tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2329700710841316556.post1102540861728751465..comments2021-04-19T07:33:34.100-07:00Comments on Still a few bugs in the system: Flour to the people!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05501987706898459702noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2329700710841316556.post-86136822182261016072012-05-30T10:47:49.596-07:002012-05-30T10:47:49.596-07:00Thanks for your comment Jim, I agree completely th...Thanks for your comment Jim, I agree completely that gm technology has been used by companies like Monsanto entirely for profit, but to me that's a very strong argument for allowing publically funded research to challenge this monopoly.<br /><br />The Canadian case was appalling but I think this is a case where the legislation needs to catch up, rather than that the science needs to slow - we're already seeing that sort of thing with the overturning of the patent on the DNA sequence used for breast cancer testing and I hope things continue in that direction.<br /><br />Going off at a bit of a tangent for a second, I do believe that patenting laws as they stand don't just hinder scientific progress, by making it harder to freely share information but have some pretty harmful consequences like preventing poorer countries from making their own generic versions of drugs or allowing companies to sue people who have accidentally grown plants containing their modifications. I do understand the argument that companies need to recoup the costs of research, and as universities and research institutes get their funding cut they need to look at commercialising their discoveries to find another source of income, but I can't help feeling we should be able to find a better system. Perhaps more public funding is the answer, but over the course of this debate so many people have said to me that they don't want their tax money going to fund research like this. I can sympathise - I don't like the fact that the tax I pay funds nuslear weapons and contracts with companies like ATOS, and with public services being hacked away all over the place its hard to justify more money for research, but I do wonder if this is the way forward?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501987706898459702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2329700710841316556.post-24786903023663350562012-05-26T01:56:55.028-07:002012-05-26T01:56:55.028-07:00Thanks for posting a really interesting view on th...Thanks for posting a really interesting view on this topic. I'm in a similar boat: I'm a techie/science geek and I can see the value of GM/biotech/etc to helping solve the impending problems posed by climate change, Peak Oil and population explosion. Many of the arguments about the GM science I've heard from anti-GM folk seem to be mostly arm waving "I don't understand this but I just know its bad", whereas descriptions from the scientists seem more cogent and believable.<br /><br />Where I do come up against GM though is the rampant commercialisation and its use to promote _more_ use of pesticides/herbicides. The classic example is Monsanto and its "Roundup-Ready" GM crops - they're cashing in on both selling GM crops resistant to their herbicide and the herbicide itself. They want the farmers to grow the GM crop and then spray Roundup (aka glyphosate) to reduce Weeds (and with it biodiversity of the fields). <br /><br />I'm also very concerned about the patent issues whereby GM firms can start suing and putting out of business organic farmers who have never bought their products because nearby GM farms have "leeched" bits of patented DNA into self-saved seeds via cross pollination (as I believe has happened in Canada). That's a really large negative downside of the GM industry for me, but I don't think it should be used to stop the basic research still.Jon Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00640306778393051318noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2329700710841316556.post-21022199131220006592012-05-25T02:34:10.955-07:002012-05-25T02:34:10.955-07:00Thanks Noteasytobegreen, I don't mind at all -...Thanks Noteasytobegreen, I don't mind at all - the more discussion the better!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501987706898459702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2329700710841316556.post-21428841318496645982012-05-24T16:10:02.997-07:002012-05-24T16:10:02.997-07:00I shared your post on Reduce Footprints. Hope you ...I shared your post on Reduce Footprints. Hope you don't mind. :) I thought more people needed to read it. I think your perspective as a scientist *and* greenie puts you in an excellent position to open up some communication between the two groups. I emailed Take the Flour Back to urge them to engage in conversation rather than destruction.<br /><br />And I would love to read about chemical ecology!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2329700710841316556.post-14597874386589366142012-05-24T03:32:21.140-07:002012-05-24T03:32:21.140-07:00Thank very much for reading and sharing Small Foot...Thank very much for reading and sharing Small Footprints and Argentum Vulgaris. I completely agree that the way forward is better communication and sharing of information, which includes listening on both sides - you're right that gm technology (and actually a fair bit of science) does have an unfortunate history of talking down to people, claiming it's in their own interests. That unfortunate baggage does mean that people are no longer willing to trust people when they say something is safe - have you read Not easy to be green's Fuzzy Lenses post? http://noteasytobegreen.wordpress.com/2012/05/23/seeing-through-fuzzy-lenses/ I think a lot of people do now tend to dismiss everything gm because of Monsanto's behaviour, but ironically damaging this publically-funded field trail will push the technology further into the hands of large corporations because they'll be the only ones able to afford the security to run trials.<br /><br />Argentum Vulgaris: this is a new type of genetic modificationwhich exploits a fairly new pest management principle called chemical ecology. Instead of just blitzing everything this involves getting a better understanding of how the insects are actually interacting with the crop ecosystem - in general insects rely most on smell to navigate the world, to tell them what's worth eating, what's not and where potential mates and egg laying sites are, and different species may rely on different airborn chemicals for all of these. By understanding these systems better we hope to be able to manipulate the behaviour of specific insect species, making crops less attractive or traps more so say. My own PhD is on finding the odours attractive to the fly that spreads a blinding disease so they can be used to bait traps. There's some information on another interesting chemical ecology project Rothamsted is running here: http://www.rothamsted.ac.uk/Content.php?Section=SuccessStories&Page=PushPull. I really should get around to writing a blog post on chemical ecology, I didn't want to overwhelm people with too many technical terms in this post.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05501987706898459702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2329700710841316556.post-29357703097444563982012-05-23T19:03:23.647-07:002012-05-23T19:03:23.647-07:00I had seen reference to the project and dismissed ...I had seen reference to the project and dismissed it as just another GMO and quietly hoped the protesters more power. Having now read your plea and reasoning, I can see that while your project is GMO, it's not related to pesticides, therefore I follow the failure to develop resistance line of the research. It is the first time I have read of this type of GM.<br /><br />Good luck with developing dialogue.<br /><br />Your link was passed on to me via Small Footprints, and I thank her.<br /><br />AVArgentum Vulgarishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17569216163732240300noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2329700710841316556.post-52565443378793160872012-05-23T18:10:54.402-07:002012-05-23T18:10:54.402-07:00By the way ... a link to your post was included in...By the way ... a link to your post was included in my blog's Meet & Greet: http://reducefootprints.blogspot.com/2012/05/meet-greet-monday-mtagt_21.html<br />I'm so glad it was because we all need to be open minded and consider all sides to an issue before making a decision. Thanks, again!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18323775808390175925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2329700710841316556.post-84127304843964354412012-05-23T17:44:26.719-07:002012-05-23T17:44:26.719-07:00Thank you for such an informative post and for pre...Thank you for such an informative post and for presenting another side to this controversial subject. There have been so many bad things happen to people by parties who claim to have their best interest at heart. Granted, they don't represent every organization or scientist ... but it has happened with enough frequency that we no longer trust anyone when they tell us something is perfectly safe. There's also been a lack of transparency ... we aren't typically given the facts and are only told what they want us to know. Case in point ... in the US there are ongoing battles about the labeling of GMO products. So I understand the basis of the "Take the Flour Back" movement. Perhaps the answer lies in communication and the sharing of information. Your post has gone a long way to that end. Thank you!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18323775808390175925noreply@blogger.com