Biofortified, a group blog on plant genetics, is in the running to win the Ashoka Changemakers contest, GMO Risk or Rescue. But we need your help, dear readers. The contest entries close on October 21, and the voting will continue to the 28th. The grand prize is a $1500 grant and a conversation with Michael Pollan – both of which are sure to make this site better than ever. If you read Biofortified and have enjoyed some of the stuff we have written and want to see bigger and better things, please take a couple minutes to register for changemakers and enter your vote.

Vote here.

Hello readers

After a short blogging break, Tomorrow’s Table will soon go live on Science Blogs.

Please visit the new site. Although it still needs a bit of work (e.g. I need to post my favorite blogs to my new blog roll- that means you Mind the Gap and Tree of Life), next week I will begin posting regularly. Thanks for your comments and support.

See you there!
Pam

Note: this is a guest blog from Mateo Burtch

Dear Ms. Doctor Ronald—

I recently had the opportunity to read Simplicity Today, the magazine of the University of Reed alumni association, and its article on you (or someone who looks like you and has the same name as you and is apparently you). I found it to be fascinating and educational in the extreme, so extreme that I actually burned myself on it. I also found it very easy to read, once I mastered the “trick” of holding the magazine rightside-up.

Although, because of time constraints, I was only able to skim a few of the shorter paragraphs, I believe I got the gist of the article, which was, if I’m not mistaken, science. Now, I am very pro-science. I believe that science is our future, along with bean-bag chairs and radio. I feel that that every child in America, or wherever they live in the US, should be exposed to science, although only for brief periods and only while wearing a protective lead suit. I also believe that carrots are not our friends. This last point is, admittedly, of only tangential relevance to the matter at hand, but I feel that I should express all my beliefs at once.

Despite my fervently pro-science stance, much of what I nearly read in that article causes me great concern. As a small farmer (4’9") struggling to compete in the cutthroat world of agriculture, I am very concerned about genetically modified orgasms (GMOs). I believe that any artificial tampering with sexual function, other than using margarine on the upper torso, is likely to … wait a moment. I see by further skimming that I have made a small mistake here. Evidently the correct term is “organism.”

Never mind, then.

Dr. Ronald, I work very hard at farming. In my case, I raise bacteria, mostly E. coli, in my stomach, and sell them at farmers’ markets. It is a niche enterprise, as the only farmers’ markets that cater to this enterprise are very small—very small, indeed. (Most of my buyers are larger bacteria.) Now, it is not the thought of “monster genes” that worries me. Frankly, I wish scientists would take much less care in this area, because I am hoping someday that someone will accidentally invent a hot dog with wings that will fly right into your mouth. No, it is the notion of corporate control of GMOs (organisms) that causes me distress. I am not referring so much to companies like Monsanto or Archer Daniels Midland, because I am pretty sure that these firms will either sink through their own avarice and venality, or from being hit by asteroids, but other corporations. I am thinking specifically of Toys ‘R’ Us. Dr. Ronald, have you and your organic husband never stopped to think what might transpire if Toys ‘R’ Us gets hold of the gene?

Perhaps the thought of a genetically modified Slinky doesn’t bother you. Perhaps you don’t care if Mattel creates a pesticide-resistant Barbie that CANNOT BE KILLED. Perhaps you welcome the day that Hasbro markets a Lite Brite that contain genes from a Big Wheel.

Well, I don’t, Dr. Ronald, and that’s why I will continue to raise my stomach bacteria the old-fashioned way . . . on manure from farm animals and rich, loamy deposits of night soil. Yes, it means extra effort, and, yes, my yields may not be as impressive as those of the big, factory-style bacterial farms that double as agribusiness cattle ranches, but I believe that the old ways are the best ways. (Of course, there is always room for progress. Which is why I put a steering wheel on my horse.) If this means that I will miss out on the coming revolution in food-based toys, well, then so be it. That’s a small price to pay for piece of mind, although it’s rather a high price to pay for, say, shoe inserts.

Thank you.

Mateo Burtch

Discussions about genetic engineering with the general public inevitably lead a to concern that scientists cannot necessarily be trusted. It seems that to successfully make decisions on how to use GE for the betterment of humankind and the environment, the public will need to understand the scientific process and learn to distinguish high-quality scientific research that has stood the test of time and can largely be relied on from simple assertions or unsubstantiated rumors.

Jim Holt, a writer for the New York Times Magazine, cites a survey indicating that less than 10% of adult Americans possess basic scientific literacy. For nonscientists, it may be the sheer difficulty of science, its remoteness from their daily activities, “that make it seem alien and dangerous” (Holt 2005). Yet, the societal values that science promotes—free inquiry, free thought, free speech, transparency, tolerance, and the willingness to arbitrate disputes on the basis of evidence—are exactly the qualities needed when debating the future use of GE in generating new plant varieties. In the words of Ismail Serageldin, Director of the Library of Alexandria and past Vice President for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development of the World
Bank, an understanding of the scientifi c process is important “not just to promote the pursuit of science, but to yield a more tolerant society that adapts to change and embraces the new” (Serageldin 2002).

Misrepresentation of science for ideological or political purposes simply muddies the debate, and sadly, with respect to the GE foods, this often occurs. For example, to suggest that genetic engineering is dangerous, proponents of the California initiatives to ban the process often cite a book called Seeds of Deception (Smith 2004), written by a former Iowa political candidate f or the Natural L aw Party with no scientific training. This book is the likely source for information on another Sonoma county flyer suggesting that “Lab animals fed GE food develop stomach lesions,” in reference to a fundamentally fl awed experiment carried out in 1999 that was never confirmed (Ewen and Pusztai 1999). To lend credence to those irreproducible results, Smith cites the experiment of a seventeen-year-old student who fed mice genetically engineered potatoes. According to the referenced Web site, “ . . . [the mice] fed GM ate more, probably because they were slightly heavier on average to begin with, but they gained less weight.” In addition, “ . . . marked behavioral diff erences” were observed though the boy admitted, “these were ‘subjective’ and not quantitative.” Smith argues that this experiment demonstrates that GE food may have negative eff ects on the “human psyche” and concludes that the boy “has put the scientists to shame.” The implication is that the public can trust this experiment carried out by a student, unhampered by scientific training but not those of the scientific community who pointed out the flaws in the original experiment. Smith ignores the fact that this experiment conducted by a teenager was not subjected to the rigorous methods that are inherent to the scientific process.

So how can the public distinguish rumors from high quality science, determine what an established scientific “ f act” i , and what is still unknown? Here are some useful criteria:

1. Examine the primary source of information. Is there a reference to the source of information? If not, it cannot be verified. If so, is the source reputable? In the case of the boy and the mice, I found that the reference given for the boy’s work was to another Web site, and that that web site referred to even another Web site (Ho 2002). It turned out that the only documentation of this “experiment” was a chance meeting with the boy’s mother, who was the source of the “scientific information.” “Mum Guusje is very proud of her son. . . .” Why would someone would cite a conversation with a boy’s mother as a good scientific reference? Either the authors of the book and the Web site lack a basic understanding of science and cannot assess the accuracy of the work, or they
simply do not care, or both. But they should care; for this kind of deception only confuses and frightens people. And laws are being passed based on this kind of information.

2. Ask if the work was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Peer review is the standard process for scientific publications. Peer-reviewed manuscripts have been read by several scholars in the same field (called peers), and these peers have indicated that the experiments and conclusions meets the standards of their discipline and are suitable for publication. In the absence of peer-review the significance and quality of the data cannot be assessed. With no peer-reviewed, published record of the boy’s subjective experiment, it is doubtful that normal standard scientific methods were applied.

3. Check if the journal has a good reputation for scientific research. If a peer-reviewed paper is cited, where was it published? Is the journal widely respected? One tool that is commonly used for ranking, evaluating, categorizing, and comparing journals is the frequency with which the “average article” in a journal has been cited in a particular year or period. The frequency of citation reflects acknowledgment of importance by the scientific community. High-impact and widely respected journals include Science and Nature. Therefore, a citation in Science generally suggests scholarly acceptance, whereas publication in a nonscientific or little-known journal does not.

4. Determine if there is an independent confirmation by another published study. Even if a study is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal, independent assessment is critical to confirm or extend the findings. Even the best journals or scientists will occasionally make mistakes and publish papers that are later retracted. Sometimes there may be outright fabrication that is overlooked by the reviewers and not detected until later (Kennedy 2006). In other cases, the scientific report may be accurate but its significance may be misrepresented by the media. A good example is that of genetically engineered corn and the monarch butterfly controversy that erupted in 1999. A Cornell entomologist, John Losey, published a short paper in the scientific journal Nature reporting that monarch butterfly larvae died after eating milkweed plants dusted with pollen from GE corn (Losey et al. 1999). The paper generated intense national and international news coverage transforming the monarch butterfly overnight into a dramatic symbol of what some consumers saw as the dangers of agricultural biotechnology. Subsequent scientific studies, including field trials, showed that the exposure of monarchs to GE corn is fairly small and that the threat to monarchs pales in comparison to risks presented by conventional pesticides (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology 2002). Such misrepresentations or errors are usually discovered by other researchers because most reports, especially if it is exciting news such as a suggestion that genetic engineering kills monarch butterflies or makes mice sick, will be rapidly retested by other scientists. If the data are challenged, the first author then has the opportunity to write another paper refuting the challenge.

Although it is a slow process to establish a scientific “truth,” a particular scientific conclusion will eventually either gain broad acceptance or be discarded.

5. Assess if a potential conflict of interest exists. Most people would agree that a mother usually believes the best about her son, and that pesky details such as lack of scientific training may not bother her. Therefore, a mother’s recommendation represents a clear conflict of interest in such a case. Studies tainted by such undisclosed conflicts of interests are a major concern in the debate about genetic engineering. If governmental regulators were to rely solely on data supplied by parties whose primary concern is not the public good but private interest, then the public would have reason to question the integrity of the research. Similarly, if a person with a strong stance on the use of GE in agriculture is an employee of a for-profit biotechnology or organic industry, such employment should be disclosed because a conflict of interest may exist. . Transparency is a wonderful disinfectant when honesty is needed. (Full disclosure: neither Raoul nor I presently have financial relationships with for-profit food biotechnology or organic industries; nor have we for the last 10 years).

6. Assess the quality of institution or panel. Does the report emanate from a University accredited by the U.S. Department of Education or equivalent society? Such information is generally more reliable than that issued from a single individual putting information out on the web. In the United States, government research arms such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health and professional scientific societies generally provide up-to-date, high-quality information. For example, the American Society of Plant Biologists is a nonprofit professional society devoted to the advancement of the plant sciences. It publishes two world-class journals and organizes conferences and other activities that are key to the advancement of the science. K e National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is “an honorific society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientifi c and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare.” (NAS 2006). Election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a U.S. scientist or engineer. These types of nonprofit organizations provide a public service by working outside the framework of government to ensure independent advice on matters of science, technology, and medicine.

7. Examine the reputation of the author. Do the author(s) have training in science?
If so, have they had formal training leading to an advanced degree such as a Master’s degree or doctorate, and have they published widely in reputable journals? If not, then are they working with a reputable scientist(s) to evaluate the data? In the case of the boy and the mice, a university affiliation is hinted at, but it seems that the “experiment” was carried out at home and reviewed primarily by his mother.

You, the consumer, are now ready to delve into issues surrounding genetic engineering.
Applying these tips about the scientific process, you can now more easily assess the accuracy of media reports. Checking scientific sources can be time consuming, but it is worth the effort because such sources will get you closer to accurate facts about GE than rumor or unconfirmed reports.

Ewen, S.W.B., and A. Pusztai. 1999. Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. The Lancet 354:1353–1354.
Holt, Jim. 2005. The Way We Live Now: “Madness A bout a Method.” New York Times
Magazine, December 11. www.nytimes.com (accessed March 29, 2006).
Ho, Mae-Wan (ed.). 2002. Mice Prefer Non GM. Institute of Science in Society: Science
Society Sustainability. ISIS 13/14 (February). w ww.isis.org.uk/Mice Prefe rNonGM.php?
(accessed March 31, 2006).
Kennedy, Donald (ed.). 2006. Retraction of Hwang et al., Science 308:5279.
Re traction of Hwang et al., Science 303:1669. Editorial Re traction. Science
(Letters) 301:335.
Losey, JE, LS Rayor, ME Carter. 1999.Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399:214.
NAS (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies).
2006. Washington D.C.: < e National Academy Press. www.nasonline.org/site/
PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_main_page (accessed May 2, 2006).
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. 2002. “Three Years Later: Genetically
Engineered Corn and Monarch Butterfl y Controversy.” University of Richmond, < e PEW
Charitable Trusts. pewagbiotech.org/resources/issuebriefs/ monarch.pdf (accessed May 8,
2006).
Serageldin, Ismail. 2002. The rice genome: world poverty and hunger—the challenge for science.
Science 296(5565, April 5): 54-58.
Smith, Jeffery M. 2004. Seeds of Deception. Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You Are Eating. Portland: Chelsea Green Ltd.

Salon ran a story last week on Obama’s First harvest

The story indicates that Michell drew a little flak from groups that “prefer conventional agriculture to the organic garden at the White house”

I was curious as to who these anti-new age heretics are. So I checked out the link

It turns out that the letter is from the Mid America CropLife Association. I couldnt find anything in the letter against organic. Instead it was a reasonable argument that agriculture can benefit from science-based practices. True, the letter did not acknowledge that in many places in the country, fertilizers and pesticides are causing significant environmental problems, but I did like that they pointed out that conventional and local are not mutually exclusive.

I suggest Michelle move away from the word “Organic” and use “ecologically-based farming” instead. That way she can feel free to use the most appropriate tools to achieve goals of sustainable agriculture and avoid pitting one group against another.

Seed magazine has published a discussion of the roots of opposition to genetic engineering.

See the responses here

So much for the idea that Oprah would embrace science-based decision making. A few months ago, on my nature networks blog I suggested that we start a movement to lobby Oprah to place a non-fiction science book on her list every few months.

I thought she would go for the idea. After all, she supported Obama and likes to read. Sadly it seems that may be all she has in common with scientists.

In their weekly recap, ScienceBlogs now reports that:

Oprah Winfrey and notorious anti-vaccination supporter Jenny McCarthy sealed a contractual deal that will enable McCarthy to spread her belief across several platforms that vaccines cause autism. These claims are vehemently opposed in the scientific community, as they remain virtually unsupported after years of rigorous scientific investigation and, if heeded as true, have lethal consequences in the form of diseases like measles, mumps and rubella. With support from Oprah, McCarthy is slated to host a syndicated talk show and maintain a blog. According to ScienceBlogger PZ Myers, this is “proof that there is no god.”

It may be time for PZ to start his own talk TV show

So much for the idea that Oprah would embrace science-based decision making. A few months ago, on my nature networks blog I suggested that we start a movement to lobby Oprah to place a non-fiction science book on her list every few months. The idea was to create a forum in the mass media to discuss real science in front of millions.

I thought she would go for the idea. After all, she supported Obama and likes to read. Sadly it seems that may be all she has in common with scientists.

In their weekly recap, ScienceBlogs now reports that:

Oprah Winfrey and notorious anti-vaccination supporter Jenny McCarthy sealed a contractual deal that will enable McCarthy to spread her belief across several platforms that vaccines cause autism. These claims are vehemently opposed in the scientific community, as they remain virtually unsupported after years of rigorous scientific investigation and, if heeded as true, have lethal consequences in the form of diseases like measles, mumps and rubella. With support from Oprah, McCarthy is slated to host a syndicated talk show and maintain a blog. According to ScienceBlogger PZ Myers, this is “proof that there is no god.”

It may be time for PZ to start his own talk TV show

Our friend Elliot (age 13) has recently been announced as one of 15 winners across the country of the 2009 National Geographic Kids Hands-On Explorer Contest. To win, he submitted a photograph and essay about one of his own recent explorations. He, of course chose an image from his vast collection of snake photos. This one was of a yellow-belly racer that he saw and photographed in Stebbins Cold Canyon UC Reserve. He wrote a 300-word essay about the canyon and about the day he photographed the snake.

And even more exciting is that the prize is a 12-day trip to Peru at the end of May to visit Machu Picchu and the Peruvian Amazon Rainforest for the winners and their chaperones! He also gets a new cool Nikon camera to take with him on the trip.

Elliot
Hands on Explorer Challenge Essay
2/3/09

Splash! After the three-mile hike through a dry rocky creek bed, the feeling of cool water is welcome as I plunge into the deep clear pool. The high walls of the canyon tower around me and before me is a mossy waterfall. Iridescent hummingbirds drink from the trickling falls and swoop overhead.

This is Cold Creek Canyon. Ever since I was a small child I have come here with family and friends, yet with every visit, I discover something new. Once it was a bobcat track along the creek, another time a pileated woodpecker in a massive oak tree. But my favorite things have always been the canyon’s reptiles and amphibians.

My love of herpetology began when I was 13 months old and I surprised my parents by pulling a garter snake from a grassy lake. Ever since I have been fascinated by these creatures and I look for them wherever I go. I spend hours researching, photographing, writing field notes, and keeping a life list of the over 165 species and subspecies of reptiles I have seen in the wild.

On this day in the canyon, my mother and I have an extraordinary experience. While sitting by the creek, we notice a yellow-belly racer come out of a hole. A nearby sound makes us look up and we see two racers together in a tree and three more below. I realize that the smaller snakes are males following one large female’s pheromones and that the snakes in the tree are mating.

I photograph the entire event. The photo here is of the first snake we saw. It is my favorite shot in the series because of the snake’s alertness as it searches the air with its tongue for scents. Whenever I see it, I remember this amazing day.

Here is an interesting and radical proposal to think about:

End the University as We Know It

I am not wild about the idea of abolishing tenure (after all there is no evidence that human nature has changed so much that we dont need to be concerned about politicians firing professors who dig up information they do not like) but I do like the idea of increasing collaborations between departments to create interdisciplinary teams that focus on societally important issues like water and, importantly, disease.