This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Is 107 enough? That's an impressive number to get to sign a letter.
"More than 100 Nobel laureates have signed a letter urging Greenpeace to end its opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The letter asks Greenpeace to cease its efforts to block introduction of a genetically engineered strain of rice that supporters say could reduce Vitamin-A deficiencies causing blindness and death in children in the developing world."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/29/more-...
[ Brexit Brexit <<== sorry, but mention seems to be obligatory at the moment. ]
"More than 100 Nobel laureates have signed a letter urging Greenpeace to end its opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The letter asks Greenpeace to cease its efforts to block introduction of a genetically engineered strain of rice that supporters say could reduce Vitamin-A deficiencies causing blindness and death in children in the developing world."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/06/29/more-...
[ Brexit Brexit <<== sorry, but mention seems to be obligatory at the moment. ]
12
13
In reply to Coel Hellier:
As you mentioned it, weren't a lot of Nobel Laureates ignored then as well.
> [ Brexit Brexit <<== sorry, but mention seems to be obligatory at the moment. ]
As you mentioned it, weren't a lot of Nobel Laureates ignored then as well.
6
3
In reply to Coel Hellier:
It is an impressive number, but it does depend who they are and what their prize was for.
107 recipients of prizes for literature or economics don't necessarily have any understanding of the issues around GMOs.
> Is 107 enough? That's an impressive number to get to sign a letter.
It is an impressive number, but it does depend who they are and what their prize was for.
107 recipients of prizes for literature or economics don't necessarily have any understanding of the issues around GMOs.
4
In reply to Ron Rees Davies:
Eight economics, 1 literature, 1 peace and the rest science.
See http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/view-signatures_rjr.html
> ... 107 recipients of prizes for literature or economics don't necessarily have any understanding of the issues around GMOs.
Eight economics, 1 literature, 1 peace and the rest science.
See http://supportprecisionagriculture.org/view-signatures_rjr.html
2
In reply to The New NickB:
Feel free to ignore the *Economics* laureates in both instances.
> As you mentioned it, weren't a lot of Nobel Laureates ignored then as well.
Feel free to ignore the *Economics* laureates in both instances.
6
In reply to Coel Hellier:
This is deeply cynical of me but I have often thought a radical environmentalist would arrange to kill lots of humans as we are so bad for the planet, perhaps Greenpeace doesn't want to help us multiply further?
This is deeply cynical of me but I have often thought a radical environmentalist would arrange to kill lots of humans as we are so bad for the planet, perhaps Greenpeace doesn't want to help us multiply further?
3
In reply to Coel Hellier:
If the fact that two senior Greenpeace executives live in Luxemburg and commute by plane to their offices in Holland doesn't convince people of greenpeace dual standards nothing will.
I will find the relevant link when I get chance.
If the fact that two senior Greenpeace executives live in Luxemburg and commute by plane to their offices in Holland doesn't convince people of greenpeace dual standards nothing will.
I will find the relevant link when I get chance.
3
In reply to Coel Hellier:
It's not such a clear cut decision to make.
For one, there is a persistent rate of "wrong science". Nobody knows exactly what that rate is (it fluctuates over time), but for example's sake, could be 5% (I recall reading it was estimated to be about 30% for social sciences and pharmaceutical science). In terms of individual papers, it could even be as high as 90% http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.00201...
What this means, is that we cannot put 100% trust into the current understanding of science, especially when the consequences of getting it wrong are extremely grave (especially with rice, a world staple). We should always have some (emphasis on some) doubt on the current understanding of science
Two, humans are notoriously bad at calculating the risk of extremely rare, but utterly severe events. There is no doubt that tinkering with the rice genome will have unforeseen effects, the question is will any of these unforeseen effects be severe? A geneticist is not the person to answer this - it's as if a computer programmer was asked to predict what the internet will do in 10 years. It's a totally different level of scale.
With all that said, I think in this particular case, the Golden rice strain should be planted. In general, I'm very wary of GE crops, due to the unforeseen risk of their uncontrolled planting. A recent study for example has found evidence that GM maize genes has entered the genomes of wild maize in Mexico: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19143938 (an older study was thrown out, but this is the new one)
Similarly there is the recent case of the Bt-resistant nematodes. The effect of these small changes in years to come cannot be predicted reliably.
It's not such a clear cut decision to make.
For one, there is a persistent rate of "wrong science". Nobody knows exactly what that rate is (it fluctuates over time), but for example's sake, could be 5% (I recall reading it was estimated to be about 30% for social sciences and pharmaceutical science). In terms of individual papers, it could even be as high as 90% http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.00201...
What this means, is that we cannot put 100% trust into the current understanding of science, especially when the consequences of getting it wrong are extremely grave (especially with rice, a world staple). We should always have some (emphasis on some) doubt on the current understanding of science
Two, humans are notoriously bad at calculating the risk of extremely rare, but utterly severe events. There is no doubt that tinkering with the rice genome will have unforeseen effects, the question is will any of these unforeseen effects be severe? A geneticist is not the person to answer this - it's as if a computer programmer was asked to predict what the internet will do in 10 years. It's a totally different level of scale.
With all that said, I think in this particular case, the Golden rice strain should be planted. In general, I'm very wary of GE crops, due to the unforeseen risk of their uncontrolled planting. A recent study for example has found evidence that GM maize genes has entered the genomes of wild maize in Mexico: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19143938 (an older study was thrown out, but this is the new one)
Similarly there is the recent case of the Bt-resistant nematodes. The effect of these small changes in years to come cannot be predicted reliably.
Post edited at 21:22
4
2
In reply to SenzuBean:
That's sort of true, especially at the level of individual papers or with things that are hard to test, but by now hundreds of millions of people have been eating GM crops for about 20 years, and so far there is no evidence at all of adverse health effects. Thus the suck-it-and-see evidence for its safety is about as high as anything ever is.
> For one, there is a persistent rate of "wrong science".
That's sort of true, especially at the level of individual papers or with things that are hard to test, but by now hundreds of millions of people have been eating GM crops for about 20 years, and so far there is no evidence at all of adverse health effects. Thus the suck-it-and-see evidence for its safety is about as high as anything ever is.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Yes, but I'm not disputing that part
I'm saying we don't know what the cumulative effects of transgenes on the environment are (including direct gene transfer, and resistant pests, and other things we don't even know about) - that's something they're not able to refute with in-vitro research.
> That's sort of true, especially at the level of individual papers or with things that are hard to test, but by now hundreds of millions of people have been eating GM crops for about 20 years, and so far there is no evidence at all of adverse health effects. Thus the suck-it-and-see evidence for its safety is about as high as anything ever is.
Yes, but I'm not disputing that part
I'm saying we don't know what the cumulative effects of transgenes on the environment are (including direct gene transfer, and resistant pests, and other things we don't even know about) - that's something they're not able to refute with in-vitro research.
2
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Nice to read an intelligent debate!
My own experience of Greenpeace was as an activist in the mid 90s, leaving as I felt they were too anti - science with no good reason, unless it was in support of their cause. I still agree with a lot of they do but they need to be more realistic / pragmatic at times.
Nice to read an intelligent debate!
My own experience of Greenpeace was as an activist in the mid 90s, leaving as I felt they were too anti - science with no good reason, unless it was in support of their cause. I still agree with a lot of they do but they need to be more realistic / pragmatic at times.
6
In reply to Coel Hellier:
im sure you wouldn't be so enthusiastic if any of them happen to believe in god.
> Is 107 enough? That's an impressive number to get to sign a letter.
im sure you wouldn't be so enthusiastic if any of them happen to believe in god.
3
In reply to johncook:
I thought they all lived in Brighton.
> If the fact that two senior Greenpeace executives live in Luxemburg and commute by plane to their offices in Holland doesn't convince people of greenpeace dual standards nothing will.
I thought they all lived in Brighton.
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
As someone who works in plant research I used to direct my students to the Greenpeace website for a balanced counter-argument against GM. I no longer do so as it became profoundly unscientific a number of years ago. As a case study of how things have changed, Golden Rice is a good example. Whatever the rights and wrongs of Golden Rice, it's important to have an evidence base.
Greenpeace argued against marker assisted breeding for years - but it's now the saviour to avoid GM. Personally I used both - it's the outcome that matters.
I find it frustrating that people talk about unforeseen effects and the impact of inserting genes into a genome. But I fail to see how inserting a single tomato gene into another tomato genome at a precisely known location is somehow riskier than randomly mixing the two together. Both could have unforeseen effects - but it's a lot easier to test one thing rather than hundreds.
As someone who works in plant research I used to direct my students to the Greenpeace website for a balanced counter-argument against GM. I no longer do so as it became profoundly unscientific a number of years ago. As a case study of how things have changed, Golden Rice is a good example. Whatever the rights and wrongs of Golden Rice, it's important to have an evidence base.
Greenpeace argued against marker assisted breeding for years - but it's now the saviour to avoid GM. Personally I used both - it's the outcome that matters.
I find it frustrating that people talk about unforeseen effects and the impact of inserting genes into a genome. But I fail to see how inserting a single tomato gene into another tomato genome at a precisely known location is somehow riskier than randomly mixing the two together. Both could have unforeseen effects - but it's a lot easier to test one thing rather than hundreds.
7
In reply to SenzuBean:
Giving Greenpeace the benefit of the doubt, this does seem a reasonable position from which to oppose GM foods. There's also the issue of the crop being 'owned' by a single company, which seems a bit dubious (or sinister, depending on your level of cynicism).
> I'm saying we don't know what the cumulative effects of transgenes on the environment are (including direct gene transfer, and resistant pests, and other things we don't even know about) - that's something they're not able to refute with in-vitro research.
Giving Greenpeace the benefit of the doubt, this does seem a reasonable position from which to oppose GM foods. There's also the issue of the crop being 'owned' by a single company, which seems a bit dubious (or sinister, depending on your level of cynicism).
In reply to Removed UserBwox:
One thing to bear in mind is that transgenes are just genes, and that naturally occurring retroviruses have been transferring genes between species for eons.
> Giving Greenpeace the benefit of the doubt, this does seem a reasonable position from which to oppose GM foods.
One thing to bear in mind is that transgenes are just genes, and that naturally occurring retroviruses have been transferring genes between species for eons.
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
How many have been patented?
> One thing to bear in mind is that transgenes are just genes, and that naturally occurring retroviruses have been transferring genes between species for eons.
How many have been patented?
In reply to krikoman:
You can patent new non-GMO plants as much as new GMO ones, so this is a rather different issue from the safety of GMOs. Monopoly of seed supply is just as much an issue for non-GMO commercial crops.
> How many have been patented?
You can patent new non-GMO plants as much as new GMO ones, so this is a rather different issue from the safety of GMOs. Monopoly of seed supply is just as much an issue for non-GMO commercial crops.
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
I'll ignore Economics Laureates on GM, I'm less inclined to ignore them on economics.
> Feel free to ignore the *Economics* laureates in both instances.
I'll ignore Economics Laureates on GM, I'm less inclined to ignore them on economics.
1
1
In reply to Coel Hellier:
A fair point. I think the matter of the indirect effect of, for example, pest-resistant crops would be more difficult to asses. The knock-on effects throughout the food-chain and ecosystem more generally surely are very difficult to reliably predict and account for, and probably is something that isn't very high on the priority list of GM developers.
> One thing to bear in mind is that transgenes are just genes, and that naturally occurring retroviruses have been transferring genes between species for eons.
A fair point. I think the matter of the indirect effect of, for example, pest-resistant crops would be more difficult to asses. The knock-on effects throughout the food-chain and ecosystem more generally surely are very difficult to reliably predict and account for, and probably is something that isn't very high on the priority list of GM developers.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Getting a Nobel prize does not necessarily make you an expert in unrelated field of science, and especially not outside science (and the issue here is political, not scientific). What it it definitely does, though, is to make you more likely to feel entitled to pontificate at great length about things you do not understand. I personally know several prize winners, and have met quite a few more, so the sample this observation is based on is not entirely unrepresentative.
Pro GM food campaigners always present golden rice as a inspiring example for what is possible using GM food. Unfortunately, 15 years after the beginning of field testing, there is no good strain, and this initial charity project has been hijacked by Syngenta.
The main issue with GM food is the issue of patenting of seeds GM crops can only ever work (i.e., generate profit for the IP holders) in combination with industrialized farming, which will screw up farming communities, especially in developing countries (as already demonstrated by the effects NAFTA had on maize farming in Mexico).
Allowing patentable GM crops will concentrate control of the entire food production chain in the hands of a few international businesses.
IMO, this is the single most idiotic idea except charging for the air we breathe (a la total recall).
CB
Getting a Nobel prize does not necessarily make you an expert in unrelated field of science, and especially not outside science (and the issue here is political, not scientific). What it it definitely does, though, is to make you more likely to feel entitled to pontificate at great length about things you do not understand. I personally know several prize winners, and have met quite a few more, so the sample this observation is based on is not entirely unrepresentative.
Pro GM food campaigners always present golden rice as a inspiring example for what is possible using GM food. Unfortunately, 15 years after the beginning of field testing, there is no good strain, and this initial charity project has been hijacked by Syngenta.
The main issue with GM food is the issue of patenting of seeds GM crops can only ever work (i.e., generate profit for the IP holders) in combination with industrialized farming, which will screw up farming communities, especially in developing countries (as already demonstrated by the effects NAFTA had on maize farming in Mexico).
Allowing patentable GM crops will concentrate control of the entire food production chain in the hands of a few international businesses.
IMO, this is the single most idiotic idea except charging for the air we breathe (a la total recall).
CB
2
In reply to cb294:
You don't work in crop genetics, do you? Take a look through one of your national list databases and tell me how much diversity there is in terms of the companies, and their sizes. Breeding programmes are a lot more expensive than transgenics. I agree that patenting is a bad form of IP for crops, but they don't much change how the market works.
> Getting a Nobel prize does not necessarily make you an expert in unrelated field of science
> Allowing patentable GM crops will concentrate control of the entire food production chain in the hands of a few international businesses.
You don't work in crop genetics, do you? Take a look through one of your national list databases and tell me how much diversity there is in terms of the companies, and their sizes. Breeding programmes are a lot more expensive than transgenics. I agree that patenting is a bad form of IP for crops, but they don't much change how the market works.
In reply to MarkJH:
I am not a crop geneticist, but I also never claimed that one cannot have a good idea on subjects unrelated to one´s professional expertise, just that a Nobel prize does not necessarily guarantee such expertise in other fields.
I do have some idea about conservation biology, though, and one of the biggest issues we are facing is the conversion from small, farm scale food production to industrial scale food production. The agro deserts currently developing across wide swathes of Europe, where nothing but maize grows as everything else is killed by glyphosate, are nothing compared to, say, soybean production in Brazil or the changes in maize production in Mexico (where it is grown as food rather than biofuel or animal feed). The destruction of our fauna and flora aside, this industrialization also destroys traditional farming societies (again, developing countries are hit harder).
I strongly suspect that GM crops are not pushed because they produce specific benefits that non-GM crops would not have, but that they are a means of concentrating control of food production. We can already see this happening: International food companies are buying up arable land from East Germany to the former Soviet Union, in Africa, and in South America. I am indeed afraid of putting this essential part of our life into the hands of some capitalist oligopoly, and was only half joking about paying for oxygen.
GM driven seed development will simply be the next step. Wait until the current Crispr/Cas law suits are settled, want to take a bet against one of the big agrochemical companies buying the IP, or at least trying to obtain exclusive licensing for plant use? If this happens, your small seed producers will be gone more quickly than you can look.
Consistently, the Golden Rice promoted in the letter CH referred to started as a not for profit project, and was then essentially taken over by Syngenta (at the time still Astra Zeneca). The fact that it still under development (one recent paper supposedly demonstrating its efficacy was even retracted), and is nevertheless always presented as an example of the big promise of GM food really makes me doubt whether Syngenta et al., don´t simply want to use it as a door opener.
Unfortunately I have to admit that there are campaigners who discredit the opposition to GM food with ill informed arguments.
CB
I am not a crop geneticist, but I also never claimed that one cannot have a good idea on subjects unrelated to one´s professional expertise, just that a Nobel prize does not necessarily guarantee such expertise in other fields.
I do have some idea about conservation biology, though, and one of the biggest issues we are facing is the conversion from small, farm scale food production to industrial scale food production. The agro deserts currently developing across wide swathes of Europe, where nothing but maize grows as everything else is killed by glyphosate, are nothing compared to, say, soybean production in Brazil or the changes in maize production in Mexico (where it is grown as food rather than biofuel or animal feed). The destruction of our fauna and flora aside, this industrialization also destroys traditional farming societies (again, developing countries are hit harder).
I strongly suspect that GM crops are not pushed because they produce specific benefits that non-GM crops would not have, but that they are a means of concentrating control of food production. We can already see this happening: International food companies are buying up arable land from East Germany to the former Soviet Union, in Africa, and in South America. I am indeed afraid of putting this essential part of our life into the hands of some capitalist oligopoly, and was only half joking about paying for oxygen.
GM driven seed development will simply be the next step. Wait until the current Crispr/Cas law suits are settled, want to take a bet against one of the big agrochemical companies buying the IP, or at least trying to obtain exclusive licensing for plant use? If this happens, your small seed producers will be gone more quickly than you can look.
Consistently, the Golden Rice promoted in the letter CH referred to started as a not for profit project, and was then essentially taken over by Syngenta (at the time still Astra Zeneca). The fact that it still under development (one recent paper supposedly demonstrating its efficacy was even retracted), and is nevertheless always presented as an example of the big promise of GM food really makes me doubt whether Syngenta et al., don´t simply want to use it as a door opener.
Unfortunately I have to admit that there are campaigners who discredit the opposition to GM food with ill informed arguments.
CB
2
In reply to cb294:
Again: 'strong suspicions' are probably not a substitute for knowledge. PBRs offer more than enough control of crop varieties to allow large multinationals to exploit breeding success. Add in protection of specific markers, and ownership of phenotypic data from GS training populations and you will see that intellectual property is not something that is lacking from conventional breeding or that breeders are concerned about. GMOs are interesting because they give us genetic variation that could not be found naturally or generated by classical mutagenisis.
Small seed producers serve small markets. In many cases these are academic organisations who work on partially subsidised programmes, in other case small commercial organisations serving unusual growing conditions or small acreages. GM will not make small markets large, and they will certainly not do away with GxE. In some regions, farmers will continue to plant old varieties, small breeders will continue to serve small markets, and large multinationals will continue to contest the European and North American cereals market. Crispr/Cas will go through the courts, and in the meantime alternatives will emerge that will work better or be cheaper.
> I strongly suspect that GM crops are not pushed because they produce specific benefits that non-GM crops would not have, but that they are a means of concentrating control of food production.
Again: 'strong suspicions' are probably not a substitute for knowledge. PBRs offer more than enough control of crop varieties to allow large multinationals to exploit breeding success. Add in protection of specific markers, and ownership of phenotypic data from GS training populations and you will see that intellectual property is not something that is lacking from conventional breeding or that breeders are concerned about. GMOs are interesting because they give us genetic variation that could not be found naturally or generated by classical mutagenisis.
> GM driven seed development will simply be the next step. Wait until the current Crispr/Cas law suits are settled, want to take a bet against one of the big agrochemical companies buying the IP, or at least trying to obtain exclusive licensing for plant use? If this happens, your small seed producers will be gone more quickly than you can look.
Small seed producers serve small markets. In many cases these are academic organisations who work on partially subsidised programmes, in other case small commercial organisations serving unusual growing conditions or small acreages. GM will not make small markets large, and they will certainly not do away with GxE. In some regions, farmers will continue to plant old varieties, small breeders will continue to serve small markets, and large multinationals will continue to contest the European and North American cereals market. Crispr/Cas will go through the courts, and in the meantime alternatives will emerge that will work better or be cheaper.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...