Interesting Stuff Thread

CramCycle

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Great article on fraud in science, with some pretty shocking results about the lack of reproducibility of many scientific claims (in this case, specifically in biotech):

Makes you wonder how much of the more expensive/cutting-edge pharmaceuticals, actually have very little real backing - seems an incredibly easy way to generate a ton of demand for a fraudulent product, and get bucketloads of money from inflated prices due to patents, by pushing a drug as treatment for a condition, without it even being effective.

obplayer wrote: »

This is why science has mechanisms such as peer review to weed out the fraudulent / irreproducible claims. Pharmaceuticals have a specific problem in that the research can be hideously expensive and the details of it are clung to by the pharmaceutical companies with positively demonic determination. This makes it very difficult to test whether their results are reproducible or not. The reason for this in the case of pharmaceuticals is simple. Money. Science does it's best and is still the least worst system for research and investigation humanity has ever come up with.

From my experience in wet labs, it is some of the more "revered" journals that are the worst for this kind of sh1t. Nature for me has never provided a workable/reproducible experimental protocol, sometimes it is minor in that it is an issue with the technical issues and concentrations (yes that's right, Nature has contributors who can't work out concentrations correctly). But others are wholly unreproducible, when in college, I collaborated with other universities/colleges so it wasn't that I was alone. I often found the OA papers gave far easier to reproduce data sets, numbers might differ slightly but the correlation in increases/decreases where quite accurate.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Indeed, though some of the highlighted article comments were interesting, in that the worst/most-irreproducible research was coming from academia, and making its way into peer review journals (and with so much research not having reproduced verification, it seems rather easy to slip through); i.e. journals don't themselves have a mechanism for verifying reproducibility, but just enable the wider community to attempt it.

Alot do though, while never a first author myself, I helped out in the lab through my MSc verifying data but our PI was on a peer review board for the BMJ and would be sent papers directly related to his field. He fully agreed that this caused issues as you would have bitter PIs, refusing papers as it would beat their work to the punch but often it meant that he either had a similar experiment done or new someone in another lab who had done similar work and could drop them a note and ask what would you expect, if not satisfied, he could ask them to re run it with far more detail in the raw data. PITA but it worked, I don't think the higher up journals give as much of a sh1t once its a paper that will keep their ranking up. I do enjoy the reviews where someone coallates the data and comments how all of these labs have broadly similar data, but one or two labs have data that contradicts the theory completely, either before the fact or after the fact, make of that what you will. Sometimes, it is human error and varying but undetailed experimental conditions, but sometimes, the before and after of the disagreeing data lead me to think otherwise.

Agreed though - it's still the best system we have (though likely able to be improved quite a bit more), just worrying how easy it is to commit fraud (and make a ton of money doing it).

I have all my raw data in a box, as I was warned to hold onto it, as I have seen people, within my own old institution, forced to pull back their work, another who was found to be a fraud and had their PhD pulled as well as reducing the chance of their PI getting funding ever again, even though he falsified the data and the PI would not have known that easily. Alot of groups near mine stopped having such trusting PIs after that, which is no bad thing but it does show how easy it is to do, worse is, that once published, unless refuted, can mislead future research and end up costing not a few thousand but 100s of thousands, possibly millions around the world, as well as setting back research in that field, if only a small bit, years. I was lucky to have a PI who insisted on doing all the basic stuff from the ground up, even though at the time I thought it was a waste.

robindch

Baba Brinkman, former rapper on the topic of evolutionary psychology, turns his attention to religion:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/theater/review-rap-guide-to-religion-examines-why-humanity-created-god.html

Here's his TED talk on his ev-p rap:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DB_kVIoovJI

Tar.Aldarion

Dawkins/krauss talk in trinity tomorrow I see, in case people were interested. Tickets are dear enough!

Calibos

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Dawkins/krauss talk in trinity tomorrow I see, in case people were interested. Tickets are dear enough!

Reminds me of the time Dawkins did a talk in the NCH venue for the Launch of the The Greatest Show on Earth IIRC. Myself and my brother attended. We took our seats and almost straight away I pointed out a guy about 6 seats further down the row and said, "Thats going to be tonights argumentative heckling religionist thats going to be removed by security". Its not like he looked like a wild man or anything but he looked a bit shifty, fidgety etc Presumably I have a good mentalist radar from working in retail for donkeys years.

When it happened an hour or so later my brother laughed and when I turned around in my seat to watch him being escorted down the aisle by security, the people behind who had obviously heard my prediction earlier made the little hand clap gesture and mouthed Bravo!!

Turtwig

Are you saying you took a faith based position? :eek:

TheChizler

After reading this, well, article (?), on the occasion of Dolly the Sheep being awarded a commemorative plaque I found myself reading the Wikipedia article, and was amused by this interesting line:

Dolly was born on 5 July 1996 and had three mothers (one provided the egg, another the DNA and a third carried the cloned embryo to term).

I wonder what Lolek Ltd. and Co.'s reaction this little tidbit would be.

robindch

TheChizler wrote: »

I wonder what Lolek Ltd. and Co.'s reaction this little tidbit would be.

It's baa-baaaaaaaa-d.

recedite

TheChizler wrote: »

After reading this, well, article (?), on the occasion of Dolly the Sheep being awarded a commemorative plaque I found myself reading the Wikipedia article, and was amused by this interesting line..

I see its a "blue" plaque and I hope its made out of wood too, seeing as we are now in the Chinese Year of the Blue Wooden Sheep (an auspicious year for founding a new religion BTW, in case anyone had a good idea for one on the back burner)

Also the Dolly commemoration is good timing as the UK has just voted to allow 3 parent embryos, although in fairness that is 3 parents and not 3 mothers. The male parent's contribution is obviously not relevant when cloning a female.

Still if we combined the mitochondrial DNA thing with Varadkars upcoming surrogacy laws, we could have 4 parent humans being produced here in the near future...

TheChizler

recedite wrote: »

Still if we combined the mitochondrial DNA thing with Varadkars upcoming surrogacy laws, we could have 4 parent humans being produced here in the near future...

Goodbye mammy and daddy, hello mammy and mammy... and mammy and mammy...

recedite

Three mammys, one daddy.

TheChizler

recedite wrote: »

Three mammys, one daddy.

Sounds like a progression of Two Girls one Cup.

I'd like to see an Iona/Lolek Ltd. reaction video to this!

4 parents, many test tubes?

robindch

The world's shipping. In HD. In light-blue flashes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtffmxJmehs

oscarBravo

robindch wrote: »

The world's shipping. In HD. In light-blue flashes.

If it had gone north from Spain, much of the information off the west coast of Ireland would have come from an AIS receiver that my company hosts. It's a really cool concept.

http://www.marinetraffic.com/

DavidRamsay99

A fascinating scientific paper by Dr. Jeremy England of MIT suggests that under certain conditions matter inexorably acquires the key attributes associated with life.

Self-replication is a capacity common to every species of living thing, and simple physical intuition
dictates that such a process must invariably be fueled by the production of entropy. Here, we undertake
to make this intuition rigorous and quantitative by deriving a lower bound for the amount
of heat that is produced during a process of self-replication in a system coupled to a thermal bath.
We find that the minimum value for the physically allowed rate of heat production is determined by
the growth rate, internal entropy, and durability of the replicator, and we discuss the implications
of this finding for bacterial cell division, as well as for the pre-biotic emergence of self-replicating
nucleic acids. © 2013 Author(s). All article content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under
a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. url]http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4818538[/url

CLOSING REMARKS
The process of cellular division, even in a creature as
ancient and streamlined as a bacterium, is so bewilderingly
complex that it may come as some surprise that physics can
make any binding pronouncements about how fast it all can
happen. The reason this becomes possible is that nonequilibrium
processes in constant temperature baths obey general
laws that relate forward and reverse transition probabilities
to heat production.2 Previously, such laws had been applied
successfully in understanding thermodynamics of copying
“informational” molecules such as nucleic acids.8 In those
cases, however, the information content of the system’s
molecular structure could more easily be taken for granted,
in light of the clear role played by DNA in the production of
RNA and protein.
What we have glimpsed here is that the underlying connection
between entropy production and transition probability
has a much more general applicability, so long as we recognize
that “self-replication” is only visible once an observer
decides how to classify the “self” in the system: only once a
coarse-graining scheme determines how many copies of some
object are present for each microstate can we talk in probabilistic
terms about the general tendency for that type of
object to affect its own reproduction, and the same system’s
microstates can be coarse-grained using any number of different
schemes. Whatever the scheme, however, the resulting
stochastic population dynamics must obey the same general
relationship entwining heat, organization, and durability. We
may hope that this insight spurs future work that will clarify
the general physical constraints obeyed by natural selection in
nonequilibrium systems.

THE JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS 139, 121923 (2013)

Dades

DavidRamsay99 wrote: »

A fascinating scientific paper by Dr. Jeremy England...

Moved to the Interesting Stuff thread.

KomradeBishop

Excellent article touching on why people doubt science, and how science is being corrupted by corporations, to further their own goals - explains very well, the problem with the GM food industry, and how this ties into their goals of long-term market monopolization:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/27/monsanto-wants-to-know-why-people-doubt-science/

I'd had a surface-level understanding of some issues surrounding GM food, but that ties it all together and outlines the overall problem, very well.

recedite

KomradeBishop wrote: »

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/02/27/monsanto-wants-to-know-why-people-doubt-science/
I'd had a surface-level understanding of some issues surrounding GM food, but that ties it all together and outlines the overall problem, very well.

That finding of the tumours appearing in rats that were fed on Roundup came up before on another thread. Its bad science IMO because
(a) it shows that rats eating weedkiller get tumours. Not that rats eating GM corn get tumours.

and (B) potato plants are regularly sprayed with Roundup a few weeks before harvesting in Ireland. The stalks above ground wither away, and so they don't foul up the mechanised harvester as much. But as Roundup is a "systemic" herbicide, it also travels down into the spud. So that means you are probably already ingesting Roundup, despite living in a GM free zone.

(c) trials are going on in Carlow and Holland to develop a GM potato variety that is blight resistant, but the chances are that it will not be released for growing here because of the GM cranks. So we will continue to eat our spuds soaked in various fungicides, as well as the Roundup herbicide.

Hotblack Desiato

Leonard Nimoy has died.

KomradeBishop

^^

recedite wrote: »

That finding of the tumours appearing in rats that were fed on Roundup came up before on another thread. Its bad science IMO because
(a) it shows that rats eating weedkiller get tumours. Not that rats eating GM corn get tumours.

and (B) potato plants are regularly sprayed with Roundup a few weeks before harvesting in Ireland. The stalks above ground wither away, and so they don't foul up the mechanised harvester as much. But as Roundup is a "systemic" herbicide, it also travels down into the spud. So that means you are probably already ingesting Roundup, despite living in a GM free zone.

(c) trials are going on in Carlow and Holland to develop a GM potato variety that is blight resistant, but the chances are that it will not be released for growing here because of the GM cranks. So we will continue to eat our spuds soaked in various fungicides, as well as the Roundup herbicide.

Ah, I don't see the article referencing any of that? It seems to deal more with the aspect, of GM crops being a way to monopolize agriculture and/or as a way of turning agricultural activities into 'rent-seeking' ones, where previously they were not.

While I'm still not fully acquainted with the GM debate, it seems to me like the pro-GM side suffers many of the faults of pro-nuclear advocates: A bias towards the - legitimate/very-impressive - positives (because 'science' - even when there is evidence of a heavy bias in the science research in that field), and minimization of the potential dangers.

With nuclear today, we're reassured that all of the catastrophic faults from past-generation reactors are solved - yet there's still ample reason to be cynical, as the nuclear industry has more than earned deep cynicism towards it; with GM crops, there is plenty of nonsense used to try and discredit it, yet there are still plenty of good reasons to be concerned about the known (and other largely unknown) dangers - it's another set of companies that have more than earned deep-cynicism.

KomradeBishop

Following on from that, a good article on how the GM food and biotech industry (note as well, my earlier link about massive fraud in the biotech research industry, and how it is in the middle of a bubble) are engaging in lobbying to try and promote the idea that there is a scientific 'consensus' about GM food - that it is safe - when there is no such consensus (there is in fact a lot of controversy still, with as much research providing cause for concern as there is for promoting GM - and remember: in an industry with massive prevalence for fraudulent research), and trying to brand anyone that disagrees as anti-science/science-denying:
www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/02/war-genetically-modified-food-critics.html

robindch

KomradeBishop wrote: »

[...] how the GM food [...] there is in fact a lot of controversy still, with as much research providing cause for concern as there is for promoting GM [...]

Instead of a fact-free opinion piece published on a website with a fairly wonky view of economics, by a guy with a masters's degree in something called "Public Policy", why not produce a series of reputable, widescale studies which have been published by a suitably-qualified group of researchers in a high-impact factor, peer-reviewed scientific journal?

As Hitchens pointed out, what's asserted without evidence can be dismissed without argument.

KomradeBishop

What specifically is wrong with that sites view on economics? That guy isn't an author on the site, just cross-posted; I don't see how a 'public policy' masters, discredits his views in any way?

I don't know why you're implying there is no peer-reviewed evidence presented...he does after all, cite a peer reviewed study in the article to back his points. Did you read the article?

You say that the opinion piece is fact-free and is asserted without evidence, yet ironically you are asserting that without evidence - and the evidence presented in the article contradicts your claim - which is in violation of your own quote

A quote from the cited study:

In recent years, there has been a notable concern on the safety of genetically modified (GM) foods/plants, an important and complex area of research, which demands rigorous standards. Diverse groups including consumers and environmental Non Governmental Organizations (NGO) have suggested that all GM foods/plants should be subjected to long-term animal feeding studies before approval for human consumption. (KB: Highlighting, as this would put the burden of proof on showing GM foods/plants are safe, not on showing they are unsafe) In 2000 and 2006, we reviewed the information published in international scientific journals, noting that the number of references concerning human and animal toxicological/health risks studies on GM foods/plants was very limited. The main goal of the present review was to assess the current state-of-the-art regarding the potential adverse effects/safety assessment of GM plants for human consumption. The number of citations found in databases (PubMed and Scopus) has dramatically increased since 2006. However, new information on products such as potatoes, cucumber, peas or tomatoes, among others was not available. Corn/maize, rice, and soybeans were included in the present review. An equilibrium in the number research groups suggesting, on the basis of their studies, that a number of varieties of GM products (mainly maize and soybeans) are as safe and nutritious as the respective conventional non-GM plant, and those raising still serious concerns, was currently observed. (KB: This is saying there is as much research claiming safety, as there is raising serious concerns) Nevertheless, it should be noted that most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants. These findings suggest a notable advance in comparison with the lack of studies published in recent years in scientific journals by those companies. All this recent information is herein critically reviewed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21296423

So that seems to back the primary points in the NC article, and shows that there is no scientific consensus at present - and remember, it was shown in an earlier article how the biotech industry (which is funding this research) has been tied with massive research fraud, giving further cause to pour doubt on the safety of GM food.

pauldla

The International Humanist and Ethical Union is telling us that there are 13 countries where atheism is punishable by death, according to the Wire.

Atheists living in 13 countries risk being condemned to death, just for their beliefs (or non-belief) according to a new, comprehensive report from the International Humanist and Ethical Union out on Tuesday. All 13 countries identified by the study are Muslim majority.

The countries that impose these penalties are Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. With the exception of Pakistan, those countries all allow for capital punishment against apostasy, i.e., the renunciation of a particular religion. Pakistan, meanwhile, imposes the death penalty for blasphemy, which can obviously include disbelief in God.

http://www.thewire.com/global/2013/12/13-countries-where-atheism-punishable-death/355961/

silverharp

given that there are still some people in Mexico that worship volcanoes I'd imagine it's a possible strand in the development of the jewish God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtI-lSvS028

PopePalpatine

They do have comparably fierce tempers! :pac:

robindch

With a refreshingly honest Public Service Announcement from 2:40.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgpfNScEd3M

CramCycle

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Following on from that, a good article on how the GM food and biotech industry (note as well, my earlier link about massive fraud in the biotech research industry, and how it is in the middle of a bubble) are engaging in lobbying to try and promote the idea that there is a scientific 'consensus' about GM food - that it is safe - when there is no such consensus

There is never a consensus in science about such a broad ranging statement, there is a consensus that those that are fully tested are safe.

(there is in fact a lot of controversy still, with as much research providing cause for concern as there is for promoting GM - and remember: in an industry with massive prevalence for fraudulent research)

The reason for the promoting GM being a serious issue is because of papers like the Sun jumping on the bandwagon of a report (well statement by someone who wanted a bit of limelight) that was ripped to shreds by scientific peers (from universities not big corporations). Most of us have been eating GM foods for 30+ years, Sainsburys had GM tomatoes on their shelves from the 80s, only pulling them 10+ years later (with no health incidences reported) after scare reports in papers that were unfounded.

trying to brand anyone that disagrees as anti-science/science-denying:
www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/02/war-genetically-modified-food-critics.html

A pretty much ridiculous claim, the whole point of science if to investigate these GMs, to see are there any risks and possible issues before being released into the general populations. There have been risks in the past where companies have introduced GMs into certain foods, as a form of pest control, that it turns out also triggered allergic reactions, since then though the regulations and testing has become far tighter.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I don't know why you're implying there is no peer-reviewed evidence presented...he does after all, cite a peer reviewed study in the article to back his points. Did you read the article?

I did, it massively misrepresents the study.

There is no such consensus on the safety of GM food. A peer-reviewed study of the research, from peer-reviewed journals, found that about half of the animal-feeding studies conducted in recent years found cause for concern. The other half didn’t, and as the researchers noted, “most of these studies have been conducted by biotechnology companies responsible of commercializing these GM plants.”

It makes it sound like these companies found issues and then released the product, which is not what happens, contrary to popular belief, most big businesses don't like being sued, not because of loss of revenue but the PR cost is far more damaging, so in general, it doesn't happen (there are exceptions see Takeda, type 2 Diabetes)

A quote from the cited study:

That's the abstract

So that seems to back the primary points in the NC article, and shows that there is no scientific consensus at present - and remember, it was shown in an earlier article how the biotech industry (which is funding this research) has been tied with massive research fraud, giving further cause to pour doubt on the safety of GM food.

Consensus? on which GM foods? the author makes it sound like scientists treat all GM foods as one food stuff. Its a ridiculous statement that clearly takes many of the statements out of the situation they are being presented. When someone stands up from the arena where they test or create or promote GMOs and say they are safe, they do not mean, all GMOs are safe, nor do they mean any GMOs are safe. What they generally mean is that GMOs that have been through rigourous testing by independent labs, government bodies, the EU GM farms, the GM farms on our own island, and once these studies have been completed, analysed, then re analysed by external groups of experts, then the testing on surrounding wildlife, the food chain and the local environment have been thoroughly completed, that these GMOs are safe to the best of their knowledge. They do not mean that the GMOs that were tested, created issue with animals or the local environment, showed signs of potential health issues in cell culture testing, animal testing or human testing are safe, they mean that the precautions put in place, will hopefully catch these issues.

The problem is, even with this robust study and research, products like Golden rice are met with strong opposition.

KomradeBishop

CramCycle wrote: »

There is never a consensus in science about such a broad ranging statement, there is a consensus that those that are fully tested are safe.

What GM foods are fully tested? As the article said, there is as much research noting cause for concern, as there is promoting GM safety - and much of the research there is coming from companies involved with producing GM food (i.e. there is a conflict of interest there - and this from an industry noted for research fraud).

I fully agree with you though, about some nonsense concerns being perpetuated for the sake of sensationalist headlines - the idea that all concerns are equally nonsensical though, is misguided, but this appears to be the impression that the GM industry are lobbying to try and create - to make legitimate criticism/concern look like crackpottery/'science-denial'.

CramCycle wrote: »

Most of us have been eating GM foods for 30+ years, Sainsburys had GM tomatoes on their shelves from the 80s, only pulling them 10+ years later (with no health incidences reported) after scare reports in papers that were unfounded.

So long as those specific products were put to long-term health studies before being put to market, there's no problem with that.
Evaluating the safety after-market, would effectively be an uncontrolled experiment that won't give you proper results, compared to a properly controlled experiment (not to mention being unethical).

CramCycle wrote: »

I did, it massively misrepresents the study.

It doesn't really, you seem to misrepresent the article - as explained below.

CramCycle wrote: »

It makes it sound like these companies found issues and then released the product, which is not what happens, contrary to popular belief, most big businesses don't like being sued, not because of loss of revenue but the PR cost is far more damaging, so in general, it doesn't happen (there are exceptions see Takeda, type 2 Diabetes)

Red herring - the studies noted cause for concern in equal amount to the studies noting safety. I don't think the article made it sound like that.

CramCycle wrote: »

Consensus? on which GM foods? the author makes it sound like scientists treat all GM foods as one food stuff. Its a ridiculous statement that clearly takes many of the statements out of the situation they are being presented. When someone stands up from the arena where they test or create or promote GMOs and say they are safe, they do not mean, all GMOs are safe, nor do they mean any GMOs are safe. What they generally mean is that GMOs that have been through rigourous testing by independent labs, government bodies, the EU GM farms, the GM farms on our own island, and once these studies have been completed, analysed, then re analysed by external groups of experts, then the testing on surrounding wildlife, the food chain and the local environment have been thoroughly completed, that these GMOs are safe to the best of their knowledge. They do not mean that the GMOs that were tested, created issue with animals or the local environment, showed signs of potential health issues in cell culture testing, animal testing or human testing are safe, they mean that the precautions put in place, will hopefully catch these issues.

The problem is, even with this robust study and research, products like Golden rice are met with strong opposition.

What GM foods is there a consensus on? Red Herring: The author was referencing a meta-study of the entire field of GM food research, which justifies him not focusing on specific GM foods.


So long as proper long-term studies are done on all GM food products, before being introduced to market - and repeated by enough impartial bodies to reduce the chance of research fraud and other acts which reduce the quality/credibility of research - then I'm fine with those GM foods.

There seems to be quite a lot of cause for deep cynicism of the industry though.

Brian Shanahan

CramCycle wrote: »

The reason for the promoting GM being a serious issue is because of papers like the Sun jumping on the bandwagon of a report (well statement by someone who wanted a bit of limelight) that was ripped to shreds by scientific peers (from universities not big corporations). Most of us have been eating GM foods for 30+ years, Sainsburys had GM tomatoes on their shelves from the 80s, only pulling them 10+ years later (with no health incidences reported) after scare reports in papers that were unfounded.

[supercillious nasal twang] Well, technically we've been eating GM crops for thousands of years now.[/supercillious nasal twang]

Fact of the matter is that humanity has being genetically altering its crops (and animal food sources as well) almost continuously since the first agricultural revolution back in the Stone Age.

What has me cold though, is that a company as obviously Dr. Evil as Monsanto is has effective control of a lot of the current GM crops.

recedite

The patenting of plants and animals is a completely different issue to whether GM is safe, and "a good thing".
The legality of plant patents is dubious. According to the WTO

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans serif]Members may also exclude from patentability:[/FONT] [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans serif] (a) diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals; [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans serif] (b) plants and animals other than micro-organisms, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes. However, Members shall provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof. The provisions of this subparagraph shall be reviewed four years after the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement. [/FONT]

The review never took place, thanks to well placed lobbyists. I can understand the position of Monsanto though, it is similar to the big pharma companies. If they can't make money from their research, why would they bother doing it?
IMO the solution is to give the "inventor" a certain time period of having the monopoly, similar to that of a newly developed drug, and then after that allow the generic version to be freely traded.

CramCycle

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

[supercillious nasal twang] Well, technically we've been eating GM crops for thousands of years now.[/supercillious nasal twang]

Its generally accepted though that the term GM refers to genetic engineering, not selective breeding or otherwise.

What has me cold though, is that a company as obviously Dr. Evil as Monsanto is has effective control of a lot of the current GM crops.

recedite wrote: »

IMO the solution is to give the "inventor" a certain time period of having the monopoly, similar to that of a newly developed drug, and then after that allow the generic version to be freely traded.

Completely agree, like a drug patent, I feel there should be a time limit once the GMO goes into the public domain.

silverharp

I'll admit its not an issue I follow but given that no food is dangerous beyond its chemical makeup , I have no particular hang up if a tomatoes has fish genes in it. I have a problem if the food Is designed so it can take more pesticide , or if the crop is designed to have a higher sugar content or other quality which may prove to be bad for our systems.
The patent system is also out of control as seen in the software business so would always support a creative commons approch to these types of developments.

CramCycle

silverharp wrote: »

I'll admit its not an issue I follow but given that no food is dangerous beyond its chemical makeup

Well this is the reason why extensive testing has to be done as it is impossible just to tell from the final product alone how this make up, even if genetically it seems to be harmless, that it need to be harmless in field studies. This is why they have allergen testing for all GMOs that are being looked at as being introduced either into the food chain or into the general environment.

I have a problem if the food Is designed so it can take more pesticide , or if the crop is designed to have a higher sugar content or other quality which may prove to be bad for our systems.

Same here, not sure of any GMOs released or being breed with such traits in mind, although there may well be.

The patent system is also out of control as seen in the software business so would always support a creative commons approach to these types of developments.

Unfortunately a creative commons approach does not really work for this as why would these companies pump money into these projects if there was no room for profit at the end. The benefits to them is that they should identify issues before regulatory testing comes into play, so that alot of problematic GMOs are weeded out before they get that far. The regulatory testing should then confirm or deny the GMOs safety. The research though that they pay for in universities and colleges also allows for some issues to fall into the common domain, FHI Ireland for example, release their data for publication from universities if they don't plan to make a profit it out of it, so it gives other researchers a leg up to identify areas that require more research and to help back up or dispute their claims.

Brian Shanahan

recedite wrote: »

I can understand the position of Monsanto though, it is similar to the big pharma companies. If they can't make money from their research, why would they bother doing it?

I can't, because like with big pharma, most of their "research" budget is involved in buying out smaller companies who do actual research, or buying off state or academic researchers to give them their research.

Most R&D in private industry is nothing of the sort, for example we've got the famous case of Gillette supposedly spending nearly US$2bn in trying to put an extra blade on their disposable razors (the Mach 3 razor). The tax breaks and funding matching available from most states for R&D are so great that companies are regularly engaged in massively over-inflating their supposed spends in this area, for the simple reason that quite often they get more back than what they saying they spend.

CramCycle

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I can't, because like with big pharma, most of their "research" budget is involved in buying out smaller companies who do actual research, or buying off state or academic researchers to give them their research.

I think we get a bid every year or two to buy us, it's always nice to know your perceived as being either useful or a threat.

It is a way that many researchers can get funding though, as big companies write of the funding of a PhD against Tax, the PhD may or may not bring in a novel idea but they do get PR, they can write off ideas without having to introduce the questions into production lines, they can also get input from knowledgeable people in the field without having to employ them directly as a consultant or otherwise.

I wouldn't use the term "buying off" as the academics know what they are signing up for, and it gives them the opportunity to get "related" work done that no one else would have funded.

Far from a perfect system but its been buoying alot of 4th level research in this country for as long as I was involved.

Most R&D in private industry is nothing of the sort, for example we've got the famous case of Gillette supposedly spending nearly US$2bn in trying to put an extra blade on their disposable razors (the Mach 3 razor). The tax breaks and funding matching available from most states for R&D are so great that companies are regularly engaged in massively over-inflating their supposed spends in this area, for the simple reason that quite often they get more back than what they saying they spend.

Having done R&D budgets before, not sure about the US but they are heavily audited here, I have had surprise visits from Enterprise Ireland to interview anyone associated with the project to see that what is on paper matches up with whats actually going on. Not sure if all funding bodies are like that but I have seen projects in other institutes / companies getting pulled up on miniscule accounting errors/lost receipts, budgets of millions out by a few hundred euro, and an audit that will last a fortnight by external auditors, team of 4, plus time to write their report, begins.

That said, whatever can be claimed under R&D (tax rebates etc.) are often heavily scrutinised as well, we seem to get audited quite regularly for it as well by revenue whenever we have a big project. I don't find those audits as much of a PITA, just annoyingly time consuming but I fully support them or every tom dick and harry would be researching the F out of everything.

Genghiz Cohen

You can buy the researchers, but you'll have a much harder time buying the peer review.

recedite

CramCycle wrote: »

...Unfortunately a creative commons approach does not really work for this as why would these companies pump money into these projects if there was no room for profit at the end..

Private research companies must be allowed a reasonable period of time to profit as a result of their efforts.
But the other alternative is public funding. The GM blight resistant potato trials were funded by an EU program and were successful. As the whole point of these GM plants is that they will thrive with less chemicals being sprayed on them, the industrial chemical giants are not interested, and so it falls on enlightened states to fund the research.
An American company has already licensed the rights to grow the spuds in the US, but it seems unlikely that they will be grown any time soon in Europe for political reasons, and certainly not in Ireland (the EU public is more hostile to implementing GM technology, even though we funded the research)
Kind of ironic, given our history, with the famine and all that.

Shrap

recedite wrote: »

and certainly not in Ireland (the EU public is more hostile to implementing GM technology, even though we funded the research)
Kind of ironic, given our history, with the famine and all that.

I'm not anti-GM really, but I just wonder about it's effectiveness in the long term. Having read the article you linked, seems I'm not the only one who wonders whether the blight will mutate to suit the new breed of spud (like viruses become immune to vaccines?). Maybe it's a stupid question, but clearly Teagasc are asking the same stupid question. "Critically, what will be the response of the blight organism itself when it is faced with a potato variety with such strong blight resistance?" - from the link.

What are the costs of developing, testing and breeding the GM spud in comparison to the cost (environmental and otherwise) of the spuds that currently require vast quantities of pesticide, fungicide, etc.? For something that may not improve matters long-term?

I would think (political activism aside) that Ireland would do very well to research this aspect further, considering our history of putting all our eggs in one basket.

recedite

I suppose its possible that blight could mutate and circumvent the defences of the current GM potato.
But then its also possible that blight could mutate and become resistant to current fungicides, thereby requiring farmers to apply ever more toxic chemicals to the crops that we eat.

IMO people in the future will consider it "normal" for regular genetic modifications or enhancements to be made to crops. They will think we were mad to spray them with poisons during the late 20th/ early 21st century.

silverharp

this is the kind of unforseen stuff that would make me nervous as a consumer, they design the plants to work with pesticides but then create a situation where they need to use more chemicals. other stuff that makes me a little wary is how fundamental foods like wheat have changed in the last 50 years which is now potentially more unhealthy for people due to the higher gluten content compared to more natural strains of yesteryear.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/

GMO Crops Mean More Herbicide, Not Less

Over the past 15 years, farmers around the world have planted ever larger tracts of genetically engineered crops.

According to the USDA, in 2012 more than 93 percent of soy planted was “herbicide tolerant,” engineered to withstand herbicides (sold by the same companies who patent and sell the seeds). Likewise, 73 percent of all corn now is also genetically modified to withstand chemicals produced to kill competing weeds.

One of the main arguments behind creating these engineered crops is that farmers then need to use less herbicide and pesticide. This makes farms more eco-friendly, say proponents of genetically modified (GM) crops, and GM seeds also allow farmers to spend less on “inputs” (chemicals), thereby making a greater profit.

But a new study released by Food & Water Watch yesterday finds the goal of reduced chemical use has not panned out as planned. In fact, according to the USDA and EPA data used in the report, the quick adoption of genetically engineered crops by farmers has increased herbicide use over the past 9 years in the U.S. The report follows on the heels of another such study by Washington State University research professor Charles Benbrook just last year.

Both reports focus on “superweeds.” It turns out that spraying a pesticide repeatedly selects for weeds which also resist the chemical. Ever more resistant weeds are then bred, able to withstand increasing amounts – and often different forms – of herbicide.

At the center of debate is the pesticide glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto MON -0.68%‘s Round Up. Food & Water Watch found that the “total volume of glyphosate applied to the three biggest GE crops — corn, cotton and soybeans — increased 10-fold from 15 million pounds in 1996 to 159 million pounds in 2012.” Overall pesticide use decreased only in the first few years GE crops were used (42 percent between 1998 and 2001) and has since then risen by 26 percent from 2001 to 2010.


By 2011 there were also three times as many herbicide-resistant weeds found in farmer’s fields as there were in 2001.

http://www.foodtrients.com/inside/is-frankenwheat-fueling-the-type-2-diabetes-epidemic/

..........Research out of The Netherlands Plant Research International in 2010, revealed that modern wheat “breeding” likely has contributed to the rise in CD – celiac disease (gluten sensitivity). Their study showed that CD has significantly increased in the last few decades since wheat breeding began and that ‘increased wheat and gluten consumption is considered a major cause’. Modern wheat, their study showed, contains much more of the gluten proteins that fuels CD versus wheat that was grown over 100 years ago.

Not only is modern wheat a “super-gluten”, it also is a “super-starch” being full of a dense starch called amylopectin A. This starch, although it can be a baker’s friend making cakes and pastries richer and fuller, it can also create blood sugar spikes with resultant belly fat gain. Could this be why we’ve seen an epidemic rise in type 2 diabetes in the last few decades? Many physician/researchers think so........

robindch

Shrap wrote: »

What are the costs of developing, testing and breeding the GM spud in comparison to the cost (environmental and otherwise) of the spuds that currently require vast quantities of pesticide, fungicide, etc.? For something that may not improve matters long-term?

I haven't read up on the GM spud -- hell, I don't even remember it existing to start with -- so can't comment on it. However, any time the whole GM shooting match starts up, it's usually worth bringing up the Golden Rice project which is a good example of what GM can do, when it's done properly:

http://www.goldenrice.org/

tl;dr summary - people who eat large amounts of rice run the risk of being deficient in Vitamin A, a deficiency which is estimated to be directly responsible for the deaths of perhaps a half a million children each year. Golden Rice is regular rice which has had genes inserted which synthesize Vitamin A (which is orange-colored, hence the "Golden Rice" name). Despite the rice being given away for free, despite fifteen-odd years of research failing to indicate any negative effects at all, and despite the fact that it could help save the lives of half a million kids annually, Golden Rice has met with strong and sustained opposition from anti-GM activists, most of whom are as unfamiliar with the problem as they are with the solution. It's very frustrating; a little bit like dealing with creationists or flat-earthers.

recedite

silverharp wrote: »

other stuff that makes me a little wary is how fundamental foods like wheat have changed in the last 50 years which is now potentially more unhealthy for people due to the higher gluten content..

50 years ago chicken was a fundamentally different food, being low fat and more like "game" than it is now. But this is due to selective breeding and intensive farming, not GM or scientific research. Its farmers giving the consumer what they want. Its not some scary unforeseen consequence of trusting in Dr GM Frankenstein.

KomradeBishop

robindch wrote: »

I haven't read up on the GM spud -- hell, I don't even remember it existing to start with -- so can't comment on it. However, any time the whole GM shooting match starts up, it's usually worth bringing up the Golden Rice project which is a good example of what GM can do, when it's done properly:

http://www.goldenrice.org/

tl;dr summary - people who eat large amounts of rice run the risk of being deficient in Vitamin A, a deficiency which is estimated to be directly responsible for the deaths of perhaps a half a million children each year. Golden Rice is regular rice which has had genes inserted which synthesize Vitamin A (which is orange-colored, hence the "Golden Rice" name). Despite the rice being given away for free, despite fifteen-odd years of research failing to indicate any negative effects at all, and despite the fact that it could help save the lives of half a million kids annually, Golden Rice has met with strong and sustained opposition from anti-GM activists, most of whom are as unfamiliar with the problem as they are with the solution. It's very frustrating; a little bit like dealing with creationists or flat-earthers.

It's hard to tell how much of a consensus there is on golden rice - there is some evidence of scientists raising concern:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rice#Clinical_trials_.2F_food_safety_and_nutrition_research

Has it been through many long-term studies? (not just studies here and there across 15 years, but how many actual long term studies?)

Maybe it's fine and perfectly safe, with all the proper research/trials done - but on an initial look, it doesn't seem set enough to go branding skeptics as akin to creationists/flat-eathers; anyone who does an initial look at the state of research here, should be able to find something to give them pause, from legitimate sources (i.e. actual scientists, not crackpots).

GM seems to be a topic, where people should be listening to the genuine skeptics (rather than lumping them in with the crackpots) - not reaching for a stick to beat them with, as anti-science or whatnot.

silverharp

recedite wrote: »

50 years ago chicken was a fundamentally different food, being low fat and more like "game" than it is now. But this is due to selective breeding and intensive farming, not GM or scientific research. Its farmers giving the consumer what they want. Its not some scary unforeseen consequence of trusting in Dr GM Frankenstein.

its a case by case I guess. Sometimes what the consumer wants might be taste and texture but the consumer on average wont know "whats under the bonnet". Im not concerned as such if the process is GM or old fashioned breeding

robindch

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It's hard to tell how much of a consensus there is on golden rice [...]

It's relatively easy to tell whether there's a general consensus or not. Five minutes with google and it turns out that the wiki article you quoted includes one counter-consensual quote, and that from an organization which promotes homeopathy, and an individual who rejects the modern evolutionary synthesis and who writes some very silly woo indeed. The one easily-searched for claim made by Ho in that quote is demonstrably false- see here for a link which is returned in the first page of results. Took about 15 seconds to find.

KomradeBishop wrote: »

GM seems to be a topic, where people should be listening to the genuine skeptics (rather than lumping them in with the crackpots) - not reaching for a stick to beat them with, as anti-science or whatnot.

I've been long enough dealing with the anti-GM crew that I've lost patience. I've heard all the arguments and debunked the lot of them long ago.

If the best the anti-GM crew can produce is a single retired researcher who appears to have had little or no useful research published in reputable, high-impact journals, who rejects evolution, who promotes homeopathy and who makes while claims that can be debunked in seconds, then - sorry to say it - but I think I'm on solid ground in saying that this guy is a "little like" "a creationist or a flat-earther".

If they want to be taken seriously, then they should start behaving seriously.

KomradeBishop

Fair enough, that group arguing against golden rice is fairly discreditable, so I can't immediately see any credible opposition to it.

My only remaining question on that would be, from last post: Has it been through many long-term studies? (not just studies here and there across 15 years, but how many actual long term studies?)
I've tried searching for a bit, but can't immediately see. If it's been through many such long-term studies, with no potential problems or biases with those studies, I'd not have any remaining concerns about golden rice.

CramCycle

Has it been through many long-term studies? (not just studies here and there across 15 years, but how many actual long term studies?)

What do you define as long term? What do you believe is needed to ascertain reputable safe usage?

Maybe it's fine and perfectly safe, with all the proper research/trials done - but on an initial look, it doesn't seem set enough to go branding skeptics as akin to creationists/flat-eathers; anyone who does an initial look at the state of research here, should be able to find something to give them pause, from legitimate sources (i.e. actual scientists, not crackpots).

No one in the scientific community labels someone a crack pot if they are raising genuine concerns from a reputable source, I have been at enough international conferences where scientists, equally renowned, will have full blown, mainly civil, arguments over unseen issues with studies, or something there studies have shown that the reported studies have not. In the peer review process, it should work that the reviewer is in a lab that works in the area or has the capability of reproducing these tests.

The crack pots are the ones who hear GM and say it must be bad, the scientists are the ones who hear GM and ask, what was the aim (sometimes there isn't one), what did this work achieve and what are both the positives and negatives of this development.

GM seems to be a topic, where people should be listening to the genuine skeptics (rather than lumping them in with the crackpots) - not reaching for a stick to beat them with, as anti-science or whatnot.

But scientists generally don't, they might shrug off and LOL at some of the stupid anti GM arguments because they were clearly not researched or they took snippets of information to misrepresent what the studies were saying. A good example being the review posted earlier (the abstract only, you can get the full review for free on research gate), that claims half of GM foods are dangerous or have negative issues associated with them, rather than half of GMOs in development in the past 10 years had negative issues or consequences associated with them, most were scrapped before being made due to bioinformatics hinting/showing potential issues and those that showed issues in first stage cell culture and animal trials were also scrapped.

robindch wrote: »

It's relatively easy to tell whether there's a general consensus or not.

The only consensus is that it has the potential to be beneficial and useful to the global population, there are risks, hence the whole studies and research side of things but there are huge potential benefits.

If they want to be taken seriously, then they should start behaving seriously.

There is no they in the general scientific community, there are those involved in it, from small research labs, government funded bodies and large companies. They all fund and contribute to the research in different ways and for different things, none are anti GM as that gives the impression that all GM is negative, which is rubbish, what they are is pro the development of useful developments and discoveries that will benefit society, some for interest, some for the reason that is their purpose, to help the people, the other for money (although many working for them will be from the first group, and the rest should be interested in not releasing anything with negative effects as it will stop the money pretty quick).

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I've tried searching for a bit, but can't immediately see. If it's been through many such long-term studies, with no potential problems or biases with those studies, I'd not have any remaining concerns about golden rice.

out of the studies you have found, can you note any biases that have not been mentioned in the "conflict of interest" section of the paper/study.

KomradeBishop

I think GM foods and pharmaceuticals should share a similar approach to regulation/testing (I believe they do already in many regards) - extensive drug trials can last up to 10-15 years, so that'd be a good starting aim for long-term GM food studies.

I haven't been able to find good information on long-term studies for golden rice.

robindch

Evil paleontologists create two fossil-gaps where there used only be one.

http://inhabitat.com/jawdropping-oldest-human-fossil-fills-in-a-2-8-million-year-old-gap-in-evolution/

Turtwig

Nice infographic about Earth.


Slight disclaimer. I don't know if all facts are 100% accurate. If you find any false ones or ones they have feelings of doubt over please post about it.