13 ms·

Why I’m quitting GMO research

89 points by sampo 9y ago

whatshisface 9y ago
What frustrates me endlessly about the GMO debate is that "GMO" tells you about as much about safety as "chemical." You could certainly GM something into being dangerous or more dangerous, for example transplanting allergens or increasing the production of natural pest control toxins. You could also modify a protein into an equivalent protein, changing nothing. The only real answer to fears about GMOs is to point people towards longitudinal studies that show that the specific modification in question isn't causing any problems. Sadly, this really isn't possible in our current system, as I have no idea which changes were made to the organisms that get put in the consumer products I buy. In an ideal world, I could read NGK-028181 off the tin of baked beans in my pantry and realize that I needed to throw it out because they discovered something wrong with that one specific genome (or because I know I'm allergic). As a consumer, if I ever get suspicious about one specific change made to one specific breed, my only option is to buy non-GMO everything. That doesn't make any sense!
- kazinator 9y ago
  The GMO debate isn't just about whether the molecules of something you're eating are safe in relation to the modifications. It includes considerations such as what kinds of practices are enabled by GMO: like producing a plant that is resistant to certain herbicides so that you can douse the heck out of the crop to kill everything else. Or how some genetically modified plant is someone's intellectual property, so you're a criminal if you happen to plant its seeds back in the soil. (Just two issues off the top of my head in regard to an area I don't think much about.)
  - sanxiyn 9y ago
    On the topic of intellectual property, you are completely wrong. Plant patents predate GMO (like 50 years) and they are not "enabled by GMO" in any sense whatsoever.
    - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
      > Plant patents predate GMO (like 50 years) Huh, didn't know--thank you. Plants have apparently been patentable since 1930 [1]. In 1970, the Congress gave breeders "up to 25 years of exclusive control over new, distinct, uniform, and stable sexually reproduced or tuber propagated plant varieties" [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_of_1970 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_o...
      - sampo 9y ago
        Look how many times different mutations of the Red Delicious apple has been patented. 42 patents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Delicious https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Delicious
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > producing a plant that is resistant to certain herbicides so that you can douse the heck out of the crop to kill everything else I think you're referring to Round-up Ready? Wasn't the point of that program to reduce pesticide use?
    - kazinator 9y ago
      Not referring to any specific program; note that pesticide /= herbicide.
    - SlowBro 9y ago
      In theory, yes. In practice... https://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/#4d4e5b3e3cd5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crop...
      - sampo 9y ago
        This 2017 study says that herbicide use has been increasing overall, also on non-GMO crops such as wheat and rice. And that the increase rate in GMO crops (corn, soy, cotton) is no faster than in non-GMO crops. http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2017/04/gmos-and-herbicides-its-complicated/ http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2017/04/gmos-and-herbicides-its...
        SlowBro 9y ago
        Apparently the answer is not settled on that yet. http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/8/e1600850 http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/8/e1600850 https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/09/01/492091546/how-gmos-cut-the-use-of-pesticides-and-perhaps-boosted-them-again https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/09/01/492091546/ho...
    - sebleon 9y ago
      Monsanto released Roundup-Ready Soybean in 1996 to INCREASE herbicide use, without affecting crop yield [1] Programs like Bt-corn reduce pesticide use... by making the plant produce the herbicide in the fruit. So, instead of being able to peel or rinse fruit (with varying results), you're eating corn kernels that have pesticide on the inside. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_soybean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_soybean
  - tptacek 9y ago
    That's not a fair description of what GMO herbicide resistance means. The other way to frame it is: GMOs allow you to make use of simpler, broad-spectrum herbicides with fewer known health impacts on animal life, as opposed to selective grass- and broadleaf-targeting herbicides that have known, proven human health risks but no PR due to a lack of connection to GMOs. Unless you're paying $3/# for carrots, herbicides are in the mix one way or the other. GMOs allow us to be pickier about which herbicides we're exposed to. Regarding IPR issues: you're referring to Monsanto lawsuits. Monsanto enforced its IPR against people who not only planted Roundup-ready crops, but then used Roundup on them --- in other words, people who took advantage of the IPR itself, not merely people who happened to plant Roundup-ready seeds unknowingly. Farmers don't accidentally spray their crops with Glyphosate.
    - Retric 9y ago
      We are at the point where vast stretches of land are used to grow food that's turned into fuel because we don't have any other real use for it. People don't see benefit from increased farming efficiency at this point, they just get stuck with the risks. 15.1 billion bushels of corn... wasted.
      - Fins 9y ago
        Doesn't that have something to do with government mandates and subsidies for adding ethanol to fuel? It could have been well used for something more important.
    - PatchMonkey 9y ago
      Roundup causes some serious cancer. Maybe its not directly toxic like agent orange, but these chemicals are still dangerous.
      - thaumaturgy 9y ago
        This is reminiscent of the "debate" over cellular radiation causing cancer. How much Roundup do I have to drink to increase my cancer risk by a percentage point?
  - SlowBro 9y ago
    Another concern is cross-contamination. A three minute video from CBS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MkH08772A4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MkH08772A4
  - wolco 9y ago
    Using GMO to make plants resistant so they can dose at high levels is exactly what they are doing vs trying to grow a super carrot.
  - thaumaturgy 9y ago
    The use of pesticides in non-GMO crops is likely one of the major factors for a modern extinction event. There's been a 75% decline in the total biomass of flying insects over the last 27 years (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....). This is affecting the entire ecosystem. GMO crops can be engineered to be pest resistant, requiring far less use of pesticides, without harming the crop's suitability for human consumption. Ignorance on this issue is destroying ecosystems in agricultural areas.
    - diyseguy 9y ago
      http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1999/04/toxic-pollen-bt-corn-can-kill-monarch-butterflies http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1999/04/toxic-pollen-bt-corn...
      - thaumaturgy 9y ago
        Okay, so pollen from Bt corn is lethal to monarch butterfly caterpillars. Meanwhile, pesticides are killing off 75% of all flying insects. I like monarchs, but if I had to choose between a world with no monarchs, and a world with no monarchs and also just 25% of the flying insect biomass we had 30 years ago and also fewer birds and everything else that consumes insects and all of the beneficial pollination that those 75% of insects would have accounted for ... well, that seems like a pretty easy choice to me. Gene editing would also provide an avenue for a different approach here, where the crop could be made resistant to its costliest pests without harming monarchs. Good luck doing that through cross-breeding.
        AstralStorm 9y ago
        But can we live in a world where food is 1000% though? That would be the result of getting rid of pesticides and insecticides...
- avodonosov 9y ago
  > my only option is to buy non-GMO everything. That doesn't make any sense. A viable option actually.
  - baumandm 9y ago
    Surprisingly, avoiding GMO foods may not be as viable as one might think: > Currently, up to 92% of U.S. corn is genetically engineered (GE), as are 94% of soybeans and 94% of cotton (cottonseed oil is often used in food products). It has been estimated that upwards of 75% of processed foods on supermarket shelves – from soda to soup, crackers to condiments – contain genetically engineered ingredients. [1] [1] https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/311/ge-foods/about-ge-foods https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/311/ge-foods/abou...
    - code_duck 9y ago
      You can buy all organic or non-GMO certified foods.
      - RobLach 9y ago
        Close, but it’s food producers who buy organic and non-gmo certifications which additionally makes them jump through a couple arbitrary hoops to make it seemingly mean something.
        code_duck 9y ago
        So, you are saying that the certifications are not meaningful in that companies and certifiers cheat on the standards, or that the standards are inadequate?
      - baumandm 9y ago
        My point was that it's easy for the average person to want to avoid GMO foods, but harder for them to give up their Coca-Colas, Oreos, etc.
- JepZ 9y ago
  I think there are lots of problems with GM stuff. It all starts with 'We have only one earth'. The vacuum of space combined with the stickiness of matter isolates biological systems very well. So if someone would start a genetically modified plant series on some space station or distant planet I would have much less of a problem with that. Second, I have got the feeling that many people who experiment with genetic manipulation don't know what they are actually doing. Yes, they might know it on a high-level perspective and for experiments that is fine, but as long as we can't simulate even single cells its is hard to tell that we know what we are doing. As a computer scientist it feels to me like someone is patching the binaries of 'grep' and 'cp' together and hopes to use the resulting binaries to build autonomous drones. It is just irresponsible to use the results are long as the have only one petri dish which is actually the one we are living in. So don't get me wrong, I am completely pro research, but also completely against usage outside of laboratories. There might be exceptions to that rule when it comes to 'specific modification' as you call it, but for me it ends where you could not achieve the same result with a handful of normal breeding cycles.
  - UncleMeat 9y ago
    > Second, I have got the feeling that many people who experiment with genetic manipulation don't know what they are actually doing. This is frankly ridiculous. You describe yourself as a computer scientist and presumably have no expertise in the field and then use your gut feeling about how well people understand the consequences of their efforts? I know plenty of people who think that I'm just typing words and random until my code compiles. Demanding that we are able to model living organisms in computers before we can productionize gmo tech is like saying that we can't deploy any web app until it has been formally verified in Coq.
    - JepZ 9y ago
      Well, the difference is that we aren't living in the web. So even if the web goes down, the rest of the internet is still there and even without the internet we would survive. So if we would live within the web, I would certainly demand to formally verify every web app before it would be deployed.
- SlowBro 9y ago
  > As a consumer, if I ever get suspicious about one specific change made to one specific breed, my only option is to buy non-GMO everything. That doesn't make any sense! It seems rational to me that the operation is on its head. If I want to grow GMO soy I just buy it, plant it, and spray it. But if I want to certify Organic I must go through a rigorous and expensive authorization process. I’d like to see it exactly the opposite: If you use proven, centuries-old methods it’s easy, but if you want to spray and use weird stuff it requires a rigorous and expensive authorization process. Don’t we do that in other industries? Why not with our own food?
  - Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y ago
    You can grow food however you like, for the most part. If you want to participate in certification, then that's what you have to do. Furthermore, many modern 'organic' methods are anything but centuries old. Heavy use of Bacillus thuringiensis toxin, copper compounds, compost tea, etc. etc. are all quite new. That's not to say they aren't safe; there are a few practices which warrant more scrutiny, but for the most part they're alright. But the point is that many people are terribly mischaracterizing actual farming practices.
    - SlowBro 9y ago
      > You can grow food however you like, for the most part. If you want to participate in certification, then that's what you have to do. Yes you can grow as you like but it seems backwards to me that you have to prove you are /not/ doing unusual things. If any regulation should occur it ought to be in doing the /unusual/ things. > Furthermore, many modern 'organic' methods I'm not speaking of newer methods. I would have any new method more strictly regulated until proven.
      - thunfischbrot 9y ago
        I am not arguing against your core point, but would like to point out that "unusual" itself is going to be difficult to define, as are terms such as "natural".
kome 9y ago
> “is your research going to be patented?” well, those are good questions. As frustrating as it is, scientists should be well aware that science doesn't happen in a political, juridical or economical vacuum. This social sensibility should be part of the soft skills of the modern scientist. Same goes for engineers (let’s think about the Facebook crisis), or any profession, really. Ideas have consequences. Edit: Also that's is quite infuriating: "How am I supposed to explain the consequences of abandoning a technology that can help feed millions to Swiss students who enjoy the world's highest standard of living?" - if you think that the problem of malnutrition is mainly a technological/agrological problem, that's very disingenuous.
- crispinb 9y ago
  > if you think that the problem of malnutrition is mainly a technological/agrological problem, that's very disingenuous This is true right now. But a sane world has to plan ahead. Our existing agricultural system can easily feed the world today without GMOs. But if the world population really does grow as anticipated this century (I have my doubts), with a fast-changing climate, high levels of topsoil loss & degradation, there is zero chance without every technological trick we can muster.
- _devang 9y ago
  My point regarding patents was that these questions do not get asked (or not with such ferocity) of my colleagues in biomedicine. Most people seem ok with medical researchers having patents but not plant/agricultural research. I do not think malnutrition is a technological problem, but it does have a technological solution, or rather, technology is a part of the solution.
crispinb 9y ago
I live in a region where very many are vehemently 'anti-GMO'. It's clear within seconds of talking to such people here that they have only the dimmest notion of what GMOs actually are, but they know they are Evil. They also know that all GMOs are created by Monsanto (which is Evil). It is not dissimilar to their opposition to much "allopathic medicine", which comes from Big Pharma (Evil). The dividing line between good and evil is not inherently related to corporations, because these folk don't abjure solar panels, 4WDs or mobile 'phones, the manufacturers of which are presumably Good. Even Big Pharma, which is Evil, is at the same time Good when it flogs them supplements. It is all a little confusing.
- ripsawridge 9y ago
  I definitely sympathize, but I've come to recognize that we can only expect so much of people in mass numbers. I agree with the poster further up that people have a reason to fear the application of expensive technology to the food they eat...they are awash in stories of problems that were identified much later. When the people act on those fears we say they are irrational. Of course they are, they are human beings, not computers. When have we ever seen such delicate reasoning survive at a mass scale? We call it scientific illiteracy, as if all those people promised to behave in a scientifically literate fashion at some earlier point, and are now behaving defectively. No such agreements were made. This tendency to "spread" the Evil label (and the Good one) across categories and into related but distinctly different domains is a biological rather than digital approach to threat. As the elite of a culture that aspires to the digital, we get outraged. It's not going to make any difference, y'all know that, right?
b3lvedere 9y ago
"Personally, the thought that no matter what steps I take there’s always going to be people who think my research will harm them is profoundly distressing, and feels really unfair." Duh. That's the case of almost every very high professional job on this planet. Almost nobody cares. Almost everybody stays in their own little belief. Few try to learn. Even less will admit they were once wrong. Tell people humanity has been modifying all kinds of life forms for thousands of years and they are flabbergasted. When you tell them it's about selecting plants and breeding dogs or cattle they tell you 'it's not the same', because it was a slower process. They're scared we are going to mess up evolution and then tell us to stop playing god. Kinda paradoxal.
- abpavel 9y ago
  This. Something so fundamental that has been part of our civilization since forever is suddenly out of fashion because of a name. If you'd try eating real pure non-gmo'd banana you'd break your teeth because of all the seeds, but that thing hasn't existed for millenia. Apples would be disgusting too by today's standards.
  - ripsawridge 9y ago
    It's not out of fashion because of a name. It's considered dangerous because of the rate, and there is logic to that. The slow change in dogs or crops over many decades or generations is tolerable. But rapid change can kill, or at least it excites danger signals in the affected organisms (people). A car that creeps towards you slowly is fine. One that moves too fast might kill you. I think rate is the central question in this problem, but it always gets elided in discussion with the word "just," as if rate was a minor concern.
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      This means we should try to recover original many varieties of the tomato. Because in less than 50 years we killed most of them. Compared to that widespread action, GMO is safe as it is thoroughly tested. Though diversity is not being increased with it either.
_rpd 9y ago
Admits it is vital research but "constantly confronting people who think my research will harm them is profoundly distressing." This is a very personal decision, but I'm glad for those who continue on despite the misguided activism. Imagine if vaccine researchers quit because of the unpleasantness caused by anti-vaccine activists.
XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago
Anyone else got that horrible pop up on the side asking to rate the article?
theptip 9y ago
I find the whole GMO debate to be depressingly asinine. There's a very good concern, which is seldom raised clearly -- if Monsanto patents the genomes that we need to feed the planet, then that is likely to be very harmful for the development of the poorer half of the world. But there's simply no credible concern at this point about "genes escaping from one plant to another". There are mechanisms by which gene transfer can occur between bacteria and viruses, but there is no mechanism by which a gene could get from maize to a weed. I hear complaints mostly about the latter, and seldom about the former -- but note that the former concern could be ameliorated by having governments or other public institutions do the research, and either hold the patents or just make them available for all.
- gumby 9y ago
  > but there is no mechanism by which a gene could get from maize to a weed. I'm not sure why you say that; this has been unremarkable for a while and is often seen in the wild. Insects play a role too, though this article from Nature specifically discusses cross-pollination. https://www.nature.com/news/genetically-modified-crops-pass-benefits-to-weeds-1.13517 https://www.nature.com/news/genetically-modified-crops-pass-...
  - theptip 9y ago
    Thanks, I think my claim was a bit sloppy and underspecified there. The typical anti-GMO concern that I was addressing is that a gene, once introduced, could spread into any plant in the ecosystem and into the weeds that compete with farmed plants, i.e. beyond the species with which the organism can pollinate. The paper you linked shows: > that a weedy form of the common rice crop, Oryza sativa, gets a significant fitness boost from glyphosate resistance which I believe is a much narrower claim. If the anti-GMO claim was that "GMO crops can share their genes with wild/weedy/non-GMO versions of those crops", I don't think anyone would be freaking out in the same way. But my specific claim was about gene transfer to unrelated species, which (to my understanding) is not likely. (There's also horizontal gene transfer to worry about, but this is very unlikely in eukaryotes, e.g. see https://www.ebr-journal.org/articles/ebr/pdf/2008/03/ebr0742.pdf https://www.ebr-journal.org/articles/ebr/pdf/2008/03/ebr0742...)
jadedhacker 9y ago
This is a sad result of people's rightful and fully earned suspicion of large corporations and the food industry. How many times have new products been introduced, people assured they're safe, and later we find they cause cancer, or men to grow breasts, or children to lose IQ points? The number of these stories that implicate the chemical industry are nearly countless. Thus, when new techniques are introduced to agriculture, people become immediately suspicious that they are going to be poisoned so that someone can make a few extra bucks. The difference here is that most of the tweaks GMO scientists are making have well understood results as they produce well studied biological components. However, the protestors are not wrong that the same techniques can be used for good or ill. Science suffers as a result of the incentives of our economic system that prioritize profit over health and safety. Unfortunately, this comes at the expense of the world wide poor over the middle class of the rich world. If a different system of research and production was instituted that focused on non-profit incentives, I imagine the reaction would be different. The criticism these scientists are facing is not necessarily scientifically grounded, but it is rationally based on a long history of consumers being exploited. EDIT: A point was made in another comment that malnutrition is not primarily a technological problem these days, it's one of distribution. However, I don't see anything wrong with increasing yields from existing agriculture. Under a non-capitalist system, it would allow us to reclaim part of the environment for nature. Under a capitalist system, it means additional overproduction.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > the same techniques can be used for good or ill One problem is consumers have segmented into two mutually exclusive groups. One likes healthy food and hates GMO. The other cares much less about both health and GMO. Since the first group has self-selected out of the market for GMO, sellers optimize for a health-indifferent population. Side note: is the plural of one GMO two GMO? Two GMOs?
  - jadedhacker 9y ago
    Is that a problem with consumers or a problem with unregulated markets? I'll leave it at that.
kornish 9y ago
> Nevertheless, my time in GMO research creating virus-resistant plants has meant dealing with the overwhelming negative responses the topic evokes in so many people. These range from daily conversations halting into awkward silence when the subject of my work crops up, to hateful Twitter trolls, and even the occasional fear that public protesters might destroy our research. Do any folks working at social media or adtech firms feel the same way, out of interest? Curious if the recent CA scandals have caused an uptick in confrontational behavior.
- sampo 9y ago
  I collected some mentions of "Monsanto" from this very discussion: ...Monsanto lawsuits... ...created by Monsanto (which is Evil)... ...Monsanto patents... ...those of us who are suspicious of the Monsantos of this world... I would be funny to be a software engineer if every discussion with friends and family about your work would involve suspicious mentions like "Facebook lawsuits..." , "...created by Facebook (which is Evil)...", "Facebook patents...", "...those of us who are suspicious of the Facebooks of this world..." Or the same for s/Facebook/Google/g.
headsoup 9y ago
I guess the major 'problem' is that (at least the media representation) most of the effort in GMO is not going into products being more healthy, but towards increasing yield. Put in that light it's immediately obvious the first argument will be 'big industry.' People don't trust big industry, so therefore if they are the largest supporters/drivers of GE it will wholly be placed in the 'bad' basket. 'Big Industry' players time and time again do act poorly, fund outcomes, corrupt policies etc so you concerns can't be dismissed easily and will be conflated either way. So the question out of this is: how do we increase the integrity of actors involved: science, media, government, business? What would it take to be able to identify and understand which GE is 'honest' vs not? Until that can be done in any meaningful way, it will continually just be an argument between those saying all GMO/GE can't be trusted and those saying it can. Not to mention the different points being that the distrust is in those engineering/producing GMO vs the actual products/processes themselves...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ivanech 9y ago
This article is good, and there's literally nothing of value I could say better than the author - which is why I really like Massive's (the site's) commenting system. I've never seen a comment system allows so few people to participate, and I wonder if this model ought to be tried elsewhere. By restricting comments to approved scientists, Massive lets us observe informed discourse without risking the mess that so many other discussion systems devolve into.
ggm 9y ago
I think part of the problem is that fundamental decisions around IPR collided in time with the decision to explore this space outside of nationally funded research. Had bodies which have charitable status and seek government funds done the majority work rather than monsanto, I suspect GMO would have been understood more widely for its benefits. Having it go rapidly from government funded labs to commercial exploitatio of IPR tied knots into the model: who owns infected wheat next door to a field which was sown with GMO wheat, is a very wierd story. How can you expect farmers to relate well to this? Likewise, the decision of the organic farming movement to de-rate GMO meant the consequential loss to farms around a GMO crop was high. This is pitting farmer against farmer, and farmer against seed merchant. Seed hoarding has been a part of farming practice since Noah. Now, it incurs a long-tail lease payment? Bizarre! None of this is about the FUD on GMO and health. Its the economics of IPR, and the effect on emotional feelings about GMO. I think the science is fantastic. The commercialization is awful.
mikeytown2 9y ago
Plants that are more resistant to herbicides/pesticides (weeds/bugs) due to GMO is my main gripe. Indoor growing and hydroponics is the best solution to this from my point of view. I have no problem with making food more nutrient-rich via GMO. I am well aware that all foods get sprayed, I'd be nice if none needed to be used and plants didn't get modified to make their own herbicides/pesticides. I'll probably anger both side of the debate because I'm not 100% on one side or the other.
- _devang 9y ago
  I'm probably with you on this but there is an environmental advantage to herbicide tolerant crops (GMO or not). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5033196/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5033196/ Also indoor farming/hydroponics is great for crops that are mainly water (think tomato or lettuce) but much less so for staple calorie crops like corn or wheat.
akskos 9y ago
This is sad to hear :(
ianai 9y ago
I view this less on the merits of GMO. I think this is a reflection of the negativity pervasive on the internet. People separate into their own camps on the internet. Then they take a mentality to meat space that they’re somehow fighting a fight against “the other side”. People are using the internet to collectively ferment their angers to disasterous results.
- acutesoftware 9y ago
  Yes, this is probably the biggest issue, and mainstream media don't help by mostly publishing 'bad GMO' stories where no one hears of the hundreds of success stories (in fact you could apply that to most of the sciences)
conistonwater 9y ago
> It really showed how futile researchers’ attempts at science communication can be. There is the Cultural Cognition Project (http://www.culturalcognition.net/kahan/ http://www.culturalcognition.net/kahan/), and if I understand the research they did correctly, you really should not expect explanations of science to be effective at changing people's minds like that. In the past, and in psychology experiments, this technique has been shown to be ineffective even though it seems really intuitive that it should work.
TheMagicHorsey 9y ago
How safe are GMO plants from a systems perspective? When we breed plants through selection, the changes are slow and the plants do not acquire capabilities from outside their species. When we change fast growing species like grasses, and give them capabilities they do not have in nature, do we really understand what those species do when they enter a natural ecosystem? Ecosystems have a delicate balance. I really wonder how comprehensive GMO testing really is. Having said that, I have no problems eating GMO crops. I don’t think the risks are to humans directly. I think the issue is environmental.
- tren 9y ago
  Like you, I have no problem eating GMO crops but as you say, there are potential knock-on effects from a systems perspective. Similar to the financial system, if the sole pursuit is yield, systemic problems arise. The main issues I have with GMO is the patenting of crops, specifically those that are introduced to third world countries which are typically sterile, causing the farmers to have an ongoing dependence/obligation to the patent holders. Probably an even greater problem is crop resilience - yes, many crops will give far greater yield when given ideal conditions, but by reducing diversity within the same species makes them more vulnerable to specific diseases. In nature, there is always some % of a crop that's resistant to a disease, that diversity is removed when all the crops are essentially identical.
  - thaumaturgy 9y ago
    > The main issues I have with GMO is the patenting of crops, specifically those that are introduced to third world countries which are typically sterile, causing the farmers to have an ongoing dependence/obligation to the patent holders. Incidentally, this is also the solution to one of the major criticisms of GMO plants: in the event of significant cross-pollination, the GMO plants won't be viable. > Probably an even greater problem is crop resilience - yes, many crops will give far greater yield when given ideal conditions, but by reducing diversity within the same species makes them more vulnerable to specific diseases. We already massively reduce diversity in agricultural crops. This is not a problem specific to, or even exacerbated by, GMO crops. > In nature, there is always some % of a crop that's resistant to a disease, that diversity is removed when all the crops are essentially identical. Diversity is doing exactly piss-all for the hundreds of millions of conifers in California that have been killed by bark beetles.
dsacco 9y ago
It looks like a lot of commenters here are talking about the public opinion of GMOs and whether or not it's justified. As a graduate student, I'd like to comment on the author of this article instead of GMOs, since I find his story more profoundly disquieting. The author is leaving his primary research specialization after spending literally years studying it. It's not uncommon for people to change their research focus, but he is moving to a different subfield and specialization altogether. More importantly, his decision is precipitated by unceasing vitriol for something he was passionate enough about to spend the best years of his life working on. I'm not sure what else to say. I can't imagine what it's like to give something like that up just to avoid having research decisions litigated by other people. It must have been so exhausting and disheartening for him.
- _devang 9y ago
  thanks for empathizing! I am very happy with my future research direction though :)
  - ripsawridge 9y ago
    Thanks for writing your article, it was good, and I sympathize with your experience! I think we are brought up to believe we can pursue whatever we want to pursue, and of course this is true, but there is a cost. If that pursuit falls out of alignment with the community of which you are a part, life can lose it's joy. This isn't fair, it just is. We need to feel in a relationship of give and take with our community. My own thought here is that the research itself is a good thing, and the act of pursuit deepens your character and experience in a way that makes you more valuable to your community. But people don't like the stories they hear about "patented" crops, about DRM in farmers fields. It's not the research that's a problem, it's the use to which it's put (at least in the eye of the public). GMOs seem to become a lever corporations use to monetize activities that we aren't sure should be monetized. [I recognize that my "story" above is likely tainted with outrageous misconceptions. I don't disagree! I'm just playing back the image in my head around GMOs, mostly built by passive listening to the conversation in our culture over some years. You can argue with that story, but it's exhausting.] I think you are caught in the gears of the working out of this vast cultural argument.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tosser0004 9y ago
I don’t for a moment believe GMOs are in anyway harmful. I do wonder though if they have had the effect of fueling population growth, without necessarily helping the hungry. It’s often stated that GMOs are needed to feed the growing population, but I get the sense that the most of the benefits go to just increasing population and not lowering the raw number of people who are actually undernourished. In a world without GMOs would there be fewer total people and would that be better than the alternative?
- sandov 9y ago
  Also. It's disheartening to see that no one wants to discuss if population growth is actually something desirable in the long run. Everyone cares only about the immediate economic necessities.
- thaumaturgy 9y ago
  All available evidence indicates that as a society stabilizes and the long-term health and viability of children improves, then population growth slows down. If you want fewer people in the world, help them live longer.
- sampo 9y ago
  They actually had this same discussion in the 1960s when the original "green revolution" used plant breeding and fertilization to increased crop yields dramatically. If they had done then as you propose, half of the people today in Third World, or having Third World grandparents, would not exist today. How many of your friends and family would not exist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution#Malthusian_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution#Malthusian_cr...
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    We are paying for this now though. Soil depletion is a thing, as is the increase in pesticide use. GMO are currently being deployed to fix the pesticide problem without breaking the economics...
The_Echo_Dies 9y ago
As a person trained in scientific thought and practice, I am against GMO research for the simple reason that it is one of the main factors enabling runaway population growth. The community involved in GMO research often cite the need to feed growing numbers of people (the author of this article, for one) as one of the motivators of their work, but they never seem to openly acknowledge the fact that they themselves are contributing to the problem they claim to help solve. Based on this alone I wish the entire field could be massively curtailed, if not entirely shut down. The earth needs far less people, not more, and this type of research seems to be making the odds of a future population crisis higher, not lower. Please note that I'm not at all questioning the actual science or the validity of the topic as a research area - merely the impact that said activities have upon the real world, impacts that I don't believe we can ignore.
binarypaean 9y ago
It seems like Taleb et al captured the nebulous fears many people have around GMOs fairly rigorously with the "Precautionary Principle"[1]. I see some people attempt to refute that paper with specific evidence of safety for some GMOs, but have not seen a work that deals fundamentally with section "X"; which or how GMOs can be sufficiently "non-global". [1]https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf
- sampo 9y ago
  Taleb is a skilled writer, I give him that. But he doesn't know anything about biology. From section X.B: "GMOs have the propensity to spread uncontrollably, and thus their risks cannot be localized. The crossbreeding of wild-type plants with genetically modified ones prevents their disentangling, leading to irreversible system-wide effects with unknown downsides." Now, the very reason crop plants (GMO or not) cannot spread uncontrollably is tightly coupled to why they are crop plants. They are not poisonous, they are easy to eat, and they produce a good yield. A dream come true for every plant-eating animal. That's why they are crop plants. But they wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell in the wild nature, animals and insects would eat them quickly. Wild plants invest a lot of effort to not being eaten (unless they want to, for seed spreading purposes). There are no cases of crop plants having invaded back to wild nature. Perhaps there is an odd canola plant that escaped a field and grows on a roadside or by an abandoned gas station somewhere, but these are also situations where humans first cleared the wild plants and bared the soil before the canola was able to set roots. Crop plants don't spread outside of the farmers' fields, and GMO breeding is not trying to change that. (If they wanted to breed competitive wild plants, they'd use wild plants as the starting stock.)
  - ripsawridge 9y ago
    Very interesting. I've heard stories of the GMO spreading to another farmers field, causing some problems. But that field is mostly devoid of insects, so it's easy for the GMO to live there. I still think that a fear of "irreversible system-wide effects with unknown downsides" will persist, despite the good sense of your argument. Also, as a technologist, I know that we move from solving easier problems to more complex ones. Who is to say that GMO tech isn't just beginning in farmers' fields, and that flush with success in that space, all those engineers, technology and know-how will happily move on to the Next Big Problem. This might be in wild-plant space.
thaumaturgy 9y ago
This is the major issue that prevents me from self-identifying as a progressive. The arguments are strikingly similar to arguments over vaccines causing autism; no matter how many times you debunk the myths and fantasies and throw facts at the irrational fears, progressives just keep coming back to the position that "GMOs are scary". And, like anti-vaxxers, this has a real negative impact on human and ecological health. I wish there was some kind of "yay, science!" political movement that would advocate for applying science in ways intended to improve human health and happiness in both the short and long term (which would include funding further GMO research).
sova 9y ago
Isn't GMO old hat now that we are using Gene Editing? "There is another reason gene editing is causing excitement in industry. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has concluded that the new plants are not “regulated articles.” The reason is a legal loophole: its regulations apply only to GMOs constructed using plant pathogens like bacteria, or their DNA." https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609230/these-are-not-your-fathers-gmos/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609230/these-are-not-your...
- _devang 9y ago
  I cited the same link in my article. But there are uses of GM technology that cannot be achieved using gene editing. The best example is Bt crops for insect resistance. This is a hugely important trait that is only possible through genetic engineering.

89 points by sampo 9y ago

What frustrates me endlessly about the GMO debate is that "GMO" tells you about as much about safety as "chemical." You could certainly GM something into being dangerous or more dangerous, for example transplanting allergens or increasing the production of natural pest control toxins. You could also modify a protein into an equivalent protein, changing nothing. The only real answer to fears about GMOs is to point people towards longitudinal studies that show that the specific modification in question isn't causing any problems. Sadly, this really isn't possible in our current system, as I have no idea which changes were made to the organisms that get put in the consumer products I buy. In an ideal world, I could read NGK-028181 off the tin of baked beans in my pantry and realize that I needed to throw it out because they discovered something wrong with that one specific genome (or because I know I'm allergic). As a consumer, if I ever get suspicious about one specific change made to one specific breed, my only option is to buy non-GMO everything. That doesn't make any sense!

kazinator 9y ago
The GMO debate isn't just about whether the molecules of something you're eating are safe in relation to the modifications. It includes considerations such as what kinds of practices are enabled by GMO: like producing a plant that is resistant to certain herbicides so that you can douse the heck out of the crop to kill everything else. Or how some genetically modified plant is someone's intellectual property, so you're a criminal if you happen to plant its seeds back in the soil. (Just two issues off the top of my head in regard to an area I don't think much about.)
- sanxiyn 9y ago
  On the topic of intellectual property, you are completely wrong. Plant patents predate GMO (like 50 years) and they are not "enabled by GMO" in any sense whatsoever.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > Plant patents predate GMO (like 50 years) Huh, didn't know--thank you. Plants have apparently been patentable since 1930 [1]. In 1970, the Congress gave breeders "up to 25 years of exclusive control over new, distinct, uniform, and stable sexually reproduced or tuber propagated plant varieties" [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Patent_Act_of_1930 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_of_1970 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act_o...
    - sampo 9y ago
      Look how many times different mutations of the Red Delicious apple has been patented. 42 patents. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Delicious https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Delicious
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > producing a plant that is resistant to certain herbicides so that you can douse the heck out of the crop to kill everything else I think you're referring to Round-up Ready? Wasn't the point of that program to reduce pesticide use?
  - kazinator 9y ago
    Not referring to any specific program; note that pesticide /= herbicide.
  - SlowBro 9y ago
    In theory, yes. In practice... https://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crops-mean-more-herbicide-not-less/#4d4e5b3e3cd5 https://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2013/07/02/gmo-crop...
    - sampo 9y ago
      This 2017 study says that herbicide use has been increasing overall, also on non-GMO crops such as wheat and rice. And that the increase rate in GMO crops (corn, soy, cotton) is no faster than in non-GMO crops. http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2017/04/gmos-and-herbicides-its-complicated/ http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2017/04/gmos-and-herbicides-its...
      - SlowBro 9y ago
        Apparently the answer is not settled on that yet. http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/8/e1600850 http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/8/e1600850 https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/09/01/492091546/how-gmos-cut-the-use-of-pesticides-and-perhaps-boosted-them-again https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/09/01/492091546/ho...
  - sebleon 9y ago
    Monsanto released Roundup-Ready Soybean in 1996 to INCREASE herbicide use, without affecting crop yield [1] Programs like Bt-corn reduce pesticide use... by making the plant produce the herbicide in the fruit. So, instead of being able to peel or rinse fruit (with varying results), you're eating corn kernels that have pesticide on the inside. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_soybean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_soybean
- tptacek 9y ago
  That's not a fair description of what GMO herbicide resistance means. The other way to frame it is: GMOs allow you to make use of simpler, broad-spectrum herbicides with fewer known health impacts on animal life, as opposed to selective grass- and broadleaf-targeting herbicides that have known, proven human health risks but no PR due to a lack of connection to GMOs. Unless you're paying $3/# for carrots, herbicides are in the mix one way or the other. GMOs allow us to be pickier about which herbicides we're exposed to. Regarding IPR issues: you're referring to Monsanto lawsuits. Monsanto enforced its IPR against people who not only planted Roundup-ready crops, but then used Roundup on them --- in other words, people who took advantage of the IPR itself, not merely people who happened to plant Roundup-ready seeds unknowingly. Farmers don't accidentally spray their crops with Glyphosate.
  - Retric 9y ago
    We are at the point where vast stretches of land are used to grow food that's turned into fuel because we don't have any other real use for it. People don't see benefit from increased farming efficiency at this point, they just get stuck with the risks. 15.1 billion bushels of corn... wasted.
    - Fins 9y ago
      Doesn't that have something to do with government mandates and subsidies for adding ethanol to fuel? It could have been well used for something more important.
  - PatchMonkey 9y ago
    Roundup causes some serious cancer. Maybe its not directly toxic like agent orange, but these chemicals are still dangerous.
    - thaumaturgy 9y ago
      This is reminiscent of the "debate" over cellular radiation causing cancer. How much Roundup do I have to drink to increase my cancer risk by a percentage point?
- SlowBro 9y ago
  Another concern is cross-contamination. A three minute video from CBS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MkH08772A4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MkH08772A4
- wolco 9y ago
  Using GMO to make plants resistant so they can dose at high levels is exactly what they are doing vs trying to grow a super carrot.
- thaumaturgy 9y ago
  The use of pesticides in non-GMO crops is likely one of the major factors for a modern extinction event. There's been a 75% decline in the total biomass of flying insects over the last 27 years (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185809 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....). This is affecting the entire ecosystem. GMO crops can be engineered to be pest resistant, requiring far less use of pesticides, without harming the crop's suitability for human consumption. Ignorance on this issue is destroying ecosystems in agricultural areas.
  - diyseguy 9y ago
    http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1999/04/toxic-pollen-bt-corn-can-kill-monarch-butterflies http://news.cornell.edu/stories/1999/04/toxic-pollen-bt-corn...
    - thaumaturgy 9y ago
      Okay, so pollen from Bt corn is lethal to monarch butterfly caterpillars. Meanwhile, pesticides are killing off 75% of all flying insects. I like monarchs, but if I had to choose between a world with no monarchs, and a world with no monarchs and also just 25% of the flying insect biomass we had 30 years ago and also fewer birds and everything else that consumes insects and all of the beneficial pollination that those 75% of insects would have accounted for ... well, that seems like a pretty easy choice to me. Gene editing would also provide an avenue for a different approach here, where the crop could be made resistant to its costliest pests without harming monarchs. Good luck doing that through cross-breeding.
      - AstralStorm 9y ago
        But can we live in a world where food is 1000% though? That would be the result of getting rid of pesticides and insecticides...
avodonosov 9y ago
> my only option is to buy non-GMO everything. That doesn't make any sense. A viable option actually.
- baumandm 9y ago
  Surprisingly, avoiding GMO foods may not be as viable as one might think: > Currently, up to 92% of U.S. corn is genetically engineered (GE), as are 94% of soybeans and 94% of cotton (cottonseed oil is often used in food products). It has been estimated that upwards of 75% of processed foods on supermarket shelves – from soda to soup, crackers to condiments – contain genetically engineered ingredients. [1] [1] https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/311/ge-foods/about-ge-foods https://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/311/ge-foods/abou...
  - code_duck 9y ago
    You can buy all organic or non-GMO certified foods.
    - RobLach 9y ago
      Close, but it’s food producers who buy organic and non-gmo certifications which additionally makes them jump through a couple arbitrary hoops to make it seemingly mean something.
      - code_duck 9y ago
        So, you are saying that the certifications are not meaningful in that companies and certifiers cheat on the standards, or that the standards are inadequate?
    - baumandm 9y ago
      My point was that it's easy for the average person to want to avoid GMO foods, but harder for them to give up their Coca-Colas, Oreos, etc.
JepZ 9y ago
I think there are lots of problems with GM stuff. It all starts with 'We have only one earth'. The vacuum of space combined with the stickiness of matter isolates biological systems very well. So if someone would start a genetically modified plant series on some space station or distant planet I would have much less of a problem with that. Second, I have got the feeling that many people who experiment with genetic manipulation don't know what they are actually doing. Yes, they might know it on a high-level perspective and for experiments that is fine, but as long as we can't simulate even single cells its is hard to tell that we know what we are doing. As a computer scientist it feels to me like someone is patching the binaries of 'grep' and 'cp' together and hopes to use the resulting binaries to build autonomous drones. It is just irresponsible to use the results are long as the have only one petri dish which is actually the one we are living in. So don't get me wrong, I am completely pro research, but also completely against usage outside of laboratories. There might be exceptions to that rule when it comes to 'specific modification' as you call it, but for me it ends where you could not achieve the same result with a handful of normal breeding cycles.
- UncleMeat 9y ago
  > Second, I have got the feeling that many people who experiment with genetic manipulation don't know what they are actually doing. This is frankly ridiculous. You describe yourself as a computer scientist and presumably have no expertise in the field and then use your gut feeling about how well people understand the consequences of their efforts? I know plenty of people who think that I'm just typing words and random until my code compiles. Demanding that we are able to model living organisms in computers before we can productionize gmo tech is like saying that we can't deploy any web app until it has been formally verified in Coq.
  - JepZ 9y ago
    Well, the difference is that we aren't living in the web. So even if the web goes down, the rest of the internet is still there and even without the internet we would survive. So if we would live within the web, I would certainly demand to formally verify every web app before it would be deployed.
SlowBro 9y ago
> As a consumer, if I ever get suspicious about one specific change made to one specific breed, my only option is to buy non-GMO everything. That doesn't make any sense! It seems rational to me that the operation is on its head. If I want to grow GMO soy I just buy it, plant it, and spray it. But if I want to certify Organic I must go through a rigorous and expensive authorization process. I’d like to see it exactly the opposite: If you use proven, centuries-old methods it’s easy, but if you want to spray and use weird stuff it requires a rigorous and expensive authorization process. Don’t we do that in other industries? Why not with our own food?
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y ago
  You can grow food however you like, for the most part. If you want to participate in certification, then that's what you have to do. Furthermore, many modern 'organic' methods are anything but centuries old. Heavy use of Bacillus thuringiensis toxin, copper compounds, compost tea, etc. etc. are all quite new. That's not to say they aren't safe; there are a few practices which warrant more scrutiny, but for the most part they're alright. But the point is that many people are terribly mischaracterizing actual farming practices.
  - SlowBro 9y ago
    > You can grow food however you like, for the most part. If you want to participate in certification, then that's what you have to do. Yes you can grow as you like but it seems backwards to me that you have to prove you are /not/ doing unusual things. If any regulation should occur it ought to be in doing the /unusual/ things. > Furthermore, many modern 'organic' methods I'm not speaking of newer methods. I would have any new method more strictly regulated until proven.
    - thunfischbrot 9y ago
      I am not arguing against your core point, but would like to point out that "unusual" itself is going to be difficult to define, as are terms such as "natural".

kome 9y ago

> “is your research going to be patented?” well, those are good questions. As frustrating as it is, scientists should be well aware that science doesn't happen in a political, juridical or economical vacuum. This social sensibility should be part of the soft skills of the modern scientist. Same goes for engineers (let’s think about the Facebook crisis), or any profession, really. Ideas have consequences. Edit: Also that's is quite infuriating: "How am I supposed to explain the consequences of abandoning a technology that can help feed millions to Swiss students who enjoy the world's highest standard of living?" - if you think that the problem of malnutrition is mainly a technological/agrological problem, that's very disingenuous.

crispinb 9y ago
> if you think that the problem of malnutrition is mainly a technological/agrological problem, that's very disingenuous This is true right now. But a sane world has to plan ahead. Our existing agricultural system can easily feed the world today without GMOs. But if the world population really does grow as anticipated this century (I have my doubts), with a fast-changing climate, high levels of topsoil loss & degradation, there is zero chance without every technological trick we can muster.
_devang 9y ago
My point regarding patents was that these questions do not get asked (or not with such ferocity) of my colleagues in biomedicine. Most people seem ok with medical researchers having patents but not plant/agricultural research. I do not think malnutrition is a technological problem, but it does have a technological solution, or rather, technology is a part of the solution.

crispinb 9y ago

I live in a region where very many are vehemently 'anti-GMO'. It's clear within seconds of talking to such people here that they have only the dimmest notion of what GMOs actually are, but they know they are Evil. They also know that all GMOs are created by Monsanto (which is Evil). It is not dissimilar to their opposition to much "allopathic medicine", which comes from Big Pharma (Evil). The dividing line between good and evil is not inherently related to corporations, because these folk don't abjure solar panels, 4WDs or mobile 'phones, the manufacturers of which are presumably Good. Even Big Pharma, which is Evil, is at the same time Good when it flogs them supplements. It is all a little confusing.

ripsawridge 9y ago
I definitely sympathize, but I've come to recognize that we can only expect so much of people in mass numbers. I agree with the poster further up that people have a reason to fear the application of expensive technology to the food they eat...they are awash in stories of problems that were identified much later. When the people act on those fears we say they are irrational. Of course they are, they are human beings, not computers. When have we ever seen such delicate reasoning survive at a mass scale? We call it scientific illiteracy, as if all those people promised to behave in a scientifically literate fashion at some earlier point, and are now behaving defectively. No such agreements were made. This tendency to "spread" the Evil label (and the Good one) across categories and into related but distinctly different domains is a biological rather than digital approach to threat. As the elite of a culture that aspires to the digital, we get outraged. It's not going to make any difference, y'all know that, right?

b3lvedere 9y ago

"Personally, the thought that no matter what steps I take there’s always going to be people who think my research will harm them is profoundly distressing, and feels really unfair." Duh. That's the case of almost every very high professional job on this planet. Almost nobody cares. Almost everybody stays in their own little belief. Few try to learn. Even less will admit they were once wrong. Tell people humanity has been modifying all kinds of life forms for thousands of years and they are flabbergasted. When you tell them it's about selecting plants and breeding dogs or cattle they tell you 'it's not the same', because it was a slower process. They're scared we are going to mess up evolution and then tell us to stop playing god. Kinda paradoxal.

abpavel 9y ago
This. Something so fundamental that has been part of our civilization since forever is suddenly out of fashion because of a name. If you'd try eating real pure non-gmo'd banana you'd break your teeth because of all the seeds, but that thing hasn't existed for millenia. Apples would be disgusting too by today's standards.
- ripsawridge 9y ago
  It's not out of fashion because of a name. It's considered dangerous because of the rate, and there is logic to that. The slow change in dogs or crops over many decades or generations is tolerable. But rapid change can kill, or at least it excites danger signals in the affected organisms (people). A car that creeps towards you slowly is fine. One that moves too fast might kill you. I think rate is the central question in this problem, but it always gets elided in discussion with the word "just," as if rate was a minor concern.
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    This means we should try to recover original many varieties of the tomato. Because in less than 50 years we killed most of them. Compared to that widespread action, GMO is safe as it is thoroughly tested. Though diversity is not being increased with it either.

_rpd 9y ago

Admits it is vital research but "constantly confronting people who think my research will harm them is profoundly distressing." This is a very personal decision, but I'm glad for those who continue on despite the misguided activism. Imagine if vaccine researchers quit because of the unpleasantness caused by anti-vaccine activists.

XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 9y ago

Anyone else got that horrible pop up on the side asking to rate the article?

theptip 9y ago

I find the whole GMO debate to be depressingly asinine. There's a very good concern, which is seldom raised clearly -- if Monsanto patents the genomes that we need to feed the planet, then that is likely to be very harmful for the development of the poorer half of the world. But there's simply no credible concern at this point about "genes escaping from one plant to another". There are mechanisms by which gene transfer can occur between bacteria and viruses, but there is no mechanism by which a gene could get from maize to a weed. I hear complaints mostly about the latter, and seldom about the former -- but note that the former concern could be ameliorated by having governments or other public institutions do the research, and either hold the patents or just make them available for all.

gumby 9y ago
> but there is no mechanism by which a gene could get from maize to a weed. I'm not sure why you say that; this has been unremarkable for a while and is often seen in the wild. Insects play a role too, though this article from Nature specifically discusses cross-pollination. https://www.nature.com/news/genetically-modified-crops-pass-benefits-to-weeds-1.13517 https://www.nature.com/news/genetically-modified-crops-pass-...
- theptip 9y ago
  Thanks, I think my claim was a bit sloppy and underspecified there. The typical anti-GMO concern that I was addressing is that a gene, once introduced, could spread into any plant in the ecosystem and into the weeds that compete with farmed plants, i.e. beyond the species with which the organism can pollinate. The paper you linked shows: > that a weedy form of the common rice crop, Oryza sativa, gets a significant fitness boost from glyphosate resistance which I believe is a much narrower claim. If the anti-GMO claim was that "GMO crops can share their genes with wild/weedy/non-GMO versions of those crops", I don't think anyone would be freaking out in the same way. But my specific claim was about gene transfer to unrelated species, which (to my understanding) is not likely. (There's also horizontal gene transfer to worry about, but this is very unlikely in eukaryotes, e.g. see https://www.ebr-journal.org/articles/ebr/pdf/2008/03/ebr0742.pdf https://www.ebr-journal.org/articles/ebr/pdf/2008/03/ebr0742...)

jadedhacker 9y ago

This is a sad result of people's rightful and fully earned suspicion of large corporations and the food industry. How many times have new products been introduced, people assured they're safe, and later we find they cause cancer, or men to grow breasts, or children to lose IQ points? The number of these stories that implicate the chemical industry are nearly countless. Thus, when new techniques are introduced to agriculture, people become immediately suspicious that they are going to be poisoned so that someone can make a few extra bucks. The difference here is that most of the tweaks GMO scientists are making have well understood results as they produce well studied biological components. However, the protestors are not wrong that the same techniques can be used for good or ill. Science suffers as a result of the incentives of our economic system that prioritize profit over health and safety. Unfortunately, this comes at the expense of the world wide poor over the middle class of the rich world. If a different system of research and production was instituted that focused on non-profit incentives, I imagine the reaction would be different. The criticism these scientists are facing is not necessarily scientifically grounded, but it is rationally based on a long history of consumers being exploited. EDIT: A point was made in another comment that malnutrition is not primarily a technological problem these days, it's one of distribution. However, I don't see anything wrong with increasing yields from existing agriculture. Under a non-capitalist system, it would allow us to reclaim part of the environment for nature. Under a capitalist system, it means additional overproduction.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> the same techniques can be used for good or ill One problem is consumers have segmented into two mutually exclusive groups. One likes healthy food and hates GMO. The other cares much less about both health and GMO. Since the first group has self-selected out of the market for GMO, sellers optimize for a health-indifferent population. Side note: is the plural of one GMO two GMO? Two GMOs?
- jadedhacker 9y ago
  Is that a problem with consumers or a problem with unregulated markets? I'll leave it at that.

kornish 9y ago

> Nevertheless, my time in GMO research creating virus-resistant plants has meant dealing with the overwhelming negative responses the topic evokes in so many people. These range from daily conversations halting into awkward silence when the subject of my work crops up, to hateful Twitter trolls, and even the occasional fear that public protesters might destroy our research. Do any folks working at social media or adtech firms feel the same way, out of interest? Curious if the recent CA scandals have caused an uptick in confrontational behavior.

sampo 9y ago
I collected some mentions of "Monsanto" from this very discussion: ...Monsanto lawsuits... ...created by Monsanto (which is Evil)... ...Monsanto patents... ...those of us who are suspicious of the Monsantos of this world... I would be funny to be a software engineer if every discussion with friends and family about your work would involve suspicious mentions like "Facebook lawsuits..." , "...created by Facebook (which is Evil)...", "Facebook patents...", "...those of us who are suspicious of the Facebooks of this world..." Or the same for s/Facebook/Google/g.

headsoup 9y ago

I guess the major 'problem' is that (at least the media representation) most of the effort in GMO is not going into products being more healthy, but towards increasing yield. Put in that light it's immediately obvious the first argument will be 'big industry.' People don't trust big industry, so therefore if they are the largest supporters/drivers of GE it will wholly be placed in the 'bad' basket. 'Big Industry' players time and time again do act poorly, fund outcomes, corrupt policies etc so you concerns can't be dismissed easily and will be conflated either way. So the question out of this is: how do we increase the integrity of actors involved: science, media, government, business? What would it take to be able to identify and understand which GE is 'honest' vs not? Until that can be done in any meaningful way, it will continually just be an argument between those saying all GMO/GE can't be trusted and those saying it can. Not to mention the different points being that the distrust is in those engineering/producing GMO vs the actual products/processes themselves...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ivanech 9y ago

This article is good, and there's literally nothing of value I could say better than the author - which is why I really like Massive's (the site's) commenting system. I've never seen a comment system allows so few people to participate, and I wonder if this model ought to be tried elsewhere. By restricting comments to approved scientists, Massive lets us observe informed discourse without risking the mess that so many other discussion systems devolve into.

ggm 9y ago

I think part of the problem is that fundamental decisions around IPR collided in time with the decision to explore this space outside of nationally funded research. Had bodies which have charitable status and seek government funds done the majority work rather than monsanto, I suspect GMO would have been understood more widely for its benefits. Having it go rapidly from government funded labs to commercial exploitatio of IPR tied knots into the model: who owns infected wheat next door to a field which was sown with GMO wheat, is a very wierd story. How can you expect farmers to relate well to this? Likewise, the decision of the organic farming movement to de-rate GMO meant the consequential loss to farms around a GMO crop was high. This is pitting farmer against farmer, and farmer against seed merchant. Seed hoarding has been a part of farming practice since Noah. Now, it incurs a long-tail lease payment? Bizarre! None of this is about the FUD on GMO and health. Its the economics of IPR, and the effect on emotional feelings about GMO. I think the science is fantastic. The commercialization is awful.

mikeytown2 9y ago

Plants that are more resistant to herbicides/pesticides (weeds/bugs) due to GMO is my main gripe. Indoor growing and hydroponics is the best solution to this from my point of view. I have no problem with making food more nutrient-rich via GMO. I am well aware that all foods get sprayed, I'd be nice if none needed to be used and plants didn't get modified to make their own herbicides/pesticides. I'll probably anger both side of the debate because I'm not 100% on one side or the other.

_devang 9y ago
I'm probably with you on this but there is an environmental advantage to herbicide tolerant crops (GMO or not). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5033196/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5033196/ Also indoor farming/hydroponics is great for crops that are mainly water (think tomato or lettuce) but much less so for staple calorie crops like corn or wheat.

akskos 9y ago

This is sad to hear :(

ianai 9y ago

I view this less on the merits of GMO. I think this is a reflection of the negativity pervasive on the internet. People separate into their own camps on the internet. Then they take a mentality to meat space that they’re somehow fighting a fight against “the other side”. People are using the internet to collectively ferment their angers to disasterous results.

acutesoftware 9y ago
Yes, this is probably the biggest issue, and mainstream media don't help by mostly publishing 'bad GMO' stories where no one hears of the hundreds of success stories (in fact you could apply that to most of the sciences)

conistonwater 9y ago

> It really showed how futile researchers’ attempts at science communication can be. There is the Cultural Cognition Project (http://www.culturalcognition.net/kahan/ http://www.culturalcognition.net/kahan/), and if I understand the research they did correctly, you really should not expect explanations of science to be effective at changing people's minds like that. In the past, and in psychology experiments, this technique has been shown to be ineffective even though it seems really intuitive that it should work.

TheMagicHorsey 9y ago

How safe are GMO plants from a systems perspective? When we breed plants through selection, the changes are slow and the plants do not acquire capabilities from outside their species. When we change fast growing species like grasses, and give them capabilities they do not have in nature, do we really understand what those species do when they enter a natural ecosystem? Ecosystems have a delicate balance. I really wonder how comprehensive GMO testing really is. Having said that, I have no problems eating GMO crops. I don’t think the risks are to humans directly. I think the issue is environmental.

tren 9y ago
Like you, I have no problem eating GMO crops but as you say, there are potential knock-on effects from a systems perspective. Similar to the financial system, if the sole pursuit is yield, systemic problems arise. The main issues I have with GMO is the patenting of crops, specifically those that are introduced to third world countries which are typically sterile, causing the farmers to have an ongoing dependence/obligation to the patent holders. Probably an even greater problem is crop resilience - yes, many crops will give far greater yield when given ideal conditions, but by reducing diversity within the same species makes them more vulnerable to specific diseases. In nature, there is always some % of a crop that's resistant to a disease, that diversity is removed when all the crops are essentially identical.
- thaumaturgy 9y ago
  > The main issues I have with GMO is the patenting of crops, specifically those that are introduced to third world countries which are typically sterile, causing the farmers to have an ongoing dependence/obligation to the patent holders. Incidentally, this is also the solution to one of the major criticisms of GMO plants: in the event of significant cross-pollination, the GMO plants won't be viable. > Probably an even greater problem is crop resilience - yes, many crops will give far greater yield when given ideal conditions, but by reducing diversity within the same species makes them more vulnerable to specific diseases. We already massively reduce diversity in agricultural crops. This is not a problem specific to, or even exacerbated by, GMO crops. > In nature, there is always some % of a crop that's resistant to a disease, that diversity is removed when all the crops are essentially identical. Diversity is doing exactly piss-all for the hundreds of millions of conifers in California that have been killed by bark beetles.

dsacco 9y ago

It looks like a lot of commenters here are talking about the public opinion of GMOs and whether or not it's justified. As a graduate student, I'd like to comment on the author of this article instead of GMOs, since I find his story more profoundly disquieting. The author is leaving his primary research specialization after spending literally years studying it. It's not uncommon for people to change their research focus, but he is moving to a different subfield and specialization altogether. More importantly, his decision is precipitated by unceasing vitriol for something he was passionate enough about to spend the best years of his life working on. I'm not sure what else to say. I can't imagine what it's like to give something like that up just to avoid having research decisions litigated by other people. It must have been so exhausting and disheartening for him.

_devang 9y ago
thanks for empathizing! I am very happy with my future research direction though :)
- ripsawridge 9y ago
  Thanks for writing your article, it was good, and I sympathize with your experience! I think we are brought up to believe we can pursue whatever we want to pursue, and of course this is true, but there is a cost. If that pursuit falls out of alignment with the community of which you are a part, life can lose it's joy. This isn't fair, it just is. We need to feel in a relationship of give and take with our community. My own thought here is that the research itself is a good thing, and the act of pursuit deepens your character and experience in a way that makes you more valuable to your community. But people don't like the stories they hear about "patented" crops, about DRM in farmers fields. It's not the research that's a problem, it's the use to which it's put (at least in the eye of the public). GMOs seem to become a lever corporations use to monetize activities that we aren't sure should be monetized. [I recognize that my "story" above is likely tainted with outrageous misconceptions. I don't disagree! I'm just playing back the image in my head around GMOs, mostly built by passive listening to the conversation in our culture over some years. You can argue with that story, but it's exhausting.] I think you are caught in the gears of the working out of this vast cultural argument.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

tosser0004 9y ago

I don’t for a moment believe GMOs are in anyway harmful. I do wonder though if they have had the effect of fueling population growth, without necessarily helping the hungry. It’s often stated that GMOs are needed to feed the growing population, but I get the sense that the most of the benefits go to just increasing population and not lowering the raw number of people who are actually undernourished. In a world without GMOs would there be fewer total people and would that be better than the alternative?

sandov 9y ago
Also. It's disheartening to see that no one wants to discuss if population growth is actually something desirable in the long run. Everyone cares only about the immediate economic necessities.
thaumaturgy 9y ago
All available evidence indicates that as a society stabilizes and the long-term health and viability of children improves, then population growth slows down. If you want fewer people in the world, help them live longer.
sampo 9y ago
They actually had this same discussion in the 1960s when the original "green revolution" used plant breeding and fertilization to increased crop yields dramatically. If they had done then as you propose, half of the people today in Third World, or having Third World grandparents, would not exist today. How many of your friends and family would not exist? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution#Malthusian_criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution#Malthusian_cr...
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  We are paying for this now though. Soil depletion is a thing, as is the increase in pesticide use. GMO are currently being deployed to fix the pesticide problem without breaking the economics...

The_Echo_Dies 9y ago

As a person trained in scientific thought and practice, I am against GMO research for the simple reason that it is one of the main factors enabling runaway population growth. The community involved in GMO research often cite the need to feed growing numbers of people (the author of this article, for one) as one of the motivators of their work, but they never seem to openly acknowledge the fact that they themselves are contributing to the problem they claim to help solve. Based on this alone I wish the entire field could be massively curtailed, if not entirely shut down. The earth needs far less people, not more, and this type of research seems to be making the odds of a future population crisis higher, not lower. Please note that I'm not at all questioning the actual science or the validity of the topic as a research area - merely the impact that said activities have upon the real world, impacts that I don't believe we can ignore.

binarypaean 9y ago

It seems like Taleb et al captured the nebulous fears many people have around GMOs fairly rigorously with the "Precautionary Principle"[1]. I see some people attempt to refute that paper with specific evidence of safety for some GMOs, but have not seen a work that deals fundamentally with section "X"; which or how GMOs can be sufficiently "non-global". [1]https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.5787.pdf

sampo 9y ago
Taleb is a skilled writer, I give him that. But he doesn't know anything about biology. From section X.B: "GMOs have the propensity to spread uncontrollably, and thus their risks cannot be localized. The crossbreeding of wild-type plants with genetically modified ones prevents their disentangling, leading to irreversible system-wide effects with unknown downsides." Now, the very reason crop plants (GMO or not) cannot spread uncontrollably is tightly coupled to why they are crop plants. They are not poisonous, they are easy to eat, and they produce a good yield. A dream come true for every plant-eating animal. That's why they are crop plants. But they wouldn't stand a snowball's chance in hell in the wild nature, animals and insects would eat them quickly. Wild plants invest a lot of effort to not being eaten (unless they want to, for seed spreading purposes). There are no cases of crop plants having invaded back to wild nature. Perhaps there is an odd canola plant that escaped a field and grows on a roadside or by an abandoned gas station somewhere, but these are also situations where humans first cleared the wild plants and bared the soil before the canola was able to set roots. Crop plants don't spread outside of the farmers' fields, and GMO breeding is not trying to change that. (If they wanted to breed competitive wild plants, they'd use wild plants as the starting stock.)
- ripsawridge 9y ago
  Very interesting. I've heard stories of the GMO spreading to another farmers field, causing some problems. But that field is mostly devoid of insects, so it's easy for the GMO to live there. I still think that a fear of "irreversible system-wide effects with unknown downsides" will persist, despite the good sense of your argument. Also, as a technologist, I know that we move from solving easier problems to more complex ones. Who is to say that GMO tech isn't just beginning in farmers' fields, and that flush with success in that space, all those engineers, technology and know-how will happily move on to the Next Big Problem. This might be in wild-plant space.

thaumaturgy 9y ago

This is the major issue that prevents me from self-identifying as a progressive. The arguments are strikingly similar to arguments over vaccines causing autism; no matter how many times you debunk the myths and fantasies and throw facts at the irrational fears, progressives just keep coming back to the position that "GMOs are scary". And, like anti-vaxxers, this has a real negative impact on human and ecological health. I wish there was some kind of "yay, science!" political movement that would advocate for applying science in ways intended to improve human health and happiness in both the short and long term (which would include funding further GMO research).

sova 9y ago

Isn't GMO old hat now that we are using Gene Editing? "There is another reason gene editing is causing excitement in industry. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has concluded that the new plants are not “regulated articles.” The reason is a legal loophole: its regulations apply only to GMOs constructed using plant pathogens like bacteria, or their DNA." https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609230/these-are-not-your-fathers-gmos/ https://www.technologyreview.com/s/609230/these-are-not-your...

_devang 9y ago
I cited the same link in my article. But there are uses of GM technology that cannot be achieved using gene editing. The best example is Bt crops for insect resistance. This is a hugely important trait that is only possible through genetic engineering.