genetic engineering

Luring Stem Cells Down the Right Path

jhalper — Wed, 24 Dec 2014 20:21:59 +0000

Luring Stem Cells Down the Right Path

Getting cells to revert to a stem-like state – creating so-called induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells – was a true revolution, but the technique invented in 2006 is only half the game. The first challenges include getting enough adult cells to undergo the “reprogramming” in culture to be of use and removing those traces of “priming” that distinguish them from true embryonic stem cells. The second is keeping them in the iPS state – that is, holding back their urge to differentiate – in lab conditions. And then there is the challenge of directing their differentiation in the way that you want, especially if you want to lure them down one of the very early developmental paths.

For Dr. Jacob (Yaqub) Hanna, the way forward lies in taking a step back and asking the fundamental questions: How does reprogramming work on the basic molecular level? Why does the reprogramming process – inserting four genes into adult cells – create cells that are almost, but not quite, the equivalent of embryonic stem cells? Why is it that mouse embryonic stem cells tend to be stable and easily manipulated in the lab, but human stem cells stubbornly insist on differentiating or degrading, as well as resisting methods that have been shown to work on mouse cells?

That last question has turned out to be crucial: It is by comparing mouse and human cells that Hanna and his lab group have gained an understanding of the genetic pathways in human cells that drive differentiation, and this understanding led them to create “better iPS cells.” We wrote about these “naïve” cells, which appear to be closer to the earliest embryonic stem cells, around a year ago saying: “The next step, of course, is directing the differentiation of the embryonic tissue to produce specific human tissues and organs. Hanna and his group are already on it.”

We are now pleased to report progress in that area. The cells that Hanna and his group have created in the lab in the course of their latest research are some of the most challenging: primordial germ cells, the precursor cells that appear just a week or two into embryonic development and eventually give rise to the sperm and ova. A group in Japan had produced them in mouse cells, but that feat was proving particularly tricky to reproduce in human cells.

Using the naïve cell technique they invented, Hanna and his team went on to create human primordial germ cells – in quantity. “We can produce enough of these cells in the petri dish to use them for further research,” says Hanna. “One of the most important things we discovered is that the process is regulated by a different master gene in humans than in mice. This shows that we need to learn more about how these cells are produced in humans.”

Images: Clusters of human embryonic stem cells that were differentiated to an early germ cell (PGC) state. Each color reveals the expression of a different gene. (top to bottom) NANOS3, NANOG, OCT4 and all three combined in a single image

jhalper Wed, 12/24/2014 - 15:21

Tags

basic research

biochemistry

genetic engineering

stem cells

induced pluripotent stem cells

primordial germ cells

Supernova Flashes and Silver Linings

milhayser — Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:16:37 +0000

Supernova Flashes and Silver Linings

New research from the Weizmann Institute of Science reveals that "cells in our brain form little hexagonal grids that keep us oriented, map-like, in our surroundings." Weizmann's resident blogger describes this finding as "a pyrotechnic flash of insight that changes how we understand the brain to work." Game developers delight; this discovery shows "that you can really apply mathematical models to understand how our mammalian brains get their bearings." It may also have immediate implications for understanding human brain disorders such as vertigo. Meanwhile, on ERV, Abbie Smith explores a silver lining emerging from ongoing research into the viral scourge known as HIV. Abbie explains that HIV viruses genetically reprogrammed by scientists to "modify relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) patients T-cells" are prolonging and possibly saving the lives of kids. Continued genetic modification could transform HIV into a powerful tool for fighting cancer and other diseases. Finally, on The Pump Handle, Elizabeth Grossman writes that rapid job growth in oil and gas industry is shining a light on some of the most dangerous jobs on the planet. Elizabeth writes, "Last year, 112 oil and gas industry workers were killed on the job and about 9,000 suffered non-fatal, work-related injuries and illnesses." Hazards include toxic chemicals, respirable silica, and radiation exposure, not to mention "motor vehicle crashes, fires, electrocution and explosions." But a new alliance between OSHA, NIOSH, and the National STEPS Network promises to fight for better workplace safety for these very important employees. Oh and for those not satisfied with a metaphor: some real supernova goodness from Ethan Siegel.

milhayser Fri, 12/12/2014 - 08:16

Tags

Ebola: Horror and Hope for a Cure

milhayser — Thu, 14 Aug 2014 13:08:56 +0000

Ebola: Horror and Hope for a Cure

As an unprecedented outbreak of Ebola crosses borders in West Africa, people are asking new questions about the virus and its potential to turn into a global pandemic (hint: it's not gonna happen). Greg Laden writes "The disease is too hot to not burn itself out, and it has no human reservoir. Ebola accidentally broke into the human population earlier this year or late last year." The current numbers from the WHO suggest 1800 confirmed and suspected cases of Ebola so far with a mortality rate edging down toward 55%.

Last week some in the U.S. objected to bringing two American patients back home, but Tara C. Smith writes that Ebola has been there all along, in government labs, while related viruses like Lassa and Marburg have been imported by infected travelers without causing additional cases. The one characteristic of Ebola we can be thankful for is that it is only spread through contact with bodily fluids, not through the air like a cold or flu. Smith concludes, "Ebola is exotic and its symptoms can be terrifying, but also much easier to contain by people who know their stuff." Meanwhile, Greg Laden writes that an extremely rare, untested 'cure' for the illness does exist, and it has also been given to the two infected Americans. He's referring to anti-serum, i.e. blood serum containing natural Ebola antibodies modelled after those generated by infected mice. On Discovering Biology in a Digital World, Sandra Porter shows how the antibodies lock onto viral proteins, and says it is time to focus on mass-producing an effective antiserum for this horrible disease. On ERV, Abbie Smith explains how the manufacturing process works: genetically modifying viruses to contain blueprints for parts of Ebola antibodies, putting the viruses in bacteria as delivery vehicles, and using the bacteria to infect GMO tobacco plants whose cellular machinery will be hijacked to make molecules. Smith writes, "Plants are a pretty cheap way to produce a lot of protein. Blow up the plant cells, purify your protein, and BAM! A ton of anti-Ebola antibodies."

milhayser Thu, 08/14/2014 - 09:08

Tags

One point has not yet been made clear in the coverage of Ebola that I have seen: does infection confer immunity on survivors? If Dr. Brantly chose to return to Africa, would he be safe from reinfection?

If Ebola works like smallpox did, there would be significant implications for controlling the disease; immune survivors would be able to work directly with sick patients without fear of contracting the disease themselves. They could dispense with the personal protective equipment that can frighten patients and deter them from presenting for treatment. Such equipment is a scarce resource in Africa, and survivors with even rudimentary training as caregivers could contribute to the control of the spread of the disease.

Last Week on ResearchBlogging.org

milhayser — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 22:27:32 +0000

Last Week on ResearchBlogging.org

Perovskite solar cells can not only emit light, they can also emit up to 70% of absorbed sunlight as lasers.

Critical signaling molecules can be used to convert stem cells to neural progenitor cells, increasing the yield of healthy motor neurons and decreasing the time required to grow them.

Mexican blind cavefish are so close to their sighted kin that they are considered the same species, but they use pressure waves (from opening and closing their mouths) to navigate in the dark.

Electrostatic assembly allows luminescent elements (like Europium) to be embedded in nanodiamonds; these glowing particles "can be used as biomarkers, allowing researchers to track things that are happening inside cells."

In a rather cruel experiment, researchers tortured male rats by isolating them, depriving them of food and water, clamping their tails, shocking them with electricity, dunking them in cold water, placing them in soiled bedding, and keeping the lights on all night. Then they cut off and dissected the rats' testicles to look for signs of stress in their reproductive cells.

On the brighter side of testicular slices, researchers have shown that cancer cells cannot survive a new process for removing and freezing a sample of testicular tissue from boys with cancer. The process could allow patients to sidestep infertility caused by radiation and chemotherapy by implanting spermatogonial stem cells back into survivors when they reach adulthood.

A newly engineered bacterium can better manufacture pinene, "a hydrocarbon produced by trees that could potentially replace high-energy fuels, such as JP-10, in missiles and other aerospace applications."

Weather extremes don't always cause crops to fail; extra rain (as opposed to drought) can boost yields significantly, but it also boosts mosquito populations and the prevalence of mosquito-borne disease.

People with children "experienced less physical pain, felt they had more enjoyment in their lives, earned higher incomes, were better educated, and were healthier" than childless individuals, but still reported lower overall life satisfaction.

Like everyone else, most prisoners feel they are kinder and more moral than the average person; they also feel they are equally law-abiding.

Male wasps mouth the antennae of females during coitus to make them horny (with an oral pheromone), but a second exposure to the pheromone causes a lady wasp to lose interest in "unlocking her genitals" and start looking for fly larvae to deposit her eggs in.

Mafia members, despite their violent lifestyle, are highly social and not likely to be psychopaths.

Using more wood in building construction could reduce CO₂ emissions related to the manufacture of steel and concrete while maintaining sustainable forestry practices.

New research replicates a pioneering 19th-century study of blood flow to the brain during cognitive processing.

Some children with autism respond favorably to naltexone, an opiate antagonist, but the drug did not demonstrate an impact on core features of the disorder.

Dogs placed in foster homes—dressed in "Adopt Me" vests and taken to public places—relieve crowding in animal shelters and are more likely to be adopted for the long-term.

Many "hot" foods, like capsaicin, activate the TRPV1 receptor; deceptive showmen apply ginger to the anuses of older horses to make their tails more erect.

Growing soccer players at elite levels of play are more likely to develop cam deformities of the hip.

A patient who lost his hippocampus in a motorcycle accident (and his ability to form new memories) still understands the concepts of past and future, yet he has no regrets, and cannot imagine anyone having regrets (even Richard Nixon).

Hybrid cars get better gas mileage in countries like India and China due to higher levels of traffic congestion.

Among 65,226 UK residents, eating 7 servings of fruits and vegetables per day reduced risk of death from all causes by 42%.

milhayser Sun, 04/06/2014 - 18:27

Categories

Life Sciences

Building a Better Stem Cell

jhalper — Thu, 31 Oct 2013 05:15:46 +0000

Building a Better Stem Cell

In the future, stem cells created from our own skin cells will be used to renew damaged organs or grow new ones. We know this promise has often been made before, but the latest research in the lab of Dr. Jacob (Yaqub) Hanna is producing some solid findings that may make you believe in the possibility.

Just a little over a month ago, we reported that Hanna and his group had discovered a “brake” that keeps our cells from easily reverting to an embryonic-stem-cell-like state (induced pluripotent stem cells, or iPS cells). Removing that brake enabled them to ramp up the conversion process – in which inserting four genes into adult cells causes them to revert – from less than 1% efficiency to 100% efficiency.

Now they have refined the process further, producing iPS cells that are nearly identical to the earliest natural human embryonic stem cells. What is the difference between previous versions of iPS cells, which have been shown to differentiate into any number of different cell types, and the new ones? It is the difference between cells that look a lot like embryonic stem cells, but still hold on to the ghosts of their previous forms (priming) and those that are naïve – that have no clue whatsoever as to what type of cell they “want to be when they grow up.” As an added bonus, the new cells can be kept for longer in their stem-like state, which should make them easier to use.

What Hanna and his group have done is to improve the recipe. The original four genes are still the basis of the reprogramming, but by adding another step or two, a carefully measured teaspoon of this and a pinch of that, they have taken things several steps closer to perfection.

Human naive iPS-derived cells (yellow/green) integrate into different tissues of developing host mouse embryo (red cells)

And the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Or in this case, a “humanized” mouse embryo grown in the lab. Inserting the new iPS cells into a mouse blastocyst – a tiny ball of naïve embryonic stem cells – produced an embryo containing identifiable human tissue alongside the mouse tissue.

The next step, of course, is directing the differentiation of the embryonic tissue to produce specific human tissues and organs. Hanna and his group are already on it.

jhalper Thu, 10/31/2013 - 01:15

Tags

humanized mouse embryo

induced pluripotent stem cells

Anti-science is not a state of mind

kbonham — Mon, 05 Aug 2013 12:03:09 +0000

Anti-science is not a state of mind

Can you be skeptical about GM but believe in climate change? So asks Alice Bell in The Guardian. The answer is of course, "Yes," but you can also be a fundamentalist Christian while believing in evolution and being a great scientist, so being able to hold two things in your brain at the same time is not a useful measure of logical incompatibility. One can be right about one thing and wrong about the other.

But let's get to the real issue raised in Bell's piece, the use of the term "anti-science" to describe opponents of genetically modified organisms (GMOs):

When people use the term "anti-science", I want to know what definition of science they've based their concept of anti on.

Challenge accepted. When I use the term "anti-science," (and I have a couple times), I'm referring to the act of ignoring studies that refute your hypothesis without explaining their flaw, cherry-picking studies that support your hypothesis without regard to their rigor, ignoring the consensus of experts in peer reviewed literature, making claims that are not based in fact, shouting down people who point out those facts as shills, liars or worse etc.

Who'd be simplistic enough to be "pro" the whole of science? What sort of shallow, shampoo advert "science bit" approach to the complexities of modernity are they living by?

Who'd be simplistic enough to expand a term to it's most far-reaching interpretation, and sophistic enough to argue against that interpretation as if it meant anything. The opposite of being "anti-science" on GMO is not being "'pro' the whole of science." And what's so wrong about being pro-science? It doesn't take much nuance to accept that the scientific process is, as Carl Sagan said, "by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans," while also acknowledging, again as Carl Sagan said, "It is not perfect, it's just the best we have."

Still, I'm sympathetic with the idea that the term anti-science is, as Bell writes:

...all too often applied to close down debate.

As science communicators, we can't just say that someone is anti-science, dust off our hands and walk away. We need to explain the science, and explain why those people are wrong. The fact is, no one is really against science, which is why the anti-science criticism stings so much. Science is consistently rated among the most trusted professions, and people that don't believe in global warming or are against GMOs have to believe that their positions are grounded in scientific veracity.

I think that my main difference with Bell, and perhaps the source of the rest of my disagreement is this:

It's also a lot easier for the GM lobby to play a game of "you are wrong on science" rather than acknowledging that the bulk of the critique against them is economic and political. [emphasis mine]

It's simply not true that the bulk of objections to GMO are economic and political, and this is a huge problem. There *are* very reasonable political and economic arguments about the problems with modern agriculture, like industrial farming, monoculture and sustainability. But anti-GMO activists rail against "frankenfoods" as the boogyman for everything that ails agriculture, when most of these problems are not unique to genetically modified crops.

If my experience with people on the internet, family members, friends and acquaintances that oppose or are skeptical of GMOs is at all representative, the main objection is a vague feeling that GMO is unnatural, and therefore unsafe. For those that rise to the level of activism, economics and politics are almost never brought up, except as a last resort after I've addressed their other concerns.

But don't take my word for it, take a look at the literature published by groups supporting labeling laws in CA. They claim that GMO crops:

Are laboratory-made, using technology that is totally different from natural breeding methods, and pose different risks from non-GM crops
Can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts
Are not adequately regulated to ensure safety
Do not increase yield potential
Do not reduce pesticide use but increase it
Create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant “superweeds”, compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops
Have mixed economic effects
Harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity
Do not offer effective solutions to climate change
Are as energy-hungry as any other chemically-farmed crops
Cannot solve the problem of world hunger but distract from its real causes – poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on.

Now, I could spend days discussing many of these points, but that's a separate issue. I've bolded the points that I think could be classified as "economic and political," though the regulation and world hunger are really a mix of political and scientific questions. Still, that's 3/11 bullet points, hardly "the bulk" of criticism.

I would love to move to a discussion of economics and politics. There's a lot to be said, a lot of policy that could be changed. Despite my criticism of the Union of Concerned Scientists' position on GMO crops, their proposals around agriculture policy generally are excellent and deserve serious discussion. But having those discussions while people scream about non-existent allergens, toxins and health risks due to GMO is impossible.

For environmentalists that care about the health of the planet (I consider myself among them), agriculture is one of many 1,000 lbs gorillas in the room, but we're not having the right conversations. The anti-science of GMO activists is not a state of mind, not a philosophy or underlying motivation, it's an adjective for a subset of positions that is not based in experimental reality. And I for one will continue to call them out on it.

kbonham Mon, 08/05/2013 - 08:03

Tags

scientific controversy

Policy

Categories

Environment

I feel the need to state that I have no strong feelings about GMOs. But it seems to me that those who object to them on ideological grounds are better described as anti-technology, not anti-science, providing that by science one means a process or profession rather than an ideology. Science provides the basic information necessary to produce GMOs and many other modern products, but their commercial production is technology. Some people take the ideological position toward "modern" technology that we should strictly apply the "precautionary principle" and avoid anything new that is possibly harmful until it has been proven safe. Others take the ideological position that any new and profitable technology should be embraced until (and often after) it has been proven harmful. There seems to be no way of proving that either of those positions or any other point on the spectrum between them is "right."

Your list of bullet points is instructive. You claim that only three are "economic or political," then suggest that the remainder are "vague anti-science feelings" or "screaming" that, not being based in "experimental reality", merit automatic rejection. Firstly, I would say that most of the bullet points are indeed economic. If it were indeed true that a certain GMO may not have superior yield, but increases the farmer's total costs for various inputs and may lead directly or indirectly to superweed production or other damage to the soil and ecosystem on which the farmer ultimately depends, these would be powerful economic reasons to reject the new crop. Secondly, these questions imply others, such as: if there is a possible environmental problem or economic risk, should our default opinion be concern or unconcern? Published scientific studies do support the plausibility of some ecological concerns; how much evidence should be necessary to sway our opinions? (Do you know how much is available in each case?) If the best available science says that there is no obvious human health risk but there probably is a risk to other species, is that a reason to limit a product's use? If the only support for claims of increased yield comes from the producer because independent tests are legally restricted, how much weight, if any, should be placed upon it? These are not factual questions but values questions. Since values questions cannot be answered by science, a person's answer to them cannot be termed "unscientific." (This applies whether he is taking the extreme anti-technology position or the extreme pro-technology position. I might think it is crazy and evil, say, to be willing to cause a mass extinction for the sake of coal company profits, but I would not term it unscientific; only denying observed facts - let's avoid here the argument about what counts as a fact - or well-supported scientific hypotheses is anti-science.)

But it seems to me that those who object to them on ideological grounds are better described as anti-technology, not anti-science

This is a fair bit of nuance that deserves conversation. I would argue that they are against the technology, but deny science in order to support their position.

Your list of bullet points is instructive. You claim that only three are “economic or political,” then suggest that the remainder are “vague anti-science feelings”[I said "vague feeling that GMO is unnatural] or “screaming” that, not being based in “experimental reality”, merit automatic rejection.

I think you're mischaracterizing my position a bit here. I obviously did not go into detail about each point; that would require many epic posts, and others have done the leg work on most of these claims already. I would never say that a position merits "automatic rejection," but these claims merit rejection on the balance of scientific evidence.

Firstly, I would say that most of the bullet points are indeed economic.

Almost any claim about a commercial product will have economic components, but the principal objection in these cases is not a claim about the economics, it's a claim about a fact that is amenable to scientific scrutiny.

If it were indeed true that a certain GMO may not have superior yield, but increases the farmer’s total costs for various inputs and may lead directly or indirectly to superweed production or other damage to the soil and ecosystem on which the farmer ultimately depends, these would be powerful economic reasons to reject the new crop.

This is certainly true. I have trouble believing that farmers would make the informed decision to purchase seeds that cost more and did not improve yield, but long term negative externalities of soil depletion could be harder for farmers to price in. Of course, that first statement that I bolded is key, the "if it were true" part is a scientific question. If it were true, there would be economic consequences, but the arguments are around the truth of the claim, and that's where the anti-science comes in.

All of the questions that follow in that paragraph are good questions, ones that merit discussion, and I agree that they are based on questions of values and not science. Unfortunately, those are largely not the conversations being had, since proponents and opponents are so apart on the basic facts. Further, the answers to many of those questions will be answers in the specific, not general, use of genetic engineering. It is possible that the environmental or economic impact of "GMO X" is too high, while the impact of "GMO Y" is acceptable, or vise versa, or both may be neutral, or both may be net positive or net negative. These discussions of value are worth having, and we should talk about what sort of regulation and policy will get us where we want to be. But those discussions are largely drowned out by erroneous claims about "toxins" and "safety," claims that the weight of scientific evidence says are false.

Yeah, they are anti-technology as they shout on Twitter from their iPads.

I'm sorry, but if you want to prevent academic researchers from even performing trials to see if GMO potato plants could resist blight, it's anti-science.

If you work to prevent a food security and agriculture education bill from passing because it has the word "biotechnology" in it, it's anti-science.

If you destroy a trial of wheat plants that might reduce nitrogen use, it's anti-science.

If you burn a lab of a researcher because she works on biotechnology, it's anti-science.

I actually suspect that for Alice Bell that it is economic and political objections that drive her. But using those things to help club other's research to death does not make you pro-science.

Hm. Well, I've certainly heard people hanging out around the water cooler bash science and scientists. No thoughtful argumentation, just a lot of smirking, sneering and what in regard to any other group of people would be considered out-and-out bigotry.

So maybe it's not the stance on a particular issue that makes it anti-science much as what lies behind it, if you can discern it. Some people are just thick and can't help it, others are vicious and on the attack. I tend to look for hints of postmodernist type thinking as an index of how much ant-science might actually be present.

Kevin - Thanks very much for your thoughtful and courteous response. I certainly agree that when independent scientific evidence is available, it is the best means of evaluating claims regarding either the benefits or the harms of GMOs. Unfortunately, the published evidence regarding most of these claims is not extensive and one-sided enough to make such a slam-dunk case, one way or the other, that everyone who really looks at it is forced to agree. As in so many other areas of endeavor where money and highly valued beliefs are involved (nutrition and health being high on the list), the same evidence can be termed "definitive" or "worthless" depending upon the interests and ideology of the viewer. Since the available evidence will always be finite and imperfectly congruent, I have come to doubt that it's possible to get an answer even to a question of fact that everyone agrees is correct.

UCS response to my piece in SciAm

kbonham — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 11:14:03 +0000

UCS response to my piece in SciAm

On Thursday, I had a post published on Scientific American's guest Blog about claims that genetically modified food crops could contain allergens. In it, I am critical of the Union of Concerned Scientists (a science advocacy and policy organization), for what I read as misplaced opposition to genetic engineering:

The UCS’s concern about the dire state of our food system is well-founded, and I applaud their efforts to get out in front of the policy debate. There’s just one problem: they oppose using all of our technology to help combat this problem. Specifically, I’m talking about genetic engineering (GE) and genetically modified organisms (GMO)

Via e-mail and on twitter, some folks from UCS made it clear that they believe I've mischaracterized their position. They haven't given me permission to publish the e-mails, so I won't, but I'll try to paraphrase. I was told that UCS does not oppose all uses of GMOs, but they believe that current policy does not do enough to regulate new GE varieties, that GMO companies have too much power to push past the regulation that does exist, and that there are alternatives to GE that should be pursued more aggressively. You should check out their website to read their position for yourself.

I largely agree with their position on agricultural issues - there isn't adequate regulation of new crops, large industrial farms have too much influence, and we're too reliant on monoculture (growing a single variety of a single crop year after year). However, none of these problems are unique to genetically engineered crops, and I think the fact that UCS has singled out GE as a problem confuses these issues. If GE crops were banned tomorrow, all of these same problems would remain.

I should be clear that I support UCS generally, and their work on agriculture specifically. Their roadmap for healthy farm policy is a wonderful and succinct explanation for what's wrong with the way we currently grow food, and policy proposals to make it better. But GE is a technology (among others) that can help us make it better. Yes, they should be regulated, but so should new varieties produced by techniques like mutation breeding. Yes, we need to move away from monoculture and industrial farming practices, but that's true of GE and organic farming alike.

Genetic engineering, like any other technology can be used for good and for ill. It can be helpful and it can be dangerous. New regulations and policies should be technology-neutral, and focus on outcomes.

This post was also published at my new blogging venture, Red Wine and Lariam

kbonham Sat, 06/01/2013 - 07:14

Tags

Allergies/autoimmunity

I am totally in favor of GMOs if they produce useful things like drought tolerant crops, or crops which are resistant to disease. But, genetically altering a crop to be resistant to RoundUp, or other weed killers, so millions of acres of farmland can be drenched in herbicide is not my idea of sustainable, because it destroys the fertility of the soil. In regards to USC saying GMOs may cause allergies or toxins, I believe it is as the author says, “in principle possible”. So, I do not understand his problem with USC saying “GMOs MAY cause allergies or toxins”. They said MAY cause….not DOES cause.

No doubt - companies are using the technology in ways that don't further sustainable agriculture. But companies are using a lot of technologies that don't further sustainable agriculture - singling out this single technology as objectionable promotes the narrative of GMO opponents, namely that GMO = unsustainable, unhealthy and bad, while organic = healthy, environmentally friendly and good. Non-GMO farmers use herbicides and pesticides too, organic farmers use monoculture and industrial farming techniques.

So, I do not understand his problem with USC saying “GMOs MAY cause allergies or toxins”. They said MAY cause….not DOES cause.

Cell phones MAY be used to detonate bombs. A power drill MAY be used to rob a safe. Satellites MAY fall out of space and land on a person.

Does this clarify my objection at all?

this is a non-sequitur: "No doubt – companies are using the technology in ways that don’t further sustainable agriculture. But companies are using a lot of technologies that don’t further sustainable agriculture – singling out this single technology as objectionable promotes the narrative of GMO opponents, namely that GMO = unsustainable, unhealthy and bad, while organic = healthy" ...

as well as beside the point.---

as for, "But companies are using a lot of technologies that don’t further sustainable agriculture"...

So what? These, too, are just as objectionable. If the other objectionable uses aren't sufficiently insisted on, it does nothing to undermine the main point.

You'd apparently like to refocus attention "elsewhere"--but the "elsewhere" is a "difference without a distinction." To "argue" that "But companies are using a lot of technologies that don’t further sustainable agriculture" is to indulge in a distraction which happens to grant the point you prefer not to grant directly.

if it is objected--as it is-- that, in sum, " companies are using the technology in ways that don’t further sustainable agriculture" and you grant that, as you do, then the rest of your "But...." is so much palaver that does nothing pertinent to demonstrate that the point in question is rebutted.

Your argument is seen everywhere from young children who protest, "Yeah, but they did it, too!" to dictators who say, "Maybe I'm a tyrant but there are others, and some of them are even worse!"

From a scientist, that is not a respectable argument--though, from scientists, it's hardly less commonly appealed to than is the case from non-scientists. That is a shame.

So what? These, too, are just as objectionable. If the other objectionable uses aren’t sufficiently insisted on, it does nothing to undermine the main point.

It does undermine the main point, if your whole reason for objecting to GE technology is because of its use in unsustainable agriculture. It's as if I was lobbying against tractor technology because tractors are used in industrial farming. Or lobbying against cell phones because they can be used to detonate bombs. It makes no sense to lobby against cell phones, policy should be implemented to curtail bombs.

My point here is that policies should be implemented to curtail unsustainable farming practices regardless of the technology used. The fact that many other technologies are used in unsustainable farming is relevant, because people are not objecting to things like tractors and irrigation, despite the fact that those technologies are also used in unsustainable farming.

To your analogy about tyrants, this situation is more analogous to people objecting to the idea of fences, because fences are being used to imprison political dissidents. The problem is not the fence, it's the way the fence is used. I'm not saying, "look at those other tyrants that are worse," I'm saying, "The tyrant uses cell phones and loudspeakers and cars to suppress people's rights, too. The problem is not the fences, it's the Tyrant!"

RE:
..." if your whole reason for objecting to GE technology is because of its use in unsustainable agriculture"...

Excuse me, but I never argued that sustainability exhausts my objections to GE. It's one, and an important one, of the reasons I object to GE, but it isn't nor need it be the only one. Thus, you have a presupposition: namely that, apparently, the valid arguments boil down to a matter of "sustainable-or-not" and, since there are many other non-sustainable techniques in use, those who object to GE on that ground are bereft of a good argument.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Your view assumes GE as a precondition; it implies, 'There's is GE and there is going to continue to be GE" but in a dispute which opposes the a priori need for and use of GE in the first place, with, as one of several arguments, that it is also unsustainable, you're not entitled to the luxury of the flat assertion that GE is simply a "given" --this is what is formally called a petitio principii fallacy and it is mind-numbingly common.

Suppose, for example, that for some weird reason, it happened that GE techniques were "sustainable"? Would they, on that account, be any more likely to be safe, healthy, and desirable? It seems to me the answer is and ought to be, "clearly, no."

GE technixques, I argue, pose unnecessary dangers--unnecessary because we can do better by far without these measures--in addition to being, as you agree, unsustainable.

Excuse me, but I never argued that sustainability exhausts my objections to GE

You didn't, but this is a facet of many people's objections, and as you say it does not exhaust your objections, it seems to be a facet of yours. But as I've said before, the fact that a technology may be used for some awful purpose is almost a tautology. Any technology can be used for any number of nefarious purposes. We should object to the nefarious purpose, not the technology.

Thus, you have a presupposition: namely that, apparently, the valid arguments boil down to a matter of “sustainable-or-not” and, since there are many other non-sustainable techniques in use, those who object to GE on that ground are bereft of a good argument

Sorry, this is not my presupposition. The arguments around GMO are manifold, and I find it useful to unpack one at a time. My piece in SciAm was meant to address the concern about allergens. The comment I replied to here (and part of my response to UCS in particular) is around the idea of sustainable agriculture. That does not mean that I assume it is the only objection or that other objections are meaningless or inconsequential. One thing at a time.

Your view assumes GE as a precondition; it implies, ‘There’s is GE and there is going to continue to be GE” but in a dispute which opposes the a priori need for and use of GE in the first place

Is your position in the dispute that we should not use E. coli to produce human insulin? That we should not pursue gene therapy to treat human disease? That essentially all biomedical research done in labs around the country should be halted? All of these things use and depend on genetic engineering.

Even if you want to restrict the discussion exclusively to the use of GE in agriculture, the fact that the majority of corn, soy and cotton grown in this country already uses GE, and the fact that many farmers want GE products puts me on pretty solid ground with my assumption. I suppose we can have a philosophical discussion about whether we should have ever used the technology in the first place, but it seems to me that historically those opposing the advance of technology are tilting at so many windmills. I think a much more productive discussion is how can we shape the use of technology such that it tends towards beneficial rather than harmful applications.

The conclusion of that discussion may be that the benefits of GE in agriculture may not outweigh the risks, but the technology exists and is being used, I don't need to presume that much.

Suppose, for example, that for some weird reason, it happened that GE techniques were “sustainable”?

Again, you're missing the point here. Some products of GE may help with sustainability, and some products may not. The technology itself, the ability to precisely manipulate the genes of an organism, is neutral on this subject.

Would they, on that account, be any more likely to be safe, healthy, and desirable? It seems to me the answer is and ought to be, “clearly, no.”

I agree, clearly not. But again, I don't think any of those labels (safe, healthy, desirable) can be applied with a broad brush to anything produced with GE technology. I think that E. coli producing insulin is clearly all three things. I think that rice that produces beta-carotene to help make up for a nutritional deficit and prevent blindness is healthy and desirable, and most likely safe. If I manufactured tomatoes that expressed anthrax toxin, that would clearly be unsafe, unhealthy and not desirable (unless it was produced to make an anthrax vaccine, in which case it might be desirable).

I personally think that several of the GE products currently on the market are safe, health neutral and desirable. However, even if I granted that roundup ready corn is unequivocally bad, that would not be an argument against GE.

GE technixques, I argue, pose unnecessary dangers–unnecessary because we can do better by far without these measures–in addition to being, as you agree, unsustainable.

I actually don't agree. To restate (I know I've said this a bunch of times, but I want to be clear), GE technology itself may be used in unsustainable ways, but again, that's not any more informative than saying that tractors can be used in unsustainable ways.

As to questions of dangers, necessary or not, it's clear that I disagree with your conclusions, but that's beyond the scope of this post. As I said, one thing at a time.

I want to credit your attitude to the disussion here, however we disagree on the facts and the principles. Your readiness to read and consider and argue puts you light-years ahead of the tone and attitudes of other bloggers at other blogs in this site when discussing the same issues

Likewise :-). Even if we end up agreeing to disagree, it's nice to have a discussion where you don't accuse me of being a monsanto shill, and I don't accuse you of being an ignorant pseudo-science wacko. These are incredibly complicated issues, but I think they're important, which is why I'm taking so much time away from my experiments (using genetically modified mouse cells btw!) to discuss this.

P.S.

I want to credit your attitude to the disussion here, however we disagree on the facts and the principles. Your readiness to read and consider and argue puts you light-years ahead of the tone and attitudes of other bloggers at other blogs in this site when discussing the same issues.

I appreciate what you show so far in that respect.

"we need to move away from monoculture and industrial farming practices, but that’s true of GE and organic farming alike".

I don't believe organic farming is done either in monoculture or industrially, but when it comes to GE, isn't
science being used here, to enable these forms of production?. Indeed, GE tech would almost seem tailor made, if one was actually planning to continue, if not enhance, these very same destructive, business/farming practices.

There is certainly industrial-scale organic farming, and much of it is indeed monoculture. Organic farmers tend to be more environmentally conscious, and so are more likely than conventional farmers to move away from monoculture, which is great. But there's a lot of money in organic farming, and there's plenty of corporate and industrial organic farming.

And no, I don't think GE tech is tailor made to continue those destructive farming practices. In fact, I think there are a lot of ways that GE technology could help ameliorate those practices. For instance, GE varieties that are drought resistant and can grow with less water so we're not draining aquifers. I think Bt crops are great in that they reduce the need for chemical pesticides that inevitably get into runoff and groundwater. Unfortunately, the main players in GMO production are major corporations that care more about profit than the environment, so current varieties have often been put to use in destructive ways. It needn't always be thus.

Kevin, you said in your other post, "but this would have to be by malicious intent of the scientists, not some accident."

I don't think you have to mark this up to malicious intent by scientists. You just have to believe that a corporation may decide to maximize profits in a way that doesn't take into account unintended consequences for vulnerable sub-populations, or public health, or what-have-you. Unfortunately, this happens all the time -- drug companies, tobacco companies, chemical companies, oil companies. It's not some made-up fairy-tale. And I say this not to demonize corporations, but just to recognize that they are hard-wired to maximize profits.

The tough questions here are not about science per se, but about regulatory philosophy, precaution, risk, etc. Do we trust corporations enough to let them self-police? Or should we attempt to apply science-based and public health-based criteria in writing regulations? How should that process look?

"New regulations and policies should be technology-neutral, and focus on outcomes."

That is a lot easier said than done. The truth is that any regulatory regime probably won't be technology-neutral. No one is going to write one reg to "end unsustainability." What we have is a patchwork of laws, which impact GMOs in a variety of ways. And yeah, that's not optimal, but it is the political reality.

I'm curious what you think about policy specifics. On their website, UCS has a list of 5 policy goals for GMOs, and I'm curious if you actually disagree with any of them? They are pretty clearly NOT calling for a blanket ban on GMOs. I think that if you got into the regulatory weeds here you would find that your position is very close to UCSs.

I don’t think you have to mark this up to malicious intent by scientists. You just have to believe that a corporation may decide to maximize profits in a way that doesn’t take into account unintended consequences for vulnerable sub-populations, or public health, or what-have-you.

Fair point. I don't think this changes the conclusions though - that you need policy to address the damaging action or product, not the technology itself.

The tough questions here are not about science per se, but about regulatory philosophy, precaution, risk, etc. Do we trust corporations enough to let them self-police? Or should we attempt to apply science-based and public health-based criteria in writing regulations? How should that process look?

I couldn't agree more - and those are the conversations I WANT to have. Unfortunately, it's incredibly difficult to have those conversations amidst cries of "FRANKENFOOD!" and "BAN GMO!"

That is a lot easier said than done. The truth is that any regulatory regime probably won’t be technology-neutral. No one is going to write one reg to “end unsustainability.” What we have is a patchwork of laws, which impact GMOs in a variety of ways. And yeah, that’s not optimal, but it is the political reality.

I’m curious what you think about policy specifics. On their website, UCS has a list of 5 policy goals for GMOs, and I’m curious if you actually disagree with any of them? They are pretty clearly NOT calling for a blanket ban on GMOs. I think that if you got into the regulatory weeds here you would find that your position is very close to UCSs.

I think you're right here too. As I mentioned in both this post and the one at SciAm, I support UCS and a lot of their positions with respect to farming and agriculture. I think they lay out the problems with our current agriculture system quite clearly and I think most of their policy goals are quite sensible. I'm a huge fan of their healthy farms initiative (though that doesn't mention GMO at all). As to their specific policy goals around GMO, I'm fine with all of them except labeling (I'm on the fence on that one) - I don't necessarily agree that all of those things are needed, but I wouldn't object. Still, I think you can support those goals without the need to mislead people about the benefits and dangers of GMOs.

I should add that I do agree with your basic point. Policy should address the specific cases and harms, not the broad technology itself. It's just as silly to say "Ban all GMO" as it is to say that every possible genetic modification is "the same as" regular plant breeding and so should get an automatic free pass (as was the industry position for years).

In fact, I suspect that this problem will just get worse as the technology gets more sophisticated. Is it possible to write a law that will encompass the breadth of GMO technologies as they will stand 10 or 20 years from now? Probably not. We may need a taxonomy of different types of genetic modifications that are being brought to market, each with a different policy response. Some potential future products may require more scrutiny than others. Unfortunately, Congress doesn't always do "flexible" very well.

RE: "The comment I replied to here (and part of my response to UCS in particular) is around the idea of sustainable agriculture. That does not mean that I assume it is the only objection or that other objections are meaningless or inconsequential. One thing at a time."

Well, as this is your blog, all I can do is say, that's your choice, of course, but it seems to me a needlessly strained approach--but the epitome the way modern techno-science approaches almost everything, i.e. in isolation, though there are signs that this is beginning to change slightly.

One (too) brief answer RE medical research and GE:

I distinguish between GMO & GE research and development in médicine from that done in and by scientists and engineers in commercial agriculture and chemicals. Maybe I shouldn't make that distinction but I'm still prepared to grant enough good-will to the bullk of medical researchers' efforts in GE. Still, I'd argue that their efforts should ultimately be no less subject to a real, i.e. effective publicly-founded review and consent, without which latter, it should be prohibited.

I can easily accept that there may be instances where a very good case can be made for the use of GE (in your example, Escherichia coli in the manufacture of insulin) in medical care and in pharmacology. In such instances, the case should have to me made to the public, even if it's difficult and time-consuming and carries the "risk" that the public, in its ignorance, won't decide wisely in each case.

When it comes to public safety, the general public, being freer of the corrupting influences which abound as soon as one enters the realm of R&D, esp. as done today via centralized political and Financial interests, are much more likely to weigh in on the side of warranted caution, and the expert technocracy much more (& much too) likely to be corrupted by those just-mentioned influences--since the technocracy has selfish gain as a powerful motivator. Something has to be instituted against that and there is only one candidate: a public whose informed consent is requried for pursuit of what technocrats call "progress".

When you arrive at the point where you discuss "Who decides what is or isn't safe enough, and how do they decide, I'll be very interested in the issues surrounding those questions.

BTW, you may know--, as your comment may have been have allusion to them-- there are blogs and bloggers at this site who are indeed, little more than shills for Monsanto Co. It heartens me that you aren't among them.

"Bring the public along, or don't go there (unless and until you can)."

I suspect that pest protection GM will be transient, because pests will be selected to deal with the GM pest protection. Any reports yet of roundup resistant weeds? If not, just be patient.

Yeah, there are roundup resistant strains popping up all over the place. Google will sho you plenty of articles.

Cancer Breakthrough 20 Years in the Making

jhalper — Mon, 12 Sep 2011 04:59:55 +0000

Cancer Breakthrough 20 Years in the Making

Last month, Penn Medicine put out a press release heralding a "cancer treatment breakthrough 20 years in the making." In a small clinical trial, three patients with advanced chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) were treated with genetically engineered versions of their own T cells. Just a few weeks after treatment the tumors had disappeared, and the patients remained in remission for a year before the study was published.

The release didn't, however, explain those "20 years in the making." In 1989, Prof. Zelig Eshhar of the Weizmann Institute's Immunology Department first published a paper describing a method of creating gene-modified T cells by adding on chimeric molecules that functioned as receptors with the specificity of an antibody. The idea, from the beginning, was that these immune cells could be programmed to identify and coordinate an attack against such cells as cancer cells, which generally manage to evade the immune system. The engineering method used by the Penn team is the one Eshhar began developing in the 1980s. For Eshhar, the new study is proof of concept; it had previously been shown to work in mice. Now that the method has been successfully used in humans - and the results even better than anyone dared hope - it can be tried on a wider scale for other types of cancer.

If the idea seems futuristic now, it was downright science fiction, then. More importantly, those first chimeric T cells were created in a lab dish and sent off to attack other cells in a lab dish. Those twenty years reflect the time it takes to move from a revolutionary idea that works in the lab to a medical treatment that works on humans. In light of the many potential anti-cancer treatments that fail somewhere along the way from lab to clinic, the new study is a triumph both for the Penn team and for Eshhar and his team.

This is clearly the place to repeat our mantra about basic research: It is a long-term undertaking. There are no guarantees. No one can predict where a specific line of inquiry will eventually lead, or when. Without basic research and vision, there will be no innovative new cancer treatments.

Eshhar, by the way, recently improved on the genetically engineered T cell idea by creating them from a non-matched donor pool, rather than cells extracted from the individual patient. In mouse experiments, he and his team temporarily suppressed the immune system with a mild dose of radiation and then administered the donor chimeric T cells. Because the method destroys tumors so quickly and effectively, these cells had time to finish the job before the immune system came back online and rejected them.

How long will it take for this improved method to reach the clinic? For our answer, see paragraph four. Or keep posted here.

jhalper Mon, 09/12/2011 - 00:59

Tags

chronic lymphocytic leukemia

Categories

We have been waiting so long for good news. Will it be an expensive treatment, I wonder. Prof. Eshhar may well be a medical hero right up there with Jonas Salk, who took away the scourge I remember from my childhood, and so well current generations barely knows what polio was.

Fascinating work, and a good example of why investment in basic scientific research is so important to medical progress in the long term.

David Porter and colleagues have published a paper on CAR therapy for CLL last June in the Journal of Cancer that is available to view without subscription in PubMed Central http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3119397/?tool=pubmed

It gives a good -if brief - overview of some of the research leading up to the clinical trial.

there have been for quite some time now, more than 14 natural "CANCER CURES". And a few thousand herbs that can help combat the side effects of establishment medicines so called treatments i.e. cut burn poison or irradiate that can be more dangerous than the cancer itself.

Big Pharmacological Companies loose money if you can go to your backyard and grow your own cure, they use their billions to dominate the education of future doctors, so any alternative to their monopoly is promptly attacked and discredited before it is thoughtfully considered.

I'll be quick, you got anything to back that up Drew?

I know this if off topic but I'm looking into starting my own blog and was wondering what all is required to get setup? I'm assuming having a blog like yours would cost a pretty penny? I'm not very web savvy so I'm not 100% certain. Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated. Cheers

I'm not sure why you're asking me this -- We Weizmann Science Writers joined the ScienceBlogs site, which is an aggregate of individual bloggers -- and enjoy the benefits. If you write well and have a good idea for a blog, you can either try to pitch it to an existing blog site on a similar topic, or else Google "word press" and read the tutorials.

Strawberry Genes and Budding Math Geniuses

jhalper — Wed, 29 Dec 2010 00:15:29 +0000

Strawberry Genes and Budding Math Geniuses

This week, two press releases from the Institute:

The first was on the sequencing of the woodland strawberry genome (unfortunately, in the same week the cacao genome was sequenced). The Institute scientists who participated in the project contributed in the computational analysis of genes encoding flavor- and aroma-related proteins.

This wild cousin of the cultivated strawberry is a member of the rose family, along with fruit trees including apples, peaches, cherries and almonds. In other words, this small annual plant is sure to become a useful experimental model for plant and agricultural research.

It does, of course raise the question of gene transfer: If we could put the flavor and aroma that we've bred out of cultivated strawberries back in, should we do so? After all, woodland strawberries (along with their DNA) are perfectly edible, and those "dangerous" genes that might escape into the wild will cross with what? Woodland strawberries?

The second was of more local interest, but the questions it raises are no less relevant. To make the Israeli high school math team to next summer's International Mathematical Olympiad more competitive, a new program is being instituted that includes online lessons tailored to each potential team member -- complete with individual coaching -- several week-long training camps and intense competition for spots on the team in a ruthless winnowing process that began with 350 participants in the national math Olympiad and will end with seven.

We will just note here that in 2008, the Israeli team won one gold, one silver and two bronze medals plus two citations in this competition. The last two years, apparently, the team from our tiny country has not done as well. While the hand-wringing that seems to have led to the new program may or may not be justified, the question remains: Should math be a "sport" -- like Olympic swimming or basketball? Should kids have to begin early and practice rigorously in order to compete? Is this what we have to do to remain in the game with the ultra-disciplined teams from countries like Korea or those from China, where the pool of potential math geniuses is approximately 150 times the size of Israel's? Or, is it just possible that there really is some added value from this sort of intensive immersion in a single discipline - one that will pay off at some point in the future in the ability to compete (nationally and individually) in the global arena?

jhalper Tue, 12/28/2010 - 19:15

Tags

mathematical olympiad

Strawberry

education

genes

Well, a child prodigy in math or science who is rigorously trained in it with the kind of support and rewards atheletes get might actually solve some problems and end up making a more significant contribution to the world in time than holding an RBI record for a few years. Math and science have meaning, whereas sports are simply entertainment.

Mmmm. More nutritious (because flavor and flavinoids seem to go together) strawberries. What's not to like?

Various (non-strawberry) flavonids seem to protect against Alzheimer's disease. If we can put them into strawberries without altering the taste too much, I say go for it.

Also, what about the substance in red wine that is good for cardiovascular health ? Put it in strawberries, and we can cut down on the sauce.

I was an Olympiad competitor (and now I'm a coach), so I've seen quite a few people go through programs of this sort.

First: "Should kids have to begin early and practice rigorously in order to compete? Is this what we have to do to remain in the game with the ultra-disciplined teams from countries like Korea or those from China..."

Practically, yes. If you want to win, that's how you do it. That's what happens in China, Korea et al...that's why they're so good.

Of course, this assumes that a country should care about winning enough to devote significant national resources to it. Yes, there's national pride and all that - but how many people really know how good/bad the Israeli math team is? (The Olympiads make spectacularly poor TV...)

Then there's the argument from "national competitiveness". I've used it myself, and actually there might be some truth to it. I don't think it's as simple as making people productive faster - does it really matter if your top mathematicians are ready to do independent work at 25 instead of 30?

Rather, there is some benefit in giving that youthful enthusiasm somewhere to go. We used to say, only half-jokingly, that the Olympiads were a government conspiracy to keep people like us busy. Time we spent problem-solving was time we didn't spend hacking the Pentagon or building a death ray in the basement. More realistically, it's time we didn't spend bored and miserable, or loafing around on WoW, or worse. And it gave us concrete markers of accomplishment to wave at people who thought we were wasting our time, and that we really should go join the cross-country and debate teams, lest our resume be too short to get us into college.

As for future prospects - in my experience, my Olympiad background makes it easier to do interdisciplinary work. A significant minority don't major in their strongest event. I didn't. Instead, I majored in something complementary, and am now doing research that brings the two together. Also, the nature of the exams forces you to have a very broad foundation. It doesn't teach you how to do research, but it puts the raw materials in your brain, so you can look at problems from different perspectives. This has saved me more than once.

I do think these programs are a good thing. If you run them right, they can promote education for a broader group - even if someone isn't going to make the IMO, they can learn some basic strategies and improve their score on the first-round exams. It's not going to make someone a genius, but it can give a young geek something constructive to do. (Olympiad skills are teachable; genius helps, and compulsiveness helps more, but it's all in the training.)

Making math a competitive sport is a excellent way for a socity to not only increase its ability in mathematics, but also to improve its science and engineering capacity. It is especially useful if you can show poor people that math is a way out of poverty, rather than relying on a sports and entertainment driven culture.

Also, what about the substance in red wine that is good for cardiovascular health ? Put it in strawberries, and we can cut down on the sauce.

Are Biotechnology and sustainability complementary? The Economist wants your vote

pronald — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 10:38:42 +0000

Are Biotechnology and sustainability complementary? The Economist wants your vote

The Economist is running an online debate and we need your vote.
Vote here.

My opening statement:

The number of people on Earth is expected to increase from the current 6.7 billion to 9 billion by 2050 with food demands expected to rise by 70%. How will we feed them? If we continue with current farming practices, vast amounts of wilderness will be lost, millions of birds and billions of insects will die, scarce water will be wasted, greenhouse gas emissions will increase and farm workers will be exposed to harmful chemicals. Clearly, the future of our planet requires that we improve the environmental, economic and social impacts of our global farming systems-- the three essential pillars of sustainable agriculture. Genetically engineered crops will continue to play an important role in this future.

After 10,000 years of crop domestication and innovation, virtually everything we eat has been genetically altered and every farm today grows such crops. Genetic engineering (GE) differs from conventional methods of crop modification in two basic ways: it introduces one or a few well-characterised genes; and genes from any species can be introduced into a plant. In contrast, most conventional methods of genetic alteration (artificial selection, forced inter-specific transfer, random mutagenesis and grafting of two species to create a new variety) introduce many uncharacterised genes from closely related species.

There is broad scientific consensus that GE crops currently on the market are safe to eat . The National Research Council, a non-profit institution that provides science, technology and health policy advice to the U.S. Congress, reports that the process of genetic engineering poses a similar risk of unintended consequences as conventional approaches of genetic alteration. After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of 2 billion acres planted, GE crops have not caused a single instance of harm to human health or the environment. In contrast, every year there are thousands of reported pesticide poisonings (around 1,200 each year in California alone; 300,000 deaths globally). The NRC findings have been confirmed by leading scientific agencies around the world. For instance, the Joint Research Centre, the European Union's scientific and technical research laboratory and an integral part of the European Commission, recently concluded that there is a comprehensive body of knowledge that adequately addresses the food safety issue of GE crops and that the crops currently on the market have not caused any known health effects.

Well-documented benefits of GE crops include massive reductions of insecticides in the environment, improved soil quality and reduced erosion, prevention of destruction of the Hawaiian papaya industry, proven health benefits to farmers and families growing GE crops as a result of reduced exposure to harsh chemicals, economic benefits to local communities, enhanced biodiversity of beneficial insects, reduction in the number of pest outbreaks on GE farms and neighbouring non-GE farms, and increased profits to farmers.
GE crops have also dramatically increased crop yields (more than 30%) in some farming communities.

Because substantial greenhouse gases are emitted from agricultural systems, and because the net effect of higher yields is a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions, development and deployment of such high-yielding varieties will be a critical component of a future sustainable agriculture.

In the near future, conservative models predict that planting of Golden Rice, a rice engineered to produce provitamin A, will reduce diseases caused by vitamin A deficiency, saving the lives of thousands of children. Golden rice is likely to be more cost-effective than alternative vitamin A interventions, such as food supplementation or fortification. In Africa, where three-quarters of the world's severe droughts have occurred over the past ten years, the introduction of genetically engineered drought tolerant corn, the most important African staple food crop, is predicted to dramatically increase yields for poor farmers.

A premise basic to almost every agricultural system (conventional, organic and everything in between) is that seed can only take us so far. The farming practices used to cultivate the seed are equally important. GE crops alone will not provide all the changes needed in agriculture. Ecologically based farming systems and other technological changes, as well as modified government policies, undoubtedly are also required. Yet it is hard to avoid the conclusion that ecological farming practices using genetically engineered seed will play an increasingly important role in a future sustainable agriculture. Each new variety will need to be tested on a case-by case basis in light of the criteria for a sustainable agricultural system.

There is now broad scientific consensus that GE crops and ecological farming practices can coexist--and if we are serious about building a future sustainable agriculture, they must.

View Charles Benbrook's opening remarks, here.

pronald Tue, 11/02/2010 - 06:38

Tags

sustainable agriculture

Categories

Environment

The problem is that no respectable scientists are wiling to accept the fact that continued human population growth is patently unsustainable on a resource constrained planet.

All we see is a continued blind attempt at maintaining a failed paradigm. We should go all out in a global campaign to stop population growth. BTW, unfortunately more food just makes the problem worse not better. Quite the nasty little dilemma we naked apes seem to have gotten ourselves into.

The Most Important Data Set in the History of Our Species - (population, demographics, and environment)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25205868/The-Most-Important-Data-Set-in-the-H…

As with any increase in efficiency the potential for benefit depends on how any gains are used. If the increase in food and nutrition are allocated to raising up the hungry and malnourished there is a benefit to humanity. If the increase is used to increase the numbers of people but not improve their lot then there is a much smaller, possibly no, benefit.

Many countries have adopted excessive family planning techniques to reduce population growth. The countries which don't have it should be encouraged to adopt them.
Joe

Fred, you make a good point about population. Population is increasing, but the rate of increase has been going down. And evidence points to reduced population growth in cultures that have their basic needs met. That is, the higher the quality of life, the lower the population growth - and what better way to increase the quality of life of people who are malnourished than to give them more access to better food.

In some cases, government's are doing everything they can to get their citizens to have more kids because they're looking at a population collapse around mid-century.

Well it appears from the opening statements that you're going to be arguing completely different things.

Charles is going to focus only on what has been done (and not even everything that has been done - apparently)

his point @ 27

Does it seek to make full use of local resources and farmer skills? No, HT crops reduce the need for labour and skill, and increase reliance on high-cost, often proprietary inputs from outside the region

Seems a little odd, I would have thought that reducing the need for labor & skill was actually in favor of sustainability - that which is harder to do is less sustainable - and he appears to be ignoring that HT crops replace systems which rely on inputs from outside so are likely neutral in that respect (although if replacing less sustainable options with more sustainable options clearly positive)

His point 30

Bt corn and cotton are largely neutral in terms of crop-livestock integration, and like HT crops do not promote diversity in food production or self-reliance.

Also isn't quite accurate imo - utilizign a Bt crop increases self reliance in that one no longer has to be reliant of insecticides.

I wonder how many of his arguements rely entirely on the fact that GMOs are still all under patent protection - once Bt traits start coming off patent reliance issues disappear - you're no longer beholden unto big-Ag for the trait - alas we're not there yet and so reliance issues can still rear their head.

His final comment also appears to be him conceding defeat already, so congratulations!

Biotechnology can help create new hammers and harden existing ones through marker-assisted breeding and the development of new diagnostic tools, vaccines, biopesticides and soil inoculantsâbut not the way it is being used today on the farm.

So the way it is being used today on the farm (MAS and diagnostics categorically are utilized, biotechnology wins without even having to discuss GM - even if GM wasn't compatible with sustainability GM!= biotechnology) is not the way it is being used today on the farm? Awesome.

Population from 6.7 to 9b, increasing 35%, why food demand increases 70%?

Population from 6.7 to 9b, increasing 35%, why food demand increases 70%?

Projected increases in meat consumption in China and India probably drive the bulk of this. Keep in mind the figures are projections on how the world is expected to progress, not how we'd like it if only everyone would adopt the ideal solution.

Humans currently produce far more food than is needed to feed the world, yet millions of people are still starving. Clearly, starvation is not a problem of production. It's a problem of distribution. Therefore, I find this whole âwe need GMOs to increase production to feed the worldâ argument disingenuous.

If the point is to feed the entire world, then there is no point in investing in expensive technologies, which include GM crops, to increase production. The poorest of the poor will not be able to afford those technologies, so instead, big factory farms will continue to sprout up in the developing world, pushing the indigenous people off their land and exporting the food to rich countries. The poor do not need GMOs, they need food sovereignty. They need the right to grow the food they want to grow in a community of their own, and the right to SAVE THEIR SEEDS. You can't get those rights by pushing technologies that require you to buy seeds every year, buy expensive herbicides, or buy farm machinery.

From an environmental sustainability perspective, organic agriculture is way better than GMOs, simply because the paradigm in which GMOs are engineered still require intensive monocultures, and yes, pesticides and herbicides. All of these things are known to decrease biodiversity, de-stabilize natural food chains, and decrease the ability of organisms to migrate between habitat patches, increasing the probability of extinction.

In contrast, organic agriculture requires a certain amount of biodiversity (planned or otherwise) within the agricultural system in order to effectively control pests and maintain soil fertility. This not only maintains certain organisms, it also provides a traversable habitat for organisms to pass through when migrating between patches of forest/savannahs/etc. For example, it is known that bats and birds are more likely to hang out or migrate through a shade-grown coffee farm, but they cannot survive in a sun-grown intensive coffee system.

Badgley et. al.'s (2007)'s meta-analysis gave strong evidence that organic agriculture can provide sustenance for the world's poor. Cuba, despite its problems, was able to stave off famine when the USSR broke down by switching to an organic agricultural system. Moreover, ecology and evolutionary science has the potential to increase the efficiency of organic agriculture without increasing the capital inputs required by the farmer to grow nutritious food to feed their families.

If our goal is to actually feed the world, then we need to stop investing money into intensive agricultural systems, and that includes GMOs that require farmers to buy in to seeds that canât be saved, that are grown in a monoculture, and that still require pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers to grow.

The problem is that no respectable scientists are wiling to accept the fact that continued human population growth is patently unsustainable on a resource constrained planet.

----------------------------------

is that fool PAUL ERHLICH posting on here under a nom de plume? haven't we heard this same crapola for decades yet has not come to fruition?

Some observations on Benbrooks response:-

1.Pest losses and food waste must be cut dramatically (eg, by one-half).
2.Dietary patterns must shift towards crops that provide more human food calories and diverse nutrients per acre/hectare (eg, potatoes, squash, beans, berries), with relatively less reliance on grain-fed livestock products.
3.Soil organic matter must be restored to allow sustainable yields to increase.

No. 1 = use more Bt (ie cut pest losses to Brinjal in India by over 50%...)
No.2 = diversify crops that GM is used in
No.3 = use GM to facilitate no-till

Will insights and innovation made possible by biotechnology help? Of course, by helping create new biopesticides, soil inoculants, vaccines, plant varieties resistant to new and old pests, and advanced diagnostic tools.

Second time Benbrook has conceded defeat given that the debate is titled this house believes that biotechnology and sustainable agriculture are complementary, not contradictory.

Will herbicide-tolerant corn and soyabeans, today's GE heavy hitters, make a significant contribution? Not likely.

Irrelevant - even if true (for non complementariness however surely they'd have to make a significant negative contribution - neutrality to me would indicate that they aren't contradictory.

Monsanto claimed that these new GE products would increase yields by over 10% and charged dramatically higher prices per bag of seed in 2010 compared with 2009âaround 42% higher in the case of RR2 soyabeans and 36% higher for SmartStax corn. The promised yield increases did not materialise in several parts of the country, triggering legal action by one state attorney general who wants to access and review the basis for Monsanto's pre-season yield claims.

the claim was 7-11% - numbers at present appear to be in the region of 3-4 Bu/Ac which on average soy yields of 44 Bu/Ac is right on the money - I don't recall seeing a yield increase claim with Smartstax (other than that yields would be better due to reduced refuge and whatnot - which they appear to be (in spite of early data release showing poor performance, now more data is in things are on track)

Today's GE crops were not intended to increase yield potential, but they can help reduce pest losses.

Ok take my count to 3, how many times can Benbrook concede defeat without the debate being declared for Pam?

Where farmers are not successfully managing pests, a GE crop can sometimes help, and has in some places. But benefits to farmers cover GE seed price premiums in some but not all cases. Furthermore, herbicide use and expenditures have risen dramatically in recent years on HT crop acres because of the spread of resistant weeds.

In most but not all cases would be a better description - if it was only some then nobody would buy GE seeds. Also herbicide use/expenditure needs to be compared against what it would be in the same system sans GM and not jsut compared to the early days of GM (as soon as the tipping point is reached any fiscally savvy farmer will just drop GM and do things the cheapest easiest way)

Alternative systems can often increase yields more than GE seeds can.

And a pay increase of $20 an hour is better than a pay increase of $5 an hour. I'd still rather have a pay increase of $25 an hour though - the systems aren't mutually exclusive.

System changes can produce broad-based, sustained benefits. A new trait added to a transgenic crop can improve performance under specific circumstances, but it can rarely match the cost-benefit ratio of successful system innovation

So innovate systems and incorporate GM traits and get the best of both worlds - you aren't making a case against GM by saying that something else works - you have to specify that the something else works and categorically wouldnt with the inclusion of any biotechnology - the moment any biotechnology could be applied to the system improvement and be additively beneficial the "no" debate falls apart.

But those who think the "science" is settled on questions of food safety for all GE foods, forever, are either blinded by an overdose of wishful thinking or unaware of a growing list of concerns raised by scientists from all over the world.

Holy straw man batman - so apparently people who don't exist are unaware of minor concerns - nobody pro-GM (at least nobody remotely sensible) claims that all GE goods forever are safe - the claim is that those commercialized are, and that any which pass regulatory approval in the future will be.

In an attempt to do so, I will describe some ways to determine which GE technology applications "go together" with sustainable agriculture and which do not.

As soon as your list has a single entry you have conceded defeat, it bears repeating that the title of the debate is
this house believes that biotechnology and sustainable agriculture are complementary, not contradictory.

Vast swathes of biotechnology could be contradictory to sustainable agriculture - but so long as any biotech is complementary then biotech is complementary.

Lets wait and see how many times Benbrook can concede defeat in his closing statement

si no fuera por la biotecnologia habria mas hambre en el mundo y la contaminacion se multiplicaria

@#8 Jes S

Humans currently produce far more food than is needed to feed the world, yet millions of people are still starving. Clearly, starvation is not a problem of production. It's a problem of distribution. Therefore, I find this whole âwe need GMOs to increase production to feed the worldâ argument disingenuous.

And I find it a weak argument to act as that is exceptionally relevant when discussing the merits of GE crops. Yeah, it's a distribution problem (for now anyway), but what can be done about that? Anyone volunteering to take down every tinpot dictator and regime out there and establish stable market based democracies in their place? Good luck with that. Until that happens, no amount of technology, not even genetic engineering, can ensure that no one goes hungry. We live in a world where some consider food a weapon, and GMOs burn just as easy as non-GMO. No one is claiming that they're going to solve all the problems, but we know they work, we know you can do a lot of good things with them, we know that we've just scratched the surface of their potential, so why not use them when it is becoming increasingly apparent that they will be necessary, as a component, in helping? We can't do everything, but at least we can do something, and that's a lot better than nothing.

And second, I think you're comparing a plant with a system. That's like comparing Ford cars with the Autobahn. They're different things. GMOs don't have to be grown in any given system, just like how I can grow an heirloom carrot in cow poo with pyrethrum or fertilized with mineral salts with the latest pesticide, I can grow a GMO in whatever system works best, and I think it is important to use whatever methods have been shown to work best under the specific given conditions, not to simply use whatever adheres to the static rules of an ideology.

And along those lines, genetic engineering is just a means of improving a plant, just like breeding. You certainty wouldn't decry breeding because people focused on corn instead of quinoa, tomato instead of cocona, or apple instead of jujube. It is no more rational to use the same grounds to oppose GMOs. No one is saying that a lack of biodiversity is a good thing, but speaking of which, turns out there's a higher presence of non-target insect biodiversity in Bt GM crops.

Furthermore, seed of GMOs can be saved. Perhaps you are confusing the patent laws regarding the GMO IPs owned by companies with what can be physically done. There is no requirement that GMO seed be unsavable, in fact, I recall Cornell working on modifying Indian heirloom eggplants which they plan to release at cost and teach local farmers to save those GMO seed. I also remember reading that the University of Hawaii scientists who developed the GMO papaya encouraging farmers to save those GMO seed as well. Golden Rice is also savable.

It seems like you're not arguing against GMOs so much as you're arguing against things you associate with GMOs. I don't like the RIAA, but I'm not about to dislike music over it. The patent laws, growing systems, how they're being used with respect to biodiversity, those are separate issues, and fine to talk about individually, but don't assume they're irrevocably intertwined with the act of altering an organisms genes. And if you have arguments against any particular trait, that's fine, there are some proposed GMOs I don't jive with either, but you really can't act as if herbicide tolerant sugar beet is the same as iron enriched lettuce is the same as virus resistant squash is the same as insect resistant cotton. I can get why one might have reservations about a single various issues here and there, but GMOs, as a whole, I don't understand how there can be an argument against improving a plant with molecular means instead of classic.

I'm always really confused by the "unable to save the seed" "self-sufficient with saving the seed" when most farmers, including organic/sustainable, do not save their own seed, and still buy from seed houses.

I'm always really confused by the "unable to save the seed" "self-sufficient with saving the seed" when most farmers, including organic/sustainable, do not save their own seed, and still buy from seed houses.

Particularly when not saving the seed is entirely an IP issue which could be done away with for GM seeds generated by academics or that have gone off patent (say for instance a gene in rice that conferred resistance to submersion in water for prolonged periods... although that sounds like the stuff of science fiction) - the issues around corporate ownership of GM traits are only salient when discussing traits owned by corporations - there is no reason that all GM traits ever should be corporate owned, and there is massive reason to believe that there will come a time when a lot of traits aren't owned at all (as while patents may be an evil tool of monopoly during the time they exist they do come with the caveat that the knowledge contained therein is public after the patent expires - which is kinda the bloody point in the first place - thanks for making something cool, profit off it for a bit - then it belongs to us all thx!)

I agree that we should invest more resources into developing biotechnologies, but I feel that the major problem is distribution.Yes, many people are starving in the world, but the US has a surplusof food. Excess corn is used to make a variety of things like chemicals, adhesives, and ethanol fuel. I think that we should give some of our excess corn to countries with famines. Many of the products we put corn into could be made with other substances. Instead of processing corn into uneatable chemicals, we should distribute it to countries where there is a food crisis.

GMK @ 15 - while it may be true that the US produces an excess of corn redistribution of corn from the US fails utterly to address the problem of food security in nations prone to famine etc - food aid should be an absolute last resort, with a far better option being to avoid famine in countries prone to famine in the first place - ideally no country should be beholden unto another for basic sustenance - which is, in my mind, the major failing of the 'just redistribute what is grown' mindset - we need solutions that work on the ground in areas (or as near as possible to areas) under the threat of famine, not solutions which only work when the political will is there (lets imagine we set up a system where the US crop surplus is used exclusively to feed the world and nothing is done to have the world feed itself - President Palin III then gets elected and decides that all this hopey feedy stuff is not what her version of Jesus (Ronald Reagan...) would want and decides to pull the rug out from under the third world - bereft of the means to feed themselves, well, let's just hope that someone cloned Bob Geldof)

Notwithstanding the economic barrier to providing surplus corn to provide food to the third world in times of need - corn is a commodity on which a massive amount of the manufacturing economy is based - it may be cheap, but it ain't free - farmers are going to want to be compensated for their efforts - I don't think that any aid organization (or government) is going to foot the bill - in an ideal world perhaps redistribution of food would be possible divorced from the economics of the situation, but sadly we live in a world which is far from ideal (hence the scary possibility of President Palin III)

i am not in support sorry ..........

I agree that we should invest more resources into developing biotechnologies

They COULD be, they MIGHT be but the case is
"biotech & sustainable agriculture ARE complementary not contradictory"
the case is clear; so far they have NOT bee, which makes the case for the Negative.
We know who "biotech" means... - the big industrial-ag corporations, who have not helped, despite pathetic blather about Vit A in rice. Vitamin A comes from affordable vegetables, which come from Just distribution of Land. Monsanto/Cargils have done nothing in that line.

StarHappy - AQUI SUA FESTA FICA MAIS BONITA!!!

Empresa Especializada em DecoraÃ§Ã£o de Festa Infantil com VÃ¡rios Temas, Lembrancinhas, Arco de BalÃµes para todas as OcasiÃµes, Fantasias, Salgados, Doces e Bolos.

PROMOÃÃO - DECORAÃÃO QUALQUER TEMA R$350,00
Montagem e Desmontagem + Arco de BalÃµes

PROMOÃÃO - ARCO DE BALÃES R$100,00
Festas,Eventos ou Empresas

Site: www.starhappy.com.br

E-mail: contato@starhappy.com.br

Fone: (11) 2264-1319 / 9467-5878

The comments focus on two issues: Malthusian overpopulation and the legal/political framework in which GE crops are distributed. Many of the comments in both areas miss the point, which is that global food concerns is a political problem rather than a biological or even economic one.

First, Malthusian concerns. The world produces more than enough food for its current population, and could easily supply billions more. The Malthusians have a better point when they argue that the world can't support these billions at a U.S. or European standard of living (e.g., there isn't enough freshwater in the world to brew the amount of beer that Americans consume on a per capita basis for the entire planet). But there is no reason to think that population growth is inexorable. Indeed, in society after society, populations cease growing and even decline as women become more and more educated. There is no need for coercive or semi-coercive population control schemes; send little girls to school, and in a generation your "population bomb" defuses itself.

Second, a lot of the discussion has focused on IP rights and the economics of GE crops. As several others have rightfully pointed out, this has nothing to do with the scientific question of whether GE crops are biologically safe for humans and the biosphere. Indeed, if we're going to dwell on the potential negatives of the sociopolitical realm in which GE crops are disseminated, why not also consider positives? For example, if the U.S., Europe, and Japan were to end their immoral and economically ruinous agricultural subsidies, developing world farmers with GR crops could become net food exporters rather than net food importers. This would lead to more money going to the developing world, and in a way that would enrich landholders and farmers rather than petro-dictators.

GE crops themselves have great potential, but this potential will only be fully realized when 1) women in the developing world become better educated and 2) the developed world quits subsidizing a 19th Century dream of the yeoman farmer that in reality merely enriches large agribusinesses.