosive doping compound (look here for more info), the whole point of using hydrogen as a fuel is that it is *combustible*. Its explosiveness is what makes it a good fuel.
From reading his recent interview replies, I get the impression that Jon would never *ever* change his style just to appease some idiot slashdot flamers. He has more journalistic integrity than that.
However, I'm sure he is quite capable of taking constructive criticism and even (*gasp*) learning from it. Or maybe he woke up this morning and decided to write an extra-short column just for the sheer hell of it. Who knows? His comment at the beginning simply demonstrates a basic knowledge of the comments people like to make about his articles, and a healthy ability to not take himself too seriously.:)
Jon has frequently stated that he appreciates thoughtful (not necessarily "nice") feedback, and I agree that people should post only that - not because I'm worried about his feelings but because I think thoughtless flaming is a total waste of bandwidth.
Anyone prefaces their comment with "IANAMB" and then proceeds to make a highly intelligent argument based an actual knowledge deserves to be moderated WAY up.
(Don't even get me started on the people who post random made-up facts like "We have 90% of our DNA in common with dinosaurs" and expect that to be relevant to the discussion)
Thanks for posting something I actually enjoyed reading!
I'm still waiting for someone to properly implement a molecule-based data storage system (using a light-sensitive protein like rhodopsin), but in the meantime this is a pretty nifty new technology. 3D data storage is the way to go.:)
The examples you give of AI research are pretty narrow. I don't know much about game bots, but personally I'm not sure if they qualify as "artificial intelligence" in anything but the loosest sense. Expert systems like chess-playing computers represent only very small subset of all the true research being done in AI.
The kind of project that the Great AIP site seems to be proposing is an entirely different idea. From what I can tell, they are proposing to create an online environment that allows AI's to interact and evolve and eventually "reach intelligence". We're talking about an artificial intelligence that should be able to interact, experience, develop, learn and create... not a big computer that can calculate and evaluate insanely huge numbers of chess moves.
The project itself concerns me a little, because I'm not sure that its creators have fully investigated and appreciated the magnitude of the task they are undertaking. The history of AI research shows a recurring pattern: periods of extreme optimism and lofty aspirations, followed by periods of cynicism as people's ideas fail to pan out as expected. Over and over we are confronted with the fact that this thing we call "intelligence" (which I notice the Great AIP still hasn't even *defined*) is far more complex and elusive than we previously suspected.
Not that I'm trying to say that AI research is pointless or that an open source AI project has no merit; I simply hope that people involved will do some serious research into previous attempts at finding "intelligence". Otherwise, I worry that they will simply repeat past mistakes.
For more information on the huge range of ideas and research falling under the category of AI, check out the collection of links at http://ai.about.com/compute/ai/. For a good beginner's overview (and a chance shamelessly plug a friend's site ) I recommend this AI Tutorial Review.
The following is a recently published review article discussing the benefits and risks of transgenic crops. I haven't read it myself yet, so I can't vouch for its availability or its difficulty level, but it would probably be a good place from which to draw further references.
Title: Biosafety of transgenic crop plants. Authors: Bhatia, C.R. and Mitra, R. Source: Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy Part B Biological Sciences. Oct.-Dec., 1998; 64 (5-6): 293-318.
> In much of the world, farmers normally save > seed from one season to plant in the next. Lets > say farmer 1 does just that. Farmer 2 decides > to buy Monsanto's seeds with Terminator. Farmer > 2's crop crosses with farmer 1's crop, so that > unbeknownst to farmer 1, the seeds from his > fine crop are mostly sterile
Let's assume for the moment that Farmers 1 and 2 have not decided to mix their seeds and plant them in a single field. Instead, they have chosen the more traditional option of planting them in separate fields, on separate farms. Your crossing situation implies a wind-borne pollination method, which is typical of many crops. Now imagine that you are a plant somewhere in the middle of Farmer 1's field. Which do you think is more likely: that you will be pollinated by one of your thousands of neighbouring non-GM plants, or that pollen from Farmer 2's plants will manage to get to you first? Now obviously pollen can be carried on the wind from one field to the other, but my point is that it is much more probable that a particular plant will be pollinated with pollen from its own field. Hence, it is almost impossible for an entire field to become cross-pollinated and produce sterile offspring, as you suggest.
> That doesn't even get into the fact that > genetically engineered organisms have unstable > makups, and could re-combine in unpredictable > ways. What if the terminator gene recombines > oddly (a transposition for example), and > produces a carcinogenic crop?
To the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely nothing about genetically modified DNA that makes it inherently less stable than "regular" DNA. It is the same molecule we're talking about here, just a slightly different sequence of bases. The probability that the terminator gene might recombine improperly or mutate is exactly the same as the probability that this might happen to ANY gene present in a given plant. The probability of this happening at all is fairly small; the probability of a plant randomly acquiring the exact mutation to make a carcinogenic product is miniscule. Genetic alteration often produces proteins which may have unknown effects, but the chances of producing a NEW protein with a specific negative effect is the same in GM crops as it is in regular ones.
> The fact is, the human race has co-evolved for > a very long time with the various foods we eat.
No we haven't. Co-evolution is a process driven by natural selection, not the artificial selection which we use on crops. In a plant-herbivore relationship, co-evolution describes a series of adaptations driven by the nature of the relationship. For example, a plant may evolve a chemical defence to avoid being eaten by the herbivore, but then the herbivore could evolve a mechanism for coping with this defence, which would prompt the evolution of further defences, and so on.
By employing artificial selection, we override natural selection and make co-evolution impossible. Our crops have traits which are beneficial to us (eg. high yields) not which are directly beneficial to the plants by allowing them to defend themselves from human consumption.
> It is entirely possable that Monsanto is > creating a terrible health problem and nobody > will find out for a decade or two.
Yes. This is a valid concern, and it demonstrates the need for conscientious testing and properly enforced standards for this industry. I don't believe that it is a reason to eliminate genetic engineering of crops entirely. All new technologies have the potential to pose health and safety risks, but this is no reason to avoid all exposure to new technologies.
> The hell of it is, with Monsanto's big money, > and government's rubber spine, we the consumer > don't even get to choose for ourselves wether > or not we eat GM foods.
I'm very much in favour of labelling that allows consumers to make informed decisions. I just hope that these decisions will be based on scientific fact and rational thought, not on misinformation and fear of the unknown.
Actually, I think that the greatest problem with genetic engineering can be summed up under the definition "accidents" - unforseen consequences of our actions. Biotech companies are not evil scheming masterminds deliberately unleashing hordes of poisonous and purely destructive products on an unsuspecting populace. Nevertheless, there is always the possibility that any new technology might have unforseen long-term effects.
> but that seed manufacturers ("growers" doesn't > seem quite ) are not acting in the best > interests of either the farmers, the final > consumers, or the environment.
Large corporations are well-known for acting primarily in their own economic self-interest. This is perhaps how they come to be large corporations. I don't like it either, but it seems like a pointless thing to complain about.
> For instance: > not making crops that are naturally resistant > to insects,
One of the most common genetic modifications of crops in use today is the addition of the Bt gene (which comes from a particular species of bacteria) to plants in order to make them resistant to insects. For example, the Bt gene encodes a protein which kills the corn borer - a significant insect pest to corn farmers. Use of this GM corn means that the farmer can use less pesticide and can avoid the major losses often associated with this insect.
> but crops that are resistant to > pesticides, then selling more pesticides to the > farmers
Monsanto does indeed promote the combination of two of its products: the herbicide Roundup and the Roundup-Ready (GM) crops. It is an extremely profitable combination for the company. However, Roundup is one of the most effective and least environmentally damaging chemical herbicides that exists, and combining it with Roundup-resistant crops allows farmers to use a technique called No-Till farming which can potentially decrease pesticide/herbicide/fertilizer use as well as decreasing loss of topsoil due to runoff. Not all situations which benefit the Big Evil Corporations are completely without benefit to the rest of the world.
I don't mean to sound like I'm fully supporting Monsanto and the rest of the biotech industry, but it would be nice if people would make arguments based on FACT. Call me picky.
I'm confused about the argument you're making here.
> The problem with GM crops is the possibility of > cross-contamination of similar, but non-GM > crops.
Do you mean physical contamination of a field of one crop variety with a members of another variety? Or are you talking about the offspring of a cross between the two?
> 1) The GM crop becomes dominant, and supplants > the natural variant.
Do you mean that if GM and non-GM varieties of the same crop were grown in the same field, then the GM crop would dominate and choke out members of the non-GM variety? I'm not sure why a farmer would do that, but if it did occur and the GM crop did prevail in the environment for which it was designed, what's the problem? There's Natural Selection in action for you. Or do you mean that farmers will choose the GM variety over the other, until the non-GM variety just doesn't exist? This is also unlikely, since there will always be people who choose not to grow GM crops, for a variety of reasons. But again, if this were to happen it would just be another example of the naturally superior variety being most successful. This of course has nothing to do with genetic engineering of foods.
> 2) A GM crop which has been modified to produce > no fertile seeds causes the natural variant to > become sterile as well.
If a GM plant and a non-GM plant manage to cross-breed, any offspring which inherit the appropriate combination of sterility genes will of course be sterile. However, all crossed offspring which don't inherit the appropriate genes, as well as all offspring from regular breedings between non-GM plants, will breed just fine. The only way you could completely eliminate the normal, fertile plants would be to prevent them from pollinating each other (or self-pollinating in many cases) and subject them to conditions in which GM plants can survive but every single non-GM individual dies before it can reproduce. Seems pretty unlikely to me.
> Since genes are not an "invention" but a > natural discovery, they should not be the > subject of patent whatsoever.
Naturally, all genes present in all organisms on earth are technically there to be "discovered" and are not owned by anyone. But the reality of the situation is that *immense* amounts of time, labour, and money go into the research projects which fund these discoveries. This money, in particular, has to come from somewhere, and currently the way this is done is to create products using the newfound knowledge which cannot be automatically replicated by competitors. The economic success of these new (and hopefully improved) varieties will fund future research. I know this system will probably offend a lot of Open Source sensibilities but I personally don't see any viable alternatives.
Don't get me wrong, I'll be the first to admit that genetic engineering of crops, and biotechnology in general, has implications and potential consequences which must be taken very seriously. I'm just so sick of the misinformation and FUD that seems so rampant in the media these days.
There seems to be a lot of controversy in the media and in scientific circles about the safety of exposure to electromagnetic fields. I did find one article online that seemed relatively well-informed (it was well-documented anyway). And it's fairly recent - 1995, iirc. Anyhow, you can check it out here. As always, try to keep in mind that correlation!=causation.:)
Slashdot Mirror
To read more comments on this, click here. (It's a link to the same story posted by CmdrTaco a week ago).
The way I understand it, patenting scientific discoveries is not about fame or about establishing "a grasp of the entire industrialized world" - it's about money. Research is very very expensive, and patenting allows people and institutions to benefit financially from their discoveries and fund further research.
If you want all scientific discoveries to be put in the public domain, how do you propose to fund the research that makes those discoveries in the first place?
What an odd comparison. The Hindenberg was using Hydrogen gas as a source of buoyancy, not fuel. Although you're right about the explosive doping compound (look here for more info), the whole point of using hydrogen as a fuel is that it is *combustible*. Its explosiveness is what makes it a good fuel.
smallstar
From reading his recent interview replies, I get the impression that Jon would never *ever* change his style just to appease some idiot slashdot flamers. He has more journalistic integrity than that.
:)
However, I'm sure he is quite capable of taking constructive criticism and even (*gasp*) learning from it. Or maybe he woke up this morning and decided to write an extra-short column just for the sheer hell of it. Who knows? His comment at the beginning simply demonstrates a basic knowledge of the comments people like to make about his articles, and a healthy ability to not take himself too seriously.
Jon has frequently stated that he appreciates thoughtful (not necessarily "nice") feedback, and I agree that people should post only that - not because I'm worried about his feelings but because I think thoughtless flaming is a total waste of bandwidth.
smallstar
Anyone prefaces their comment with "IANAMB" and then proceeds to make a highly intelligent argument based an actual knowledge deserves to be moderated WAY up.
(Don't even get me started on the people who post random made-up facts like "We have 90% of our DNA in common with dinosaurs" and expect that to be relevant to the discussion)
Thanks for posting something I actually enjoyed reading!
smallstar
I'm still waiting for someone to properly implement a molecule-based data storage system (using a light-sensitive protein like rhodopsin), but in the meantime this is a pretty nifty new technology. 3D data storage is the way to go. :)
smallstar
The examples you give of AI research are pretty narrow. I don't know much about game bots, but personally I'm not sure if they qualify as "artificial intelligence" in anything but the loosest sense. Expert systems like chess-playing computers represent only very small subset of all the true research being done in AI.
The kind of project that the Great AIP site seems to be proposing is an entirely different idea. From what I can tell, they are proposing to create an online environment that allows AI's to interact and evolve and eventually "reach intelligence". We're talking about an artificial intelligence that should be able to interact, experience, develop, learn and create... not a big computer that can calculate and evaluate insanely huge numbers of chess moves.
The project itself concerns me a little, because I'm not sure that its creators have fully investigated and appreciated the magnitude of the task they are undertaking. The history of AI research shows a recurring pattern: periods of extreme optimism and lofty aspirations, followed by periods of cynicism as people's ideas fail to pan out as expected. Over and over we are confronted with the fact that this thing we call "intelligence" (which I notice the Great AIP still hasn't even *defined*) is far more complex and elusive than we previously suspected.
Not that I'm trying to say that AI research is pointless or that an open source AI project has no merit; I simply hope that people involved will do some serious research into previous attempts at finding "intelligence". Otherwise, I worry that they will simply repeat past mistakes.
For more information on the huge range of ideas and research falling under the category of AI, check out the collection of links at http://ai.about.com/compute/ai/. For a good beginner's overview (and a chance shamelessly plug a friend's site ) I recommend this AI Tutorial Review.
The following is a recently published review article discussing the benefits and risks of transgenic crops. I haven't read it myself yet, so I can't vouch for its availability or its difficulty level, but it would probably be a good place from which to draw further references.
Title: Biosafety of transgenic crop plants.
Authors: Bhatia, C.R. and Mitra, R.
Source: Proceedings of the Indian National Science Academy Part B Biological Sciences. Oct.-Dec., 1998; 64 (5-6): 293-318.
> In much of the world, farmers normally save
> seed from one season to plant in the next. Lets
> say farmer 1 does just that. Farmer 2 decides
> to buy Monsanto's seeds with Terminator. Farmer
> 2's crop crosses with farmer 1's crop, so that
> unbeknownst to farmer 1, the seeds from his
> fine crop are mostly sterile
Let's assume for the moment that Farmers 1 and 2 have not decided to mix their seeds and plant them in a single field. Instead, they have chosen the more traditional option of planting them in separate fields, on separate farms. Your crossing situation implies a wind-borne pollination method, which is typical of many crops. Now imagine that you are a plant somewhere in the middle of Farmer 1's field. Which do you think is more likely: that you will be pollinated by one of your thousands of neighbouring non-GM plants, or that pollen from Farmer 2's plants will manage to get to you first? Now obviously pollen can be carried on the wind from one field to the other, but my point is that it is much more probable that a particular plant will be pollinated with pollen from its own field. Hence, it is almost impossible for an entire field to become cross-pollinated and produce sterile offspring, as you suggest.
> That doesn't even get into the fact that
> genetically engineered organisms have unstable
> makups, and could re-combine in unpredictable
> ways. What if the terminator gene recombines
> oddly (a transposition for example), and
> produces a carcinogenic crop?
To the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely nothing about genetically modified DNA that makes it inherently less stable than "regular" DNA. It is the same molecule we're talking about here, just a slightly different sequence of bases. The probability that the terminator gene might recombine improperly or mutate is exactly the same as the probability that this might happen to ANY gene present in a given plant. The probability of this happening at all is fairly small; the probability of a plant randomly acquiring the exact mutation to make a carcinogenic product is miniscule. Genetic alteration often produces proteins which may have unknown effects, but the chances of producing a NEW protein with a specific negative effect is the same in GM crops as it is in regular ones.
> The fact is, the human race has co-evolved for
> a very long time with the various foods we eat.
No we haven't. Co-evolution is a process driven by natural selection, not the artificial selection which we use on crops. In a plant-herbivore relationship, co-evolution describes a series of adaptations driven by the nature of the relationship. For example, a plant may evolve a chemical defence to avoid being eaten by the herbivore, but then the herbivore could evolve a mechanism for coping with this defence, which would prompt the evolution of further defences, and so on.
By employing artificial selection, we override natural selection and make co-evolution impossible. Our crops have traits which are beneficial to us (eg. high yields) not which are directly beneficial to the plants by allowing them to defend themselves from human consumption.
> It is entirely possable that Monsanto is
> creating a terrible health problem and nobody
> will find out for a decade or two.
Yes. This is a valid concern, and it demonstrates the need for conscientious testing and properly enforced standards for this industry. I don't believe that it is a reason to eliminate genetic engineering of crops entirely. All new technologies have the potential to pose health and safety risks, but this is no reason to avoid all exposure to new technologies.
> The hell of it is, with Monsanto's big money,
> and government's rubber spine, we the consumer
> don't even get to choose for ourselves wether
> or not we eat GM foods.
I'm very much in favour of labelling that allows consumers to make informed decisions. I just hope that these decisions will be based on scientific fact and rational thought, not on misinformation and fear of the unknown.
smallstar
> The problem is not accidents of any sort
Actually, I think that the greatest problem with genetic engineering can be summed up under the definition "accidents" - unforseen consequences of our actions. Biotech companies are not evil scheming masterminds deliberately unleashing hordes of poisonous and purely destructive products on an unsuspecting populace. Nevertheless, there is always the possibility that any new technology might have unforseen long-term effects.
> but that seed manufacturers ("growers" doesn't
> seem quite ) are not acting in the best
> interests of either the farmers, the final
> consumers, or the environment.
Large corporations are well-known for acting primarily in their own economic self-interest. This is perhaps how they come to be large corporations. I don't like it either, but it seems like a pointless thing to complain about.
> For instance:
> not making crops that are naturally resistant
> to insects,
One of the most common genetic modifications of crops in use today is the addition of the Bt gene (which comes from a particular species of bacteria) to plants in order to make them resistant to insects. For example, the Bt gene encodes a protein which kills the corn borer - a significant insect pest to corn farmers. Use of this GM corn means that the farmer can use less pesticide and can avoid the major losses often associated with this insect.
> but crops that are resistant to
> pesticides, then selling more pesticides to the
> farmers
Monsanto does indeed promote the combination of two of its products: the herbicide Roundup and the Roundup-Ready (GM) crops. It is an extremely profitable combination for the company. However, Roundup is one of the most effective and least environmentally damaging chemical herbicides that exists, and combining it with Roundup-resistant crops allows farmers to use a technique called No-Till farming which can potentially decrease pesticide/herbicide/fertilizer use as well as decreasing loss of topsoil due to runoff. Not all situations which benefit the Big Evil Corporations are completely without benefit to the rest of the world.
I don't mean to sound like I'm fully supporting Monsanto and the rest of the biotech industry, but it would be nice if people would make arguments based on FACT. Call me picky.
</biogeek rant>
smallstar
I'm confused about the argument you're making here.
> The problem with GM crops is the possibility of
> cross-contamination of similar, but non-GM
> crops.
Do you mean physical contamination of a field of one crop variety with a members of another variety? Or are you talking about the offspring of a cross between the two?
> 1) The GM crop becomes dominant, and supplants
> the natural variant.
Do you mean that if GM and non-GM varieties of the same crop were grown in the same field, then the GM crop would dominate and choke out members of the non-GM variety? I'm not sure why a farmer would do that, but if it did occur and the GM crop did prevail in the environment for which it was designed, what's the problem? There's Natural Selection in action for you.
Or do you mean that farmers will choose the GM variety over the other, until the non-GM variety just doesn't exist? This is also unlikely, since there will always be people who choose not to grow GM crops, for a variety of reasons. But again, if this were to happen it would just be another example of the naturally superior variety being most successful. This of course has nothing to do with genetic engineering of foods.
> 2) A GM crop which has been modified to produce
> no fertile seeds causes the natural variant to
> become sterile as well.
If a GM plant and a non-GM plant manage to cross-breed, any offspring which inherit the appropriate combination of sterility genes will of course be sterile. However, all crossed offspring which don't inherit the appropriate genes, as well as all offspring from regular breedings between non-GM plants, will breed just fine. The only way you could completely eliminate the normal, fertile plants would be to prevent them from pollinating each other (or self-pollinating in many cases) and subject them to conditions in which GM plants can survive but every single non-GM individual dies before it can reproduce. Seems pretty unlikely to me.
> Since genes are not an "invention" but a
> natural discovery, they should not be the
> subject of patent whatsoever.
Naturally, all genes present in all organisms on earth are technically there to be "discovered" and are not owned by anyone. But the reality of the situation is that *immense* amounts of time, labour, and money go into the research projects which fund these discoveries. This money, in particular, has to come from somewhere, and currently the way this is done is to create products using the newfound knowledge which cannot be automatically replicated by competitors. The economic success of these new (and hopefully improved) varieties will fund future research. I know this system will probably offend a lot of Open Source sensibilities but I personally don't see any viable alternatives.
Don't get me wrong, I'll be the first to admit that genetic engineering of crops, and biotechnology in general, has implications and potential consequences which must be taken very seriously. I'm just so sick of the misinformation and FUD that seems so rampant in the media these days.
There seems to be a lot of controversy in the media and in scientific circles about the safety of exposure to electromagnetic fields. I did find one article online that seemed relatively well-informed (it was well-documented anyway). And it's fairly recent - 1995, iirc. Anyhow, you can check it out here. As always, try to keep in mind that correlation!=causation. :)