Last night at 6 pm, the debate began. The first team began with a clear overview of the problem. The second team then attacked through cross-examination, attempting to place their sharpest comments where they could most easily deflate their opponent’s argument. Each team threw a few zingers and each reached for an emotional connection with the audience. The “Pro” side spoke of a persons right to know. The “Con” side spoke about a persons right to live. Each debater appeared so well-prepared for debate that I think they could have taking anyone on. It was lucky for McCain and Obama that they were tied up that night. They would have been crushed like government bureauocrats in this crowd of young talented scientists and sociologists.

Some comments here from the “Yes lets label” side:
“If it is labeled, you can git it and go home”
“ignorance is not bliss”
“If it is labeled vegans and those with philosophical opposition will know not to buy it”
“People care about reducing pesticides will buy it”
“They just need to have it explained to them”
“It is more risky to eat”

From the “No, lets not label” side:
“But most people are not aware of the vast reductions in pesticides, so instead , if there is a label, they wlll think something is wrong with it and a stigma would be attached. No one would buy it then and consumers would lose the overall environmental benefit”
“It would be costly to isolate each food proccessing step to be sure that GE and non-GE dont mix.”
“There is no evidence of increased risk; in fact studies show that you are healthier if you grow GE cotton because you are not exposed to pesticides”
“Who will do the explaining? We cant necessarily rely on the media”

Last night, the students in the Genetics and society class shined. The 90 people in the audience called the debate a draw.

The idea of writing this particular grant proposal at this specific time clearly makes no sense in the framework of my life, with teaching and traveling and kids and a million other things to do. It would border on the insane to try to do this now and to do it well. Yet the intrinsic impossibility of writing this proposal stays with me. It was with me in the pool this morning, where all was quiet except for the sound of strokes and flip turns in the water. It is with me now. I cannot resist think through some of our latest results.

And so it begins. Before I fully realize it, I am sucked into a whirlpool of ideas. I float on them, soon lost in the absolute freedom of thinking. I am absolutely engaged.

I am fascinated with something no one understands and only a few of us would care to. I am consumed with the desire to think through this mystery, to know it. As Thoreau said, “to gnaw at it, bury it, unearth it and gnaw at it still”. It is exhilarating to be drawn into the deep realm of the undiscovered and it is a challenge to harness the wild power of scientific ideas by writing about them. I want to explain our research results clearly to my colleagues, propose a model and ask them “don’t you see it too?” My intellect is engaged and my heart too, because I love this work.

I am oblivious to the looming demands of the 100 students that I will begin teaching tomorrow, deaf to the requests of colleagues to help out on this or that, rushed with my graduate students that need my advice, and indifferent to the calls of my husband for my attention. Yes, tonight, I will surely even be slow to respond to the hunger of my children.

“What?” I will say, looking up in a daze from the computer, “Dinnertime already?”

The scaffold of my day, the family schedule that brings a peaceful haven to our lives will be submerged in the pursuit of hypotheses and the design of experiments to test them.

So I adapt myself to the need to write. Oblivious to everything, as if time was ample, except for the pressing and peculiar desire to post this blog before I dive back in.

[This post greatly benefited from Annie Dillard’s wonderful book “The Writing Life”]

This week I begin teaching “Genetics and Society”, a course I created with a colleague 10 years ago. The goals of the course are:

1. To provide non-science majors with the basic concepts of genetic and modern methods of biotechnology,
2. To educate students in the process of scientific discovery.
3. Empower students to evaluate for themselves the present and future impact of genetics on society.

The class includes student debates on one of 8 topics:

1. Rice genetically engineered to produce provitamin A should be widely and freely distributed in less developed countries.
2. All food containing genetically engineered ingredients should be labeled as “GMO”, to indicate that they contain genetically modified organisms.
3. Cloning of human embryonic stem cells should be banned.
4. Genetic selection of “designer babies” to avoid genetic disorders in the human population should be banned.
5. All people convicted for any legal violation should be DNA fingerprinted.
6. Genetic engineering of animals to produce pharmaceuticals should be prohibited
7. The United States should prohibit the experimental release and commercialization of genetically engineered plants until further safety testing is done
8. Human germline gene therapy should be banned

Students will be graded on clarity of their presentation, the persuasiveness of their arguments, and their ability to identify and convey relevant scientific knowledge to the class.

You can download lectures and notes from the class website

This year we will add something new: A blog! I will post questions from students on my blog, students will post questions and members of the blogosphere can answer.

As Sandra Porter said in a recent post “This is an entirely new way that scientists can help with science education. It doesn’t involve any kind of traveling and many, many different scientists can participate, thus minimizing volunteer burn out. It also gives students a way to practice writing about what they do and interacting with the world. Plus, with digital documentation, you can show your future employers and teachers the kinds of things you’ve been doing.”

The other advantage is that I will be so busy teaching that it is likely I wont be able to post on any other topic.

This week, members of the National Association of Science Writers mailing list have been discussing the reduction in science overage in major newspapers.

Just this week, the Washington Post’s Monday science “page” was reduced to a 1/2-page feature article, plus a 1/2-page ad. This science feature article will appear only every second week. In the alternate weeks, the science “page” will host the “Department of Human Behavior” column.

Matt Clark, who retired in 1989 as medicine editor of Newsweek, where he had worked for 27 years had this to say:

"When I became a science writer in the 1950s, a major objective of NASW was to advance science as a worthy objective for journalistic coverage, along with politics, sports, and the rest. Eventually, papers began to take science reporting more seriously and some of them instituted science pages and sections, and meanwhile, NASW’s membership grew and grew. I should add that a lot of this new journalistic interest in science had to do with the Cold War, Sputnik and the National Security State that tangentially fostered interest in space exploration.

Some of this growth in science coverage was attributed to polls showing that readers hungered for news about science. But I don’t think this was always true. If you ask the man on the street if he thinks science is an important subject for news coverage, he isn’t going to say No. But he or she really doesn’t think it’s important unless you can address the kind of issue he or she might be facing at the moment—the right kind of running shoes, the best herbal remedies for whatever, the latest cancer cluster but not much else that would justify a papers devoting a whole section to science. The only thing that saved the NY Times Science Tuesday was the advent of PC advertising, I’m told. And when that source dried up, pharmaceutical ads magically came along and the Times merged it’s Thursday health pages with the Tuesday science section. The only reason Jim Gleick’s book “Chaos” was a bestseller, according to a science-writing friend as cynical as I am, is that people thought it was about Wall Street. (That would be doubly true today.)

And contributing to all this, is the shrinking news hole and news staff to fill it at paper after paper, as many of you have noted.

But frankly, I have been convinced for some time that people don’t fundamentally give a damn about the real sciences of physics and mathematics, unless you can show some spectacular space pictures. They’re into fitness without effort, herbs that heal and astrological prophecy just as they were a half-century ago."

I see this as a call for scientists to get active and start communicating, which of course is one of the reasons we blog.

John Gever, currently a Staff writer for the medical news website MedPage Today; formerly freelance science and non-science journalist, wrote:

“This is where blogs and other web formats may do a better job [than conventional science writing], at least in terms of attracting an audience. Their ability to specialize and follow subjects on a daily basis makes it possible for them to develop storylines. And with loyal audiences come advertising opportunities and a business model for blogging as a job rather than a hobby or marketing sideline.”

Lest you bloggers begin to feel overly satisified with your efforts, James Hathaway, Research Communications Manager at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, further points out that:

"Blogs are great, but they only reach narrow, special target audiences. Our real challenge is to reach the broader audiences and tell them the news they don’t already know, which is why the death of science reporting and science sections at newspapers (and, for that matter, the death of newspapers in general) is so upsetting.

I’ve been feeling for some time that we really need to be thinking more about marketing science in the public square (in the broader media venues) if we don’t want scientific research to vanish from in public awareness — and if still want to “cling” to our illusory belief that we can create a more scientifically literate public. Of course, the mere mention of the word “marketing” is likely to cause a great disturbance in the force on this list…

What I’m thinking about when I’m talking about “marketing” is that science writers should go beyond simply writing science news, but should be actively involved in trying to market the news once they have reported it, the way, for example, some of us market books (or, more accurately, the way publishers market books), appearing on talk shows, sending copies to prominent columnists and commentators to try to get the subject widely discussed. Other than by people like Sagan, Gould, and perhaps people like Chris Mooney, this kind of science proselytizing really hasn’t been done much. Public information officers (like myself) do this kind of work on behalf of the universities and labs we represent, but if we are going to get more science out to a broader public, everyone who has a stake in public science communication needs to be involved. The information marketplace is very competitive, and, like all markets, this one can crash."

So the question for you is how can we market science better on the public square? Clearly the public does cares about global warming (if somewhat belatedly), as well as numerous other issues such as feeding the world, finding cures for diseases and enivronmental degradation- all issues intimately associated with scientific research.

No I dont yet speak Norwegian but Nils Reinton does.

He just translated the post 10 Things about GE crops to Scratch From Your Worry List

Check it out here

Thanks SciPhu

Olivia Judson recently published an article describing an interesting approach to controlling Dengue fever.

Dengue is caused by any of four related viruses transmitted by mosquitoes. So far, nothing has proved sustainable. Hence the interest in genetic engineering.

As with humans, viral diseases of plants are some of the most difficult to control in an effective and sustainable manner.

In plants, papaya engineered for resistance to papaya ringspot virus has been tremendously effective in virtually eliminating the disease from the islands. After release of GE papaya to farmers in May 1998, production rapidly increased with a peak of 40 million pounds in 2001.

Combating viral diseases will likely be the most effective use of genetic engineering that we will see in the near future.

Thanks to Jonathan Eisen for directing my attention to this article.

Today in Science magazine, reporter Richard Stone describes China’s $3.5 billion GE crop initiative.

Of the six plants that China has approved for commercialization, only cotton is grown widely. Introduced into commerce in 1997, 64 varieties of pest-resistant cotton are now grown on 3.7 million hectares, or about 70% of the area devoted to commercial cotton, averting the use of 650,000 tons of pesticides.

A new initiative could pave the way for GM versions of the biggest prize of all: rice.

I recently posted 10 things about GE crops to scratch from your worry list

Today I learned that the Center for Science Policy in the Public Interest has posted a similar list in their answers to frequently asked questions.

This is the group that campaigned for a federal law requiring nutrition labeling of packaged foods and a ban on deceptive health claims. They also led the effort to win passage of a federal law defining “organic” food.

CSPI does not take a dime from industry or government, so if you would like additional information, free from conflicts of interest, this list is for you.

Karl Mogel, geneticist, blogger, radio show host and journalist, has just posted a review of Tomorrow’s Table.

Here is teaser from the review

“The chapter on politics… begins with a grisly scene…” Read on

The Davis Food Coop, our local grocery store, has come out with a review of Tomorrow’s Table.

Here is our response to the review:

A local, fresh perspective on genetic engineering and organic farming

Our existing agricultural system, while productive, has serious problems that negatively effect the environment and it’s inhabitants. These problems are caused by the overuse of pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and farming practices that lead to soil erosion. A major goal of sustainable agriculture is to greatly reduce or eliminate these problems while maintaining yields and farm incomes. In our book, Tomorrow’s Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food, we suggest a few essential ideas to help forge a more sustainable agriculture. We advocate adopting technologies or farming practices that:

Produce abundant, safe and nutritious food
Reduce harmful environmental inputs
Provide healthful conditions for farm workers
Protect the genetic make-up of native species
Enhance crop genetic diversity
Foster soil fertility
Improve the lives of the poor and malnourished
Maintain the economic viability of farmers and rural communities

Not surprisingly, given our expertise, we believe that organic farming and genetic engineering each have something to contribute to a sustainable agriculture. Rather than embracing “GE crops as the unqualified answer” as Miller states in her review of our book, we advocate that each new approach be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in light of these criteria.

An appropriate technology for food and farming, as asserted by the economist Schumacher in his book Small is Beautiful, should promote health, beauty, and permanence. It should be low cost and low maintenance. Considering Schumacher’s ideas and our goals for ecological farming, it is apparent that GE will sometimes be appropriate for crop production and sometimes not. This is because GE is simply a tool that can be applied to a multitude of uses, depending on the needs of farmers, and consumers.

Still, as we attempt to show in our book, GE comprises many of the properties advocated by Schumacher. It is a relatively simple technology that scientists in most countries, including many developing countries, have perfected. The product of GE technology, a seed, requires no extra maintenance or additional farming skills. GE seeds can be saved and then passed down from generation to generation and improved along the way. It is therefore clear that humans will likely reap many significant and life-saving benefits from GE. This is because even incremental increases in the nutritional content, disease resistance, yield, or stress tolerance of crops can go a long way to enhancing the health and well-being of farmers and their families. Applications of GE have already been used to reduce the adverse environmental effects of farming and enable farmers to produce and sell more food locally.
For example, when small-scale papaya farmers in Hawaii were confronted with a devastating viral disease, GE papaya was the most appropriate approach (funded by non-profit sources and distributed free to growers) to restore the industry. There were no conventional or organic methods to control the disease then, nor are there now.

GE crops in combination with organic techniques have already helped farmers in less developed countries. For example flooding is a major problem for millions of farmers that live on less than a dollar a day in Bangladesh, and India. Yet for over 50 years, breeders were unsuccessful in developing flood-resistant rice using conventional breeding. Today, using advanced genetic techniques, we (Pam and her colleagues) have been able to produce such a variety that has been embraced by growers because of its 2-5 fold higher yield in flood zones. Scientists predict that the lives of thousands of children dying from vitamin-A deficiency will be saved once GE rice fortified with precursors to vitamin A (so-called “Golden Rice”) is released in 2011.

The best way to determine if practices are effective is through scientific study and peer review. Trying to evaluate agricultural technology without peer-reviewed science is like trying to determine if there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq without inspections. When scientific information is available, we should use it. For example we now know that the introduction of GE cotton has dramatically reduced the use of insecticides in the US and abroad. In fields where the GE cotton is not used, the scientific data on the effects of chemical insecticides on insect biodiversity are unequivocal; they devastate local populations.

In regards to eating GE foods currently on the market, the overall issue is health. We would be quite concerned if genes in GE crops could harm people. But this is not the case. There is broad scientific consensus that the GE crops on the market are safe to eat. Over the last 15 years, 1 billion acres have been planted and not a single instance of harm to human health or the environment has been documented. In contrast, each year tens of thousands of people are poisoned by pesticides.

Agricultural advances need to be shared globally. The oft-repeated idea that because we have an abundance of food to eat in the US (thanks to good soils and abundant water and advances made by geneticists, farmers and breeders), we don’t need to continue to improve crops in other countries is short-sighted. It doesn’t make sense for the US to grow food and ship it to Africa or S. Asia where people cannot afford to buy it. Plus it takes precious energy to move it. Farmers in less developed countries need their own local production, improved seed, farming practices and sound government policies. That way they can feed themselves, just as we do here.

Pitting genetic engineering and organic farming against each other only prevents the transformative changes needed on our farms. Rather than opposing all applications of a particular technology, lets direct the technology to help forge a sustainable agriculture. In the words Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring (1962):

“A truly extraordinary variety of alternatives to the chemical control of insects is available. Some are already in use and have achieved brilliant success. Others are in the stage of laboratory testing. Still others are little more than ideas in the minds of imaginative scientists, waiting for the opportunity to put them to the test. All have this in common: they are biological solutions, based on understanding of the living organisms they seek to control, and of the whole fabric of life to which these organisms belong. Specialists representing various areas of the vast field of biology are contributing—entomologists, pathologists, geneticists, physiologists, biochemists, ecologists—all pouring their knowledge and their creative inspirations into the formation of a new science of biotic controls.”

Pam and Raoul, Davis Food Coop shareholders since 1980

“Tomorrow’s Table” is now available in the coop. To view peer-reviewed citations, learn more about GE and organic farming, to see other reviews of the book, or to continue this dialog, please check out Pam’s blog at http://pamelaronald.blogspot.com