Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Bart, not one person I've ever met (or read for that matter) who objects to the application of this technology in the environment is an organic farmer
I have, many times. I think you either need to check the sources of what you have read more carefully or read a little wider. Note I'm not dismissing their objections because of their background.
"anyone who says they can predict the consequences of GM is either stupid or lying"
I am really struggling to understand your point here Dyan.
If your point is that because we don't know and can't know everything then we should not do anything, then I disagree. And it is really that simple, we disagree.
I believe that we know enough to be able to make sensible, reasonable decisions about both field experimentation with GM crops and also the release of GM crops with every expectation that they will provide significant benefit. I can provide the examples of the last 15 years as evidence that such a belief is reasonable.
Furthermore the evidence from the last 15 years is that the benefits of GM crops were understated.
I have yet to be convinced by any of the disaster scenarios postulated by the opponents of GM. In my opinion we should embrace this science and the technologies it makes possible.
I recognise that there are people who for varied reasons disagree with my opinion. And I recognise that for some there is no scientific discussion that will make them comfortable with GM.
Just to go back to this quote
"anyone who says they can predict the consequences of GM is either stupid or lying"
I actually find this sort of comment really irritating, which is simply my personal reaction. There is this idea that science has to be about certainty. And that's not true. Science is about observation and hypothesis. If you want certainty science is the last place you should look because science is all about testing and challenging "certainties".
I can predict the consequences of GM easily. It will with absolute certainty do great good in the world it will make some people money it will get some people angry it will bring us surprises most of them good and some of them bad. There I just made a prediction. Will I be proven right after we do the experiment of time and observe the results? I don't know. But I am neither stupid nor a lier simply because I made the prediction.
The real point of the quote is not that we shouldn't make predictions but that we must do the experiments to test the predictions. Unfortunately most folks miss that point. -
The feminisation of Science?
It's very real. We had a visit some time ago from a South African scientist (female), she expressed surprise that we had so many men working in science because in SA men wouldn't work in such a poorly paid profession.
We are starting to see that more in NZ as male students seem to be choosing career paths leading to what they believe are higher paid jobs. I think now have a pretty strong majority in favour of women getting science degrees, something that was inconceivable when I did my degree.
But don't worry we still pay them less than men when they get a job as a scientist and we don't let them run the institutes.*
*we really need an irony tag to go along with the sarcasm tag.
-
So yeah, there's a presumption of bias
Yeah I totally get that Gio and Sasha and others. I do think you overestimate the influence of business on science in New Zealand but the point is fair there is some influence. The question is then do the people involved allow that influence to alter their thinking.
But you also have to accept that it is both frustrating and somewhat insulting to be accused of bias. I try very hard not to let that affect my discussion but it's hard sometimes to be told by someone that I am merely a pawn of big business and hence my opinion is irrelevant (actually had pretty much those words used more than once). And it wouldn't be so bad if the presumption of bias were applied to all parties in the discussion. You hardly ever see anyone point out that organic farmers have a financial interest in seeing GM banned.
I think B Jones makes a good point that because the knowledge takes time and effort to gain it is hard to argue the science and easier to argue other things.
But I think also that there is a fundamental core of folks who just don't like the idea of GM and regardless of what "proofs" are supplied that inherent dislike remains.
-
foremost in the mind of the researchers are the needs of corporations (including state-owned commercial entities)
Well I know that my bosses would prefer that this was true, but it isn't. One of the most frustrating things about managing scientists is that we actually don't give much of a rats arse about commercial goals. Although there is considerable satisfaction for many from improving the lot of farmers and orchardists.
We have become very good at presenting our scientific goals as if they were commercial goals but that really is just most of us faking it for the men in suits. You don't get a PhD because you are interested in commercial goals.
The idea that we would set aside our moral compass for the desires of the company is really hard to believe when you actually talk to the scientists.
That isn't to say we shouldn't have ethical oversight. All I have argued for is a more reasonable attitude to GM because at the moment the regulations effectively ban research outside the lab and that isn't what I believe to be reasonable ethical oversight.
And yes I know some field trials have been done but the problem is that only the trials promising the greatest commercial benefit can be justified because of the expense. Essentially promoting exactly the motivation you, and I, are most concerned about.
-
A lesser man
All right I'll get on the bike tonight!
I've been guilty of similar overstatements myself so I'm comfortable ignoring them and just moving on to the meat of the discussion.
-
I bet he is just as aware of lateral gene transfer ... We would agree that ... the first generation GM plants should not have had an antibiotic resistance gene.
I wasn't laziness at all. The question of whether the Kanamycin resistance gene should be used was considered in great detail by the scientists doing the work (pers. comm.) and more importantly by the FDA and the EPA.
Two factors eventually made the regulatory authorities rule in favour of release.
The first was that kanamycin was no longer used as an antibiotic in humans. So it's relevance for human pathogen resistance was nil.
The second reason was that when the issue of horizontal gene transfer was raised they decided to have a look and see how widespread the kan resistance gene was in the wild. What they found was the gene was everywhere. Pretty much any soil sample had bacteria containing the gene.So given it had no relevance for human health and given that even if it did move from the plants out to the wild (unlikely in anything less than 10000 year timescales but theoretically possible) then it would not change the environment at all because it was already out there.
It's worth noting that the gene originally came from a phage (a virus that infects bacteria) which explains why it is so widespread in the wild.
The only reason it is being removed from second generation transgenic plants is because of perception. There really is no scientific reason for caring that the plants have the kan resistance gene.
-
No doubt Bart and other scientists won't be offended at all at the comparison.
Well the intent was clearly to offend so it isn't unreasonable to be offended. But that is after all the nature of the internet and I'll live.
I do however, try to take people's comments as seriously intended and try and respond with as good as answer as I can but I think Joe just defined a line for me. If you want to engage me in discussion then comparing me with a war criminal is not going to do the trick.
the WoW 'corrupted blood' virus
They also went a little overboard some of their other world events. The problem they face is they have an active community of folks really trying hard to figure out ways to cause havoc/fun. Seriously how could they expect someone would figure out how to kite a world boss into the major cities.
As far as it's relevance to modern biology ... hard to really judge. Computer viruses can undergo more generations than any life form on the planet has had. There really aren't thousands of 13 year boys with the ability to engineer plants and you know I'm probably happy with that.
-
I just want the conversation about risk and benefit to be honest about the motivations involved - and not assuming that benign white coat wearers are the ones in charge.
There is an awful lot in this statement. One thing is that vested interests are present on both sides of the debate. Both in terms of money and in terms of ideology.
Is benign a compliment?
It used to be that in government research institutes that scientists were pretty much in charge. It was scientists who engineered E. coli to make it safe to use in the lab long before the public understood that they could do that. After 40 years of research with E. coli which can replicate every 20 minutes there has never been a single disaster involving E. coli.
That hasn't really changed now that we have men (yes mostly men) in suits in charge. Yes I believe corruption is possible but I know most of the folks doing this work in New Zealand and none of them are corrupt. Real people not theoretical ones. Real scientists doing their best to make real changes that will benefit the world.
You can be a skeptical as you like that's fine I know nothing I can say will change that for some of you. You can wait to be convinced.
But please, just please when there is something genuinely good happening like the switch to no till agriculture in US maize and cotton fields stand back and give the credit to those who actually did something good.
That's a real benefit. Many people perceived a huge risk associated with that benefit and that risk has proven to be false after 15 years. Many people demanded those fields be destroyed.
-
the long-term effects of exposure to even small doses of radiation were not well understood
The long term effect of exposure to small doses of radiation are STILL not understood.
We actually really don't know if long term exposure to low dose radiation does harm. There are some data for workers in the nuclear industry but those doses are better called medium dose. Certainly extrapolation from high dose does not work. It seems that low dose radiation is much less harmful than it was expected to be, which is just a bit weird. Lots of possible explanations but little data.
-
you can be condescending
My apologies. I assumed your comments were made because you didn't realise the realities of animal breeding.
However it is clear you have the knowledge and yet you are certain in your mind that the animals in the research program were indeed unethically treated.
I withdraw from any attempt to change your opinion.