What's New in Life Science Research is managed and written entirely by Seed editors and expert guest bloggers. Read more about them 
For all the ballyhoo about genetically modified organisms (food, in particular) making the world a better place, there's also the fact that GMO technology is big money.
Science writer and environmentalist Chris Clarke said it best in his "non-knee-jerk primer" on GMOs:
I have some concerns about the safety of GMOs, based on our rudimentary understanding of how gene expression may be affected by change in a single gene, but not enough to make me want to ban research or completely rule out use of GMOs in daily life altogether. But add the profit motive and the ability to patent lifeforms and you get attempts by individual corporations to corner the worldwide market in one species after another, which is bad for farmers and consumers, and you also get thuggish attempts to subvert independent research, which is bad for science.
In the first 2009 issue of the Vatican newspaper, Cardinal Renato Martino also focused on GMOs and profit and the correlation with famine and hunger worldwide:
"If one wants to pursue GMOs (genetically modified organisms) one can freely do so, but without hiding that it's a way to make more profits," he said.
Utilizing genetically modified foods calls for "prudence" because genetically modifying organisms can increase yields in some instances, he said, but people must not abuse their power to be able to manipulate nature.
And in 2001, Louise O. Fresco, Assistant-Director General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations wrote:
As the portfolio of GM applications increases, the international community needs to ensure that GM crops make an optimal contribution to world food security, to food safety and food quality, and to sustainability, and that they remain available to the public at large. However, despite some hopeful signs, FAO's inventory suggests that genomics and related research are not being directed to meeting these key challenges.
Indeed, the perceived profit potential of GMOs has already changed the direction of investment in research and development, in both the public and private sectors, away from systems-based approaches to pest management, and towards a greater reliance on monocultures. The possible long-term environmental costs of such strategies should not be overlooked.
As some might say, money is at the root of all evil. Or others might say, money makes the world go around. Either way, it's an important aspect of GMO development that should not be overlooked.
Life Science
Environment
Comments
medicine makes the world a better place and is big money.
computers make the world a better place and are big money.
cell phones make the world a better place and are big money.
etc.
An intellectually challenged post, at best.
Posted by: Marc | January 12, 2009 12:58 PM
No one ever asked for GMOs and to date they serve no purpose other than putting money in the hands of the patent holders. Not a single commercially available GMO increases yield or reduces the use of pesticide in any significant amount, and has in fact been implicated in the increased use of pesticides and the rise of "super weeds" that are themselves herbicide tolerant. Topping that off, one corporation, Monsanto, now has control of 90% of the world seed market. This is the same corporation that gave us agent orange and for decades dumped PCB wastes into the yards and drainage field of the drinking water for the black community of Anniston, Alabama.Is this really who we want to have control of our foodstock? I know my answer.
Posted by: nosmokes | January 12, 2009 4:07 PM
Thank you both for your comments.
Marc, it's exactly as you said. The benefits of medicine, computers, and cell phones are not debated with as much fervor as GMOs (yes, yes, I'm sure you can find exceptions but I still don't think it's comparable). Hence, the profit-driven motivations of GMO producing companies should not be overlooked.
Posted by: Hsien Lei | January 12, 2009 7:14 PM
nosmokes,
How do GMOS put money in the hands of patent holders if they serve no purpose? Who goes around paying good money for things that are useless?
How did Monsanto gain control of 90% of the seed market if Monsanto's seeds offer no benefits? What stops farmers from using unpatented, non-GM seeds?
Your claims are self-contradictory nonsense.
Posted by: qetzal | January 12, 2009 7:38 PM
Logically, that Monsanto makes money from GMO's is irrelevant as to whether or not the process has value. There have been proven benefits to GMO in warding off pests, creating drought resistant crops, and etc. I would advise people with questions on GMO to visit the blog of GMO researcher Anastasia Bodnar before making blanket statements regarding GMO's. See Genetic Maize.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | January 12, 2009 7:52 PM
It's not irrelevant at all. If people are willing to pay money for something, that's a very strong indication that the thing has value to them.
Unless someone wants to argue that people are being forced against their will to give money to GMO patent holders?
Posted by: qetzal | January 12, 2009 10:05 PM
GMO crops do increase yield and do decrease the use of pesticides, there are no credible data to the contrary. A technology will succeed in the market place only if it has value to everyone using or selling the technology. Monsanto and others make money if and only if the farmers make money using the technology. Farmers make more money planting GMO crops and there is no credible evidence to show that anyone has ever been hurt by consuming GMO crops.
The fact is that unless you are a hunter/gatherer you have been eating genetically modified crops your whole life. That is what plant breeding is, the genetic modification of a crop. In the old days, radiation and other methods were used to transfer genes from one species to another.
This whole debate is being fueled by ignorance, and political or economic reasons.
Posted by: knowledgeable | January 13, 2009 9:30 AM
In a debate I had with HIV Denier Lenny Horowitz, 'HIV IZ SCAM 4 MONEYS!' was a central talking point for him. I make ~19K a year as an overworked grad student, he sells $250 magic tuning forks, while bitching at me that HIV is just a money scam. lol.
They also find solace in fear mongering and are ignorant of the basics of the very topic they are anti-.
All of these GMO posts have been seriously amateur.
Posted by: ERV | January 14, 2009 2:19 PM
I agree with ERV, that this latest series of posts on GMOs has been very light on any sort of substantial critical analysis.
This is quite a disappointing standard of blogging and not something I expect from scienceblogs. I'd expect in from a quack site, sure.
Posted by: Mags | January 15, 2009 1:15 PM
Yeeha. Farmers are bad. They do it for the money. Doctors are bad. They do it for the money. Journalists are bad. They do it for the money. University professors are bad. They do it for the money.
Posted by: factician | January 17, 2009 11:08 AM
This blogger must think that all farmers (except for organic farmers) are idiots. The blogger thinks that farmers are willing to pay more money for GMO seeds that have no benefits and that these GMO plants require even more money from the farmer to pay for the supposed increase amounts of pesticides.
These GMO posts truly are quackery. I wish that Orac would expand his quack coverage to include those about food nonsense.
Posted by: Mike | January 22, 2009 3:16 PM
For what it's worth, the biblical claim is that it is the love of money that is the root of all [or in some translations all sorts/kinds of] evil, not money itself.
Posted by: Oliver | January 30, 2009 4:22 AM
qetzal,
How do GMOS put money in the hands of patent holders if they serve no purpose? Who goes around paying good money for things that are useless?
How did Monsanto gain control of 90% of the seed market if Monsanto's seeds offer no benefits? What stops farmers from using unpatented, non-GM seeds?
Your claims are self-contradictory nonsense.
Answer:
DotComs ? Subprime loan market ? Enron ?
speculative investment by uninformed desperately greedy people by well heeled exploitive greedy people.
a rich, rewarding life is built one step at a time
weighing actions against rewards
and money is not the only or best reward or security
blind faith leaps for money rewards alone rarely reap long term effects that benefit everyone. they usually wreak havoc on many many peoples lives.
it's a fact of life.
the leaps that are genuinely applauded and usually successful are on an unselfish, non-greedy, unneedy level because they inspire us to be better than ourselves
but where billions of lives and our life support system, the ecosystem, are concerned profit driven only leaps are ludicrous at best
everything on this planet is connected
believe it or not
and your children or someone you know's chldren will be the recipients of debt caused by profit driven concerns in some form
is this how we hope to thrive as a species?
is this really the best we can do in seeing ourselves making each generation better and more equipped?
is this a bet we are willing to make?
give it some thought and get back to yourself and the rest of us with the answers
respectfully
hotamitaneo (dogsoldier)
Posted by: charlie | February 24, 2009 2:35 AM
güzel...
Posted by: kelebek | March 6, 2009 2:41 PM
Capitalism, GMOs, mechanized farming for livestock production that promote clear cutting of woodlands is not a sustainable option for the future of humanity unless you want to limit what the human race has the potential to become, which is a friend to the natural balance of plant and animal. Good comprehensive research should prove this very clearly.
Posted by: Kevin DeMay | March 15, 2009 3:40 AM
GOOD Sites.
Posted by: KELEBEK | March 16, 2009 3:32 PM
Say, I read about this article :
http://www.france24.com/en/20090418-superweed-explosion-threatens-monsanto-heartlands-genetically-modified-US-crops
on a blog. The blogger expressed surprise (skepticism ?) that there didn't seem to be any US sources running this story, which one would presumably expect as it happens in the US...
Still, one thing leading to another I searched for "superweed" on scienceblogs, and you know how many results I found ?
THREE.
Two of them dealing with marijuana.
Now I REALLY wonder why that is. Is the term not used that much ? Does the topic interest nobody here ? (doubtful). Is it intellectually bankrupt ? (in that case I'd at least expect rebuttals, but then I guess there isn't time in the day to rebut every intellectually bankrupt idea).
I would like to know what your thoughts are on this matter.
Posted by: Caravelle | April 26, 2009 4:07 AM
This blogger must think that all farmers (except for organic farmers) are idiots. The blogger thinks that farmers are willing to pay more money for GMO seeds that have no benefits and that these GMO plants require even more money from the farmer to pay for the supposed increase amounts of pesticides.
These GMO posts truly are quackery. I wish that Orac would expand his quack coverage to include those about food nonsense.
Posted by: film izle | May 29, 2009 9:53 AM
I'm not sure about this but don't farmers in our country and in other countries get government subsidies in the form of seed, and this seed can only come from Monsanto? I thought it was the "increase yield per acre" advertisement that Monsanto makes that made it look good from the front. Indeed, I don't doubt the yield is increased and therefore seems like the seed is more valuable on the outset of a purchase. Then, with international patent rights the individual farmer is by and by veritably controlled by the will of Monsanto. I may be completely off on this but this was my understanding.
YouTube has numerous videos of small farmers who initially had to use less herbicide but then with "super weeds" they had to buy more and use more (7 times more) herbicide. I'm not supporting this information but nobody has addressed it here.
Posted by: Fred | June 25, 2009 5:50 PM