The DNA Network |
| Reviews of Tomorrow's Table [Tomorrow's Table] Posted: 10 Sep 2008 08:20 PM CDT Reviews of Tomorrow's Table --Stewart Brand, creator of the Whole Earth Catalog "Here's a persuasive case that, far from contradictory, the merging of genetic engineering and organic farming offers our best shot at truly sustainable agriculture. I've seen no better introduction to the ground truth of genetically engineered crops and the promising directions this 'appropriate technology' is heading." Michael Pollan, author of In Defense of Food and The Omnivore's Dilemma "Whether you ultimately agree with it or not, Tomorrow's Table bring a fresh approach to the debate over transgenic crops."-- L. Val Giddings, President, PrometheusAB "Welcome as water in the desert-at a time when partisans compete to see who can deliver the hardest slam against those who think differently, what a welcome surprise to find this book building bridges between unnecessary antagonists. The developers of crops improved through biotechnology and the practitioners of organic agriculture want the same thing-a way to grow food that helps farmers tread more gently on the land. Ronald and Adamchak explain how simpatico these two approaches are at heart. For a future that will bring unprecedented challenges we will need all the tools we can muster. Tomorrow's Table shows how organic and biotech can coexist and complement one another. Bravo, and bring on Volume II."-- Peter H. Raven, President, Missouri Botanical Garden "A unique, personal perspective on the ways in which genetically enhanced crops can improve wholesome agricultural productivity, helping to achieve the low chemical inputs that are the goal of organic agriculture and of those who care about our environment and health. Highly recommended."-- -Sir Gordon Conway KCMG FRS, Professor of International Development, Centre for Environmental Policy, Imperial College, London, and past President of the Rockefeller Foundation, from his foreword "This book is a tale of two marriages. The first is that of Raoul and Pam, the authors, and is a tale of the passions of an organic farmer and a plant genetic scientist. The second is the potential marriage of two technologies-organic agriculture and genetic engineering. ... Like all good marriages, both include shared values, lively tensions, and reinvigorating complementarities. [The authors] share a strong sense of both the wonder of the natural world and how, if treated with respect and carefully managed, it can remain a source of inspiration and provision of our daily needs."- Booklist, April 1, 2008 With the world's population projected to grow some 50 percent by mid-century, rigorous agricultural planning becomes indispensable to forestall the onset of ecological and human disaster. Ronald and Adamchak, a wife-husband team from the University of California at Davis, combine the training and insights of a geneticist and the know-how of a committed organic farmer. They examine the often-passionate debate about genetically engineered food and how it may affect the food supply of the future, meticulously dissecting arguments for and against such application of science. This wildly eccentric book juxtaposes deep scientific analysis of genetically engineered agriculture with recipes for such homey kitchen staples as cornbread and chocolate chip cookies. In a marvelously useful table, they outline a history of biological technology from 4000 BC through the dawn of the twenty-first century. A glossary of agricultural genetics and an extensive bibliography supplement the text. —Mark Knoblauch Seed Magazine Genetically-engineered versus organically-grown. It's a choice often framed as being between science and nature, but it's a false one, says this wife-husband team. In a literal marriage of two entrenched camps, Ronald, a plant genomics researcher at UC Davis, and Adamchak, an organic gardener, shed light on the unfounded fears of gene modification and the merits a more-holistic approach to agriculture. Recipes include "Sticky Rice with GE Papaya" and "Isolation of DNA from Organically- Grown Strawberries." - The Sacramento News & Review Opposites attract By Kate Washington At first glace, the relationship between organic food farming and genetic engineering might seem adversarial. Certainly, we'd expect proponents of the former to be hostile to the latter. But it ain't necessarily so—or so goes the argument of Tomorrow's Table, a new book by Davis residents Pamela C. Ronald and Raoul W. Adamchak. On an anecdotal level, they seem to be living proof that the two can be paired: Ronald is a professor in the department of plant pathology at UC Davis whose research focuses on genetically engineering rice for disease resistance; Adamchak is an organic farmer, formerly of the celebrated Full Belly Farm and now at UC Davis' certified organic farm; and the two are married, so clearly, some proponents of these seemingly very different approaches to food production can get along. Ronald and Adamchak's thesis will no doubt be controversial, but it makes good sense. They contend that genetically engineering certain plants for certain traits—resistance to pests, for instance—is one way to improve farming and food-production methods without relying on the enormous amounts of fertilizers and pesticides currently being pumped into fields. As the authors point out, the world's population is growing fast, and supporting it through environmentally sustainable farming will require some new ideas. One of which, they say, can be the wedding of genetic engineering and organics—concepts that aren't as black and white, or as diametrically opposed, as many assume. The advocacy is balanced, though frequently impassioned, and chapters cover the nature of organics and GE, respectively; how GE is done, technically; whether GE food poses special risks (adducing GE food that has been consumed safely for years, such as papaya); conservation; the problem of weeds; and the problems of seed and gene ownership, proposing some innovative solutions to keep new varieties in the public domain. The book ends with a chapter, "Deconstructing Dinner," that seems partially inspired by Michael Pollan's approach in The Omnivore's Dilemma, tracing the origin of a dinner eaten by Ronald and Adamchak's family—complete with some delicious-sounding recipes, like a plum kuchen. Local readers may also take special enjoyment in picking out references to regional foods and farmers. The book's unusual format—the two authors switch off chapters and range stylistically from personal anecdote to hard science—makes for a lively read, even through some fairly dry and technical material. (The one seriously awkward part of the writing is the stilted nature of recalled "conversations" transcribed for the book—many are rather obviously reconstructed, and they break the flow.) Along the way, you can even find out how to isolate DNA from a strawberry at home—assuming you have a zip-lock bag, an organic berry and some ice-cold ethanol lying around. Some of the most powerful parts of Tomorrow's Table are also the most personal—even aside from the simple example of the authors' marriage. In a discussion of the risk of GE foods, for instance, Ronald describes how assiduously she avoided risky foods when pregnant with her first child—and then reveals, painfully, that their son was stillborn because of an unpreventable umbilical-cord accident. It's an associative style of argumentation, to be sure, but no less affecting for it as an example of how "all the essentials of life—food, family, and work—have associated risks," Ronald writes, continuing, "In the end, we can only gather the most accurate information from reliable sources and make the best choices possible. I know the GE crops currently on the market are no more risky to eat than the rest of the food in our refrigerator." Adamchak's farming experiences are similarly rendered with immediacy and verve; the hard work of clearing weeds and battling pests comes through clearly and we see why he (and other farmers) might wish to explore technologies that improve organic farming. Such arguments, as Ronald herself admits in other sections of the book, may not convince die-hard anti-GE types. But this book, with its fresh and intriguing premise, its unconventional style and its passion for improving farming and food production, is worth reading with an open mind. "If you care about food, you would be well-served by reading Tomorrow's Table" Karl Mogel, geneticist, blogger, radio show host and journalist, has just posted a review of Tomorrow's Table. Here is teaser from the review: "The chapter on politics... begins with a grisly scene..." Read on While I was in the process of applying for graduate school, in late 2006, I was chasing down a letter of recommendation from my former boss, and somehow, the conversation turned to a book he was asked to proof-read. That book, a year and a half later, was to be published as Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming and the Future of Food, by Pamela Ronald and Raoul W. Adamchak. Pamela Ronald is a rice geneticist and genetic engineer, the chair of the plant genomics program at UC Davis, now also the Director of Grass Genetics at the Joint Bioenergy Research Institute in Emeryville. (She is also a former professor of mine.) The second author, Raoul, is an organic farmer, who runs the UC Davis Student Farm's Market Garden, a stone's throw from where I used to garden in Davis. When I first heard about it in production, I couldn't wait to read this book, because I knew what it would be about, an idea that both Pam and Raoul have promoted and embody in their lives. You see, Pam and Raoul are married, and they think Organic Agriculture and Genetic Engineering should be, too. Tomorrow's Table opens with a concise explanation of relevant concepts, to get everyone on board the same train. For those who are not familiar with plant breeding, genetic engineering, or what the differences are between organic and conventional agriculture. With a forward by Sir Gordon Conway, they are ready to demonstrate to the reader that the political lines as currently drawn, that keep genetically engineered crops out of organic agriculture, are not only arbitrary but may be keeping us from realizing truly sustainable agriculture. Their strategy is to take turns at the dinner table - sometimes literally - to lay it all out. Alternating with each chapter, Pam teaches a course on genetics, explaining and comparing plant breeding and genetic engineering, while Raoul takes you onto the farm and describes how the organic folks do things differently. An analogy emerges in the book, although not explicitly stated, between Raoul's trusty pocketknife and Pam's restriction enzymes - molecular scissors that are used to snip DNA into pieces to be stitched together. How does the scale of the cutting tool determine whether or not you can use it in an organic system? Next, Pam delves into many of the issues surrounding genetic engineering: Safety, regulations, politics, and how to figure out what is true or not. Does the information come from a trusted source such as a peer-reviewed scientific journal, or a biotech company or an activist group? Are the fearful warnings about 'frankenfood' destroying the planet likely to be true or instead false alarms? Pam brings in the research of a sociologist who found that the source of the warnings are a very good predictor of whether or not they are true or false. Not to give it all away, but the warning's aren't exactly coming from the most reliable sources. The chapter on politics, I might add, begins with a grisly scene: my home county of Sonoma, CA, embroiled in an anti-GE measure, proposition M. Farms and houses were littered with Yes and No on M, which would have made it illegal to grow or sell GE crops in the county. The most wide-sweeping measure of its kind in the country, it even, accidentally, would have banned medicines based on genetic engineering. Fortunately, it failed. Next, they plow through each of the classic issues brought up in discussions of genetic engineering. Trust, risks, the environment, gene flow, and seed and genetic ownership. It turns out that GE does not conflict with the regular practices and goals of organic agriculture today, and the distinction is merely political (and social). They end with a Pollan-esque deconstruction of their food choices. Without a doubt, this is one of the most informed books I have read on the topic of genetic engineering in agriculture, which neither over-blows nor undercuts the significance of its achievements and promise, and they recognize that GE has issues ahead of it when it comes to intellectual property and consumer acceptance. On organic agriculture as well, they are well-measured in their enthusiasm for a more biological method of growing food, which can reduce the need for agricultural inputs like pesticides and fertilizers, but still has many challenges ahead of it. Garden of Eden it is not… yet. Many GE traits such as drought tolerance, enhanced nitrogen uptake, pest resistance, and disease resistance would work beautifully in an organic agricultural system of agriculture Most of the critics of genetic engineering have ties to the organic sector of food production in one way or another, and I often hear people enthusiastic about genetic engineering who sneer about organic's small, yet growing acreage. The animosity between the two camps hurts both efforts, especially because they are often working toward the same goal - sustainable agriculture that you can sink your teeth into. For this reason every critic, skeptic, cynic, advocate, or eavesdropper of either genetic engineering or organic agriculture issues, should check out this book. It is written for them. Heck, it should be read by any person who wants to be able to have a full meal of delicious, healthy food 20 years from now. If you care about food, you would be well-served by reading Tomorrow's Table. Literally. You will be well served by their unique style of bringing the genetics and diversity of food right to your dinner table - because they also included their favorite recipes. Enjoy "Waxy" mutant rice, which Thai restaurateurs know as sticky rice, along with GE papaya and sweet coconut sauce. Or how about corn bread made with GE canola oil and corn meal, and buttermilk? Delicious! By including recipes in a book about food issues, they are connecting their tastes in food to the reader, especially their tastes in the genetics and growing methods behind the food that Raoul and Pam choose to eat and feed to their children. They start and end with the question of what kind of agriculture we want, and the answer is emphatically and convincingly, this one. And stay tuned for an interview with Pam and Raoul on the Mindcast! The Davis Food Coop, our local grocery store, has come out with a review of Tomorrow's Table. Here is our response to the review: A local, fresh perspective on genetic engineering and organic farming Our existing agricultural system, while productive, has serious problems that negatively effect the environment and it's inhabitants. These problems are caused by the overuse of pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, and farming practices that lead to soil erosion. A major goal of sustainable agriculture is to greatly reduce or eliminate these problems while maintaining yields and farm incomes. In our book, Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food, we suggest a few essential ideas to help forge a more sustainable agriculture. We advocate adopting technologies or farming practices that: Produce abundant, safe and nutritious food Reduce harmful environmental inputs Provide healthful conditions for farm workers Protect the genetic make-up of native species Enhance crop genetic diversity Foster soil fertility Improve the lives of the poor and malnourished Maintain the economic viability of farmers and rural communities Not surprisingly, given our expertise, we believe that organic farming and genetic engineering each have something to contribute to a sustainable agriculture. Rather than embracing "GE crops as the unqualified answer" as Miller states in her review of our book, we advocate that each new approach be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in light of these criteria. An appropriate technology for food and farming, as asserted by the economist Schumacher in his book Small is Beautiful, should promote health, beauty, and permanence. It should be low cost and low maintenance. Considering Schumacher's ideas and our goals for ecological farming, it is apparent that GE will sometimes be appropriate for crop production and sometimes not. This is because GE is simply a tool that can be applied to a multitude of uses, depending on the needs of farmers, and consumers. Still, as we attempt to show in our book, GE comprises many of the properties advocated by Schumacher. It is a relatively simple technology that scientists in most countries, including many developing countries, have perfected. The product of GE technology, a seed, requires no extra maintenance or additional farming skills. GE seeds can be saved and then passed down from generation to generation and improved along the way. It is therefore clear that humans will likely reap many significant and life-saving benefits from GE. This is because even incremental increases in the nutritional content, disease resistance, yield, or stress tolerance of crops can go a long way to enhancing the health and well-being of farmers and their families. Applications of GE have already been used to reduce the adverse environmental effects of farming and enable farmers to produce and sell more food locally. For example, when small-scale papaya farmers in Hawaii were confronted with a devastating viral disease, GE papaya was the most appropriate approach (funded by non-profit sources and distributed free to growers) to restore the industry. There were no conventional or organic methods to control the disease then, nor are there now. GE crops in combination with organic techniques have already helped farmers in less developed countries. For example flooding is a major problem for millions of farmers that live on less than a dollar a day in Bangladesh, and India. Yet for over 50 years, breeders were unsuccessful in developing flood-resistant rice using conventional breeding. Today, using advanced genetic techniques, we (Pam and her colleagues) have been able to produce such a variety that has been embraced by growers because of its 2-5 fold higher yield in flood zones. Scientists predict that the lives of thousands of children dying from vitamin-A deficiency will be saved once GE rice fortified with precursors to vitamin A (so-called "Golden Rice") is released in 2011. The best way to determine if practices are effective is through scientific study and peer review. Trying to evaluate agricultural technology without peer-reviewed science is like trying to determine if there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq without inspections. When scientific information is available, we should use it. For example we now know that the introduction of GE cotton has dramatically reduced the use of insecticides in the US and abroad. In fields where the GE cotton is not used, the scientific data on the effects of chemical insecticides on insect biodiversity are unequivocal; they devastate local populations. In regards to eating GE foods currently on the market, the overall issue is health. We would be quite concerned if genes in GE crops could harm people. But this is not the case. There is broad scientific consensus that the GE crops on the market are safe to eat. Over the last 15 years, 1 billion acres have been planted and not a single instance of harm to human health or the environment has been documented. In contrast, each year tens of thousands of people are poisoned by pesticides. Agricultural advances need to be shared globally. The oft-repeated idea that because we have an abundance of food to eat in the US (thanks to good soils and abundant water and advances made by geneticists, farmers and breeders), we don't need to continue to improve crops in other countries is short-sighted. It doesn't make sense for the US to grow food and ship it to Africa or S. Asia where people cannot afford to buy it. Plus it takes precious energy to move it. Farmers in less developed countries need their own local production, improved seed, farming practices and sound government policies. That way they can feed themselves, just as we do here. Pitting genetic engineering and organic farming against each other only prevents the transformative changes needed on our farms. Rather than opposing all applications of a particular technology, lets direct the technology to help forge a sustainable agriculture. In the words Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring (1962): "A truly extraordinary variety of alternatives to the chemical control of insects is available. Some are already in use and have achieved brilliant success. Others are in the stage of laboratory testing. Still others are little more than ideas in the minds of imaginative scientists, waiting for the opportunity to put them to the test. All have this in common: they are biological solutions, based on understanding of the living organisms they seek to control, and of the whole fabric of life to which these organisms belong. Specialists representing various areas of the vast field of biology are contributing—entomologists, pathologists, geneticists, physiologists, biochemists, ecologists—all pouring their knowledge and their creative inspirations into the formation of a new science of biotic controls." Pam and Raoul, Davis Food Coop shareholders since 1980 "Tomorrow's Table" is now available in the coop. To view peer-reviewed citations, learn more about GE and organic farming, to see other reviews of the book, or to continue this dialog, please check out Pam's blog at http://pamelaronald.blogspot.com "A must read for those interested in GMOs and/or the organic farming movement" Check out the review of Tomorrow's Table by evolutionary biologist Jonathan Eisen. Here are my favorite parts of his review (just a little cherry picking here): "I personally like the book a great deal, and enjoy how it switches back and forth between the authors (Pam and her husband Raoul Adamchak) and how it interweaves personal stories with discussion of the science and practice of organic farming and plant genetic engineering... ...the book really is a must read for those interested in GMOs and/or the organic farming movement as well those thinking about "slow food" and other related topics. In addition it is a wonderful personlized story, with a mixture of recipes, stories of research, discussions of teaching about organic agriculture, and some minor family drama. For the same reason that I like Amy Harmon's New York Times stories (such as the recent one on evolution) I like this book - it personalizes what is frequently a boring impersonal discussion..." Jonathan's full review: Tony Trewavas has an interesting review (Redefining "Natural" in Agriculture) in PLoS Biology of my friend and colleague Pam Ronald's new book "Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics and the Future of Food." I was planning on eventually writing my own review of her book but not sure when I will get to it. I personally like the book a great deal, and enjoy how it switches back and forth between the authors (Pam and her husband Raoul Adamchak) and how it interweaves personal stories with discussion of the science and practice of organic farming and plant genetic engineering. Trewaras has some things in the review I agree with a great deal like "The text deals with many of the questions raised by the public about GE crops in a sensible and balanced manner, quoting various sources of reliable information on the concerns about risks to health and environment that often recur. It also mentions Richard Jefferson, who is Chairman of CAMBIA, a non-profit organisation that attempts to make the tools of biotechnology widely and freely available (http://www.cambia.org/). As a scientist, I cannot help but applaud!" I personally love what CAMBIA is doing and found the discussion of CAMBIA in the book to be interesting. I have gotten to know Richard Jefferson over the last few years and think he is a true pioneer in revolutionizing biotechnology and freeing it from the shackles of over protectionism. Trewavas also has a very interesting thread about the value of different opinions. Since this was printed in PLoS Biology and is under a CC license I can reprint it here (with acknowledgment of the source - Citation: Trewavas T (2008) Redefining "Natural" in Agriculture. PLoS Biol 6(8): e199 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060199) and it is worth doing so: The continuing conversation did not resolve the issues between them. It convinced me, however (if I needed convincing), that while everyone is entitled to their opinions, when dealing with detailed technical matters of science or medicine or any subject that requires enormous qualifications and experience, the notion that all opinions have equal validity is simply downright wrong. If you want real information on the safety of heart surgery procedures, do you follow the advice of a qualified heart surgeon or the local butcher? If you want advice on flying a jumbo jet, do you ask the local bus driver or a pilot with 10,000 hours of experience flying jumbo jets? And if you want advice on how to captain a supertanker, do you ask a person whose experience is limited to rowing a dinghy? Mistakes by surgeons are not uncommon, 70% of air crashes result from pilot error, and occasionally supertankers hit the rocks. But relying on rank amateurs instead of professionals would guarantee instant catastrophe. Many branches of science are very complex. However, being a scientist isn't enough, of course, as being a scientist doesn't qualify you to advise on any subject except your specialty. To provide advice that can lead to sensible policy requires not only a thorough understanding of the workings and literature of the particular scientific area but many decades of experience in that field. It is unfortunate that for the past 40 years, agriculture in particular has been damaged by opinionated groups of the public that have forcefully used fear and anxiety and carefully selected information to try and coerce policy makers to adopt their own mistaken and unqualified views. Fear and emotion do not make for good policy. I applaud Ronald's conclusion that "if citizens vote, it should be for a specific matter on which they are well informed, not because of general concerns about a new technology." The corollary is that on most technical matters, the public can never be well enough informed. If scientific knowledge does not form the basis of policy on technology, basing such policy on ignorance can be guaranteed to generate disaster. It was Slovik in his classic Perception of Risk [3] who demonstrated that non-experts overestimate the frequency of death from rare causes while underestimating the frequency of common causes of death, and who established clearly how additional knowledge changed expert understanding. The use of the local ordinance by activist groups to stop GE farming is only too reminiscent of the damage done by Lysenkoism to Soviet farming in the 40s, which took decades to recover from, once it was abandoned. Basically, he is indirectly agreeing with Ronald/Adamchak that some negative opinions of GE are simply not valid. Here I think I disagree with all of them. I think much of the objection to GE modification of plants is an esthetic objection and thus presenting scientific arguments for why it is OK to do is a bit off tangent. It is kind of like when someone says "that house is ugly." Do you respond by saying "Well, actually, the shape and color patterns have been shown to appeal to human sensory systems" Not too helpful. I feel that the same is happening with GE plants --- if people's instinctively do not like them, telling them about the science is not necessarily going to help. Nothing wrong with educating about the science, but I think it is a red herring to say that some of the anti-GE folks do not understand the science and therefore their objections must be wrong. I feel similar vibes in the evolution education discussion going on around the world. I think many people latch on to ID and Creationism because it appeals to them in a esthetic sense. And one needs to be really gentle/careful about bringing science into the discussion (except of course, when one is teaching a science class --- then you teach the science). So sure - I have some quibbles about parts of the book. As does Trewavas (he has to raise some objections - any book review that does not have them seems like fan mail and not a review). Despite my quibbles here and there, the book really is a must read for those interested in GMOs and/or the organic farming movement as well those thinking about "slow food" and other related topics. In addition it is a wonderful personlized story, with a mixture of recipes, stories of research, discussions of teaching about organic agriculture, and some minor family drama. For the same reason that I like Amy Harmon's New York Times stories (such as the recent one on evolution) I like this book - it personalizes what is frequently a boring impersonal discussion. And of course it does not hurt that the heart of the story / discussion is good. Ronald/Adamchak present an overall idea I have a hard time arguing against - GE and organic growth practices both have a lot to offer the world and if we took the good parts of both, a "GE-Organic" system might be highly beneficial to all. For example, in principle, GE plants can lead to a reduction in the use of pesticides and fertilizer. Similarly, they could lead to a reduction in water use and higher crop yields. Since it seems unlikely that the current organic movement will embrace the benefits of GE crops, it will probably require a whole new movement to merge the two. It will also require the companies and organizations that push GE to do it with the environment and health of people and the planet in mind. To me, the biggest problem with GE food and farming is that it seems to be used more to help the farmers and the companies selling stuff than the consumers and the public. If that changed, I can see people embracing GE plants in much the same way they embrace GE medicines. PS - For more on the book see Pam's blog here. Posted by Jonathan Eisen at 8/27/2008 08:19:00 A "I highly recommend the book" says Sean Feder By WES SANDER For the Capital Press Pamela Ronald and Raoul Adamchak say they're not proposing a seismic change in mainstream farming practices - just the next step in a long evolution. Ronald and Adamchak are the husband-and-wife authors of the book "Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics and the Future of Food," published in April. Ronald is a professor of plant pathology and chair of the Plant Genomics Program at the University of California-Davis; Adamchak manages UC-Davis' organic farm. "It's not so much replacing conventional agriculture as (altering it)," Adamchak said. The authors advocate combining genetically engineered crops with organic growing practices as a means of feeding the world in a sustainable manner. They say they've heard criticism from both sides. The organic-farming community tends to show a protectiveness of federal organic-certification standards, they say. Defined by federal rules in the 1990s, organic certification cannot be awarded to any crop created through genetic modification. But these authors don't want to mess with organic standards. "One of the things we're encountering is that people are posing this false choice - conventional or organic?" Ronald said. Those categories tend to be defined by current realities. For example, bioengineered crops are often connected with large corporations that control the distribution, pricing and use of seeds. Observers describe such practices as counterproductive in impoverished regions of the globe. Ronald and Adamchak are not advocating any current market structures - they're describing the value of two growing systems from the perspective of agricultural science. As organic farming gained popularity in the last 15 years, bioengineering has also ascended the market. Now, bio-engineered crops account for 50 to 90 percent of commercial crops for which they are available, the authors say - notably cotton, corn, canola and papaya. When a virus nearly wiped out Hawaii's papaya crop in the mid-1990s, scientists responded by engineering a resistant strain. Today, that strain accounts for most of Hawaii's papaya crop, allowing for a reduction of chemical usage. Engineered crops do have their limits. Chinese cotton growers found success with a bio-engineered crop that is resistant to caterpillars. But when they found it susceptible to other pests, they turned again to chemical pesticides. Ronald and Adamchak say those growers might still have avoided chemicals by combining the bio-engineered plant with organic growing techniques, such as crop rotation and integrated pest management. It's that sort of combining of practices that is necessary to feed the world's population in a sustainable manner, the authors say. Because they cannot use chemical crop applications, organic growers rely on the best-performing seeds they can get, Adamchak said. Those seeds were developed through selective breeding, a technique by which new strains have been created for centuries. The end result of that process, Ronald says, is no different from what is created by laboratory methods. "To me it doesn't matter if it's genetically engineered or conventionally bred," she said. Ronald has worked for years with several other researchers to modify a rice strain to tolerate consecutive weeks of submergence beneath floodwaters. The findings were published in 2006, and the rice has become popular in Bangladesh, where flooding periodically destroys rice crops. "We have to put things in perspective, and I think people are fixated on how dangerous (genetic engineering) is, without knowledge to back it up," said Sean Feder, an agricultural professional who oversees organic-crop inspections in California. Feder works for California Certified Organic Farmers and stressed that his opinions are not his employer's. "I highly recommend the book," he said. "I think we can use a bit more of an open mind." Freelance writer Wes Sander is based in Sacramento. E-mail: wes@wessander.com. Review of Tomorrow's Table: A soothing draught and an easy glide This review just in from Edible East Bay, a quarterly newsletter that celebrates the abundance of local foods, season by season: "Our world is facing several converging crises—environmental, social, and political—that are affecting, or will affect, the availability of food to all people. This convergence on the issue of food is making our food policies and production practices more visible than ever. Genetic engineering has become a topic of hot debate in this climate, and it is long overdue for citizens to educate themselves on the matter... In Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food, we hear from practitioners in the field of genetic engineering: Pamela Ronald, professor of plant pathology and chair of the Plant Genomics Program at UC Davis, and her husband, Raoul Adamchak, a veteran organic farmer who assists in his wife's research. The two believe that the technology can be (and is being) put to work to the benefit of humanity and global environmental stewardship. In these confusing times, I for one find such creative solutions to the world's problems to be a soothing draught, and the arguments put forth in this book are compelling enough to make one want to rethink the whole matter. Ronald and Adamchak wrote the book, tag-team. It's such an easy glide that we are happily led back through lessons we once slept through in high school, like basic biology and what constitutes the scientific method. This book also includes memorable characters, recipes, and a fabulous glossary of terms useful in the debate over genetic engineering." Cheryl Koehler Check out the latest review of "Tomorrow's Table" published in PLoS Biology. Redefining "Natural" in Agriculture Tony Trewavas Citation: Trewavas T (2008) Redefining "Natural" in Agriculture. PLoS Biol 6(8): e199 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060199 Published: August 19, 2008 Copyright: © 2008 Tony Trewavas. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Abbreviations: GE, genetically engineered Tony Trewavas is with the Institute of Molecular Plant Science, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, United Kingdom. E-mail:trewavas@ed.ac.uk The place of genetically modified crops in sustainable agriculture has been the subject of heated debate for decades. A new book takes an innovative approach to this debate by presenting the perspectives of an unlikely pair of co-authors [1]. Pam Ronald is a plant molecular biologist, genetic engineer, and supporter of genetically engineering crops for the benefit of humanity. Raoul Adamchak is an organic farmer. Given the known antagonism of many organic advocates to genetically engineered (GE) crops, one would not have thought these two authors would be able to provide an agreed text. But Adamchak is married to Ronald and, to judge from the text, happily so. The authorship of the individual chapters alternates between the two. The subject matter deals with organic farming methods, GE methods, questions of environmental conservation, risk, trust, and ownership of seeds and genes. The last chapter, and the only one written jointly, concludes that some marriage of organic and GE technology will represent the agriculture of the future. I must admit to holding the same view some 15 years ago, but not now. I assumed that the use of GE technology would be rather like the green revolution. Universities and research institutes would make new crop plants available and free to those that needed them. What has intervened of course for GE is the input of commercialism, which has muddied the waters. Organic farming is not immune to commercial pressures either, and there are strong suspicions that the organic industry's antagonism to GE is a marketing ploy. Mutated crops, induced by radiation, for example, have been used for many years by conventional and organic farmers alike, and it is now known that radiation mutation causes much greater genomic change than GE technology [2]. The text deals with many of the questions raised by the public about GE crops in a sensible and balanced manner, quoting various sources of reliable information on the concerns about risks to health and environment that often recur. It also mentions Richard Jefferson, who is Chairman of CAMBIA, a non-profit organisation that attempts to make the tools of biotechnology widely and freely available (http://www.cambia.org/). As a scientist, I cannot help but applaud! A substantial part of the book gives accounts of conversations between Pam Ronald and others about GE, enabling her to easily justify why it is supported by many in universities. I particularly enjoyed an account of one conversation between Pam Ronald and a relative (a lawyer) who argued against GE crops. This particular discussion started because several counties of California had voted on an ordinance that would have banned GE farming. The relative had voted for the ordinance. I quote several passages to give a flavour to this discussion. Lawyer: "I voted for the ordinance because it will send a message to the large corporations that the onus is on them to prove their products are safe." Ronald: "I point out that the ordinance contained no language concerning the role of corporations and I mention that the US National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society in London (the supreme scientific bodies in these countries) have both indicated that these crops are safe." Lawyer: "Even if they are safe to eat I don't like the idea that many of the GE crops grown in the US are sprayed with herbicides." [The reference here is to glyphosate, used to control weeds in GE herbicide-tolerant crops.] Ronald: "The good thing about glyphosate is that it is known to be non-toxic to mammals and does not accumulate in water or in soil." Lawyer: "But even if the herbicide is non-toxic, I have read that there is a chemical mixed with the herbicide that can harm fish." [This refers to a surfactant used in some glyphosate formulations.] Ronald: "Well if it is the surfactant you object to, wouldn't it make more sense to simply ban the surfactant or the herbicide itself?" Lawyer: " It would be a political dead end to ban the herbicide because lots of people like to use it in their garden." The continuing conversation did not resolve the issues between them. It convinced me, however (if I needed convincing), that while everyone is entitled to their opinions, when dealing with detailed technical matters of science or medicine or any subject that requires enormous qualifications and experience, the notion that all opinions have equal validity is simply downright wrong. If you want real information on the safety of heart surgery procedures, do you follow the advice of a qualified heart surgeon or the local butcher? If you want advice on flying a jumbo jet, do you ask the local bus driver or a pilot with 10,000 hours of experience flying jumbo jets? And if you want advice on how to captain a supertanker, do you ask a person whose experience is limited to rowing a dinghy? Mistakes by surgeons are not uncommon, 70% of air crashes result from pilot error, and occasionally supertankers hit the rocks. But relying on rank amateurs instead of professionals would guarantee instant catastrophe. Many branches of science are very complex. However, being a scientist isn't enough, of course, as being a scientist doesn't qualify you to advise on any subject except your specialty. To provide advice that can lead to sensible policy requires not only a thorough understanding of the workings and literature of the particular scientific area but many decades of experience in that field. It is unfortunate that for the past 40 years, agriculture in particular has been damaged by opinionated groups of the public that have forcefully used fear and anxiety and carefully selected information to try and coerce policy makers to adopt their own mistaken and unqualified views. Fear and emotion do not make for good policy. I applaud Ronald's conclusion that "if citizens vote, it should be for a specific matter on which they are well informed, not because of general concerns about a new technology." The corollary is that on most technical matters, the public can never be well enough informed. If scientific knowledge does not form the basis of policy on technology, basing such policy on ignorance can be guaranteed to generate disaster. It was Slovik in his classic Perception of Risk [3] who demonstrated that non-experts overestimate the frequency of death from rare causes while underestimating the frequency of common causes of death, and who established clearly how additional knowledge changed expert understanding. The use of the local ordinance by activist groups to stop GE farming is only too reminiscent of the damage done by Lysenkoism to Soviet farming in the 40s, which took decades to recover from, once it was abandoned. Adamchak describes organic farming as working through biology and conventional farming as working through chemistry. The commonest reason the public gives for buying organic food is that it is natural (or biological; in France, organic food is described as biologique) and lacks "chemicals" because pesticides are not used to control pests. Adamchak's supposition is completely erroneous; plants have always used chemicals to control pests. Allelopathic plants kill other competing plants by secreting toxins from leaves and roots, and there are at least 100,000 natural toxins (pesticides) synthesised by higher plants to kill insect herbivores and found in all fruits and vegetables. When tested toxicologically on rodents, the daily average diet is known to contain natural pesticides that are nerve toxins, many carcinogens, endocrine disruptors (that either mimic oestrogen or induce male sterility), and other pesticides that interfere with cell division, cause chromosome breakage, or damage blood, skin, or thyroid. The list is remarkably similar to the claims made by activist groups about the biological effects of synthetic pesticides. We are not adapted to exposure to these natural chemicals. The dozen or so nerve toxins in potato have in the past killed at least 30 people and caused sickness in thousands [4]; another nerve toxin, cucurbitacin in organic courgettes, has caused illness in large numbers of people. The endocrine disruptors (genistein and others) in soy are actually recommended to menopausal women to mitigate the symptoms arising from lower oestrogen content, while psoralen in parsnip, figs, and celery causes damaging skin blisters, and so on. Natural pesticides represent about 1%–5% dry weight of any vegetable or fruit. There is a simple seesaw relation between yield and natural pesticide content. In crop breeding, the natural pesticide content has been reduced to increase yield, making produce safer for human consumption but now requiring additional synthetic pesticide to offset the reduced resistance. The margin of health safety for natural pesticides is small; for the traces of synthetic pesticides, it is enormous. If organic advocates object to the fact that traces of synthetic pesticides can be detected weeks after consumption, solanidine, one of the potato nerve toxins, has been shown to have a half life in the liver of several months. With present technology, the solanidine consumed in one potato could be detected years later, but this is almost the only natural pesticide whose biological stability has been examined. There is nothing unnatural about farmers using pesticides; biology uses chemistry to control pests. Natural certainly does not mean safe. Although I could offer many other criticisms of individual parts of the book, I greatly enjoyed reading it. The most important omission that cannot be glossed over, however, is that of agricultural context. Support for any kind of agricultural technology depends simply on the context of the times. There is an old saying: "one food, one problem, much food, many problems." For those whose next meal—and the next and the next—is a bowl of rice, other problems, such as whether food is organic or not, are of little consequence. Their one problem is where to get their next meal, and the only method of acceptable farming in this context is the one that gives the maximum yield, year in and year out. Wheat is grown on more acres worldwide than any other cereal. In the United Kingdom, average organic wheat yields are four tonnes per hectare whilst conventional yields are averaging eight. I regard the obsession amongst some for organic farming as merely a reflection of wealth, an apparent abundance of food, and a feeling that the problem of food security is solved. But the world for wealthy countries is changing. Global warming, greenhouse gas emissions, biofuels, and soaring oil and food prices are among the many new problems; food security is again becoming a hot topic. Environmental issues, clearly only part of the good times, are declining in relevance. Although Ronald and Adamchak mention no-till agriculture only briefly, this is surely the agriculture of the future. No-till farms produce only one third of the greenhouse gas emissions of an organic farm [5]. No-till eliminates soil erosion and improves environment, wildlife, and soil. Most importantly, it maintains a conventional yield. Currently 10% of United States farms are totally no-till, and another 60% are partially no-till; this achievement is due almost solely to the availability of GE herbicide-tolerant crops. No-till is not an amalgam of organic and GE technology but something that was derived from observations of nature in a very different way. Faulkner, the perceptive founder of no-till in 1943 [6], derived his revolutionary ideas from asking himself a very simple question: Why don't the prairies suffer from the present (1940s) problems of US agriculture? Faulkner's answer: the prairies are not subjected to that most damaging of all soil treatments: the plough. Leaving crop residues on the surface is the nearest any form of agriculture comes to mimicking the annual and natural cycle of the meadow. Herbicides are human "allelopathy" of weeds, and humans are part of nature too. If you want an agriculture that is nearest nature, then this is surely it. Ronald PC, Adamchak RW (2008) Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics and the Future of Food. New York: Oxford University Press. 232 p. ISBN (hardcover): 978-0195302755. US$29.95. References 1. Ronald PC, Adamchak RW (2008) Tomorrow's table: Organic farming, genetics and the future of food New York: Oxford University Press. 232 p. 2. Batistia R, Saibo N, Lourenco T, Oliveira MM (2008) Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105: 3640–3645. Find this article online 3. Slovik P (2000) The perception of risk London: Earthscan. 473 p. 4. Morris SC, Lee TH (1984) The toxicity and teratogenicity of solanaceae glycoalkaloids, particularly those of the potato: A review. Food Technol Australia 36: 118–124. Find this article online 5. Robertson GP, Paul EA, Harwood RR (2000) Greenhouse gases in intensive agriculture: Contributions of individual gases to the radiative forcing of the atmosphere. Science 289: 1922–1925. Find this article online 6. Faulkner E (1943) Plowman's folly New York: Grosset and Dunlap. 161 p. Tomorrow's Table in the classroom "I really enjoyed the book. It did a great job of keeping everything in perspective. Use again !" "Use again! A great resource and easy to understand" "The textbook was great. It had a story line to it. It was easy to remember." These are some of the comments from Oregon State University students who read the book, "Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics and the Future of Food". Steven Strauss, Distinguished Professor of Forest Biotechnology at Oregon State University, who directs the OSU Program for Outreach in Resource Biotechnology, chose the book for his course, which give students and the public scientifically reliable information about the use of genes and chemicals in agriculture and natural resources. Thanks Steve, for being the first to use it in the classroom! |
| Posted: 10 Sep 2008 05:03 PM CDT  Leaked to the bayblab from our very own ottawa/hull patent office. Now I have fully restored the poo/sex content to the bayblab: My product is a device composed of a cotton like material it is cylindrically shaped and bears small perforations whereby an agreable scented powder or perfume may exute it's odor. My product bears roughly the same dimensions of "TAMPON". My product is went to be wedged between the cheeks of the buttock. My product illiminates anal itching due to sweat accumulation and residual of human excrement due~~~~ improper or insuffient wiping of the anus after having gone to the washroom. My product absorbs excess anal sweat, creates a dry comfort zone My product illiminates embarrassing flatulance sounds. |
| Posted: 10 Sep 2008 04:53 PM CDT  Those of you who've listened to Ricky Gervais' podcast in the past might understand why monkey news was my favorite section. I've always had an uneasy fascination with monkeys and great apes. On the one hand I find it amazing that these species are so close to us, and I marvel at their behaviour and what it can teach us about ourselves. On the other hand I'm suspicious of anything that may be related to us. In fact I fear great apes more than I would fear a lion, because both can physically overpower me, but the ape may actually be able to outsmart me too.One topic we've discussed in the past is human rights and whether they should apply to our closest cousin. I find mildly amusing that we try to download our values to other species, when even amongst human societies we can't agree on universal rules. I know monkeys and apes have a sense of fairness, but do they have a sense of morality, and does that even make sense to non-human animals. So keep that in mind as you explore the links of monkey news: 1) The first is a rather graphic video of a love affair between a chimp and a frog. Most people I've shown this to reacted rather strongly to it. If you can't watch it, I might point out that the frog looks rather unharmed even if it might not have been quite consenting. My question is : is this depravity. Is the chimp doing something wrong? 2) I'm always surprised that more people don't know about the bonobo societies and their "make love not war" attitude. Unlike their more violent cousins the pan troglodytes (who wage wars, and uses spears) the bonobo (pan paniscus) resolve conflicts within a group mostly via bonding from sex. I'll forever have the images imprinted on my mind of the video I saw in high school biology showing chimp orgies which included masturbation, oral, homosexual, pedophilia and incest. A recent report shows that chimps also like hugs: "The research is said to provide the first evidence that consolation in primates, such as hugging and stroking, can reduce stress levels after a fight. The behaviour could indicate some level of empathy, Dr Orlaith Fraser told the British Association Science Festival." |
| A Genome Atlas of Brain Cancer [adaptivecomplexity's column] Posted: 10 Sep 2008 04:08 PM CDT The latest in a string of cancer genome sequencing papers is now online at Nature. |
| Nature Editors on the Complexity and Simplcity of Cancer [adaptivecomplexity's column] Posted: 10 Sep 2008 03:40 PM CDT Tomorrow's issue of Nature discusses the next steps in cancer research (subscription required for the full text):
|
| The Evolving Health Blogosphere: Report [ScienceRoll] Posted: 10 Sep 2008 02:11 PM CDT As Jan Martens has recently reported about it, Envision Solutions published a new study on the healthcare blogosphere. Some interesting excerpts:
Conclusion? As I stated in my recent slideshow from the Medicine 2.0 Congress, do not blog anonymously.
And just one more comment about bloggers who publish content from PR people. They send me a letter about a new medical service, I write about it so I can inform my readers, PR guys get promotion, everybody is happy. That’s how web 2.0 is supposed to work…         |
| Interactive Virtual Posters [ScienceRoll] Posted: 10 Sep 2008 01:52 PM CDT What to do when a scientist is fed up with using simple posters and would like to share their work in a new way? The solution was designed by SciVee.TV, an online scientific video site. Check Postercasts out.
You can present your work in a video and show some details through an interactive poster. A new step towards Science 2.0. (Hat Tip: Mashable)         |
| What’s on the web? (10 September 2008) [ScienceRoll] Posted: 10 Sep 2008 01:39 PM CDT
        |
| New issue of Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics [Yann Klimentidis' Weblog] Posted: 10 Sep 2008 12:04 PM CDT There's several interesting review papers in this new issue: Genetic Predisposition to Breast Cancer: Past, Present, and Future Clare Turnbull and Nazneen Rahman In recent years, our understanding of genetic predisposition to breast cancer has advanced significantly. Three classes of predisposition factors, categorized by their associated risks of breast cancer, are currently known. BRCA1 and BRCA2 are high-penetrance breast cancer predisposition genes identified by genome-wide linkage analysis and positional cloning. Mutational screening of genes functionally related to BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 has revealed four genes, CHEK2, ATM, BRIP1, and PALB2; mutations in these genes are rare and confer an intermediate risk of breast cancer. Association studies have further identified eight common variants associated with low-penetrance breast cancer predisposition. Despite these discoveries, most of the familial risk of breast cancer remains unexplained. In this review, we describe the known genetic predisposition factors, expound on the methods by which they were identified, and consider how further technological and intellectual advances may assist in identifying the remaining genetic factors underlying breast cancer susceptibility.African Genetic Diversity: Implications for Human Demographic History, Modern Human Origins, and Complex Disease Mapping Michael C. Campbell and Sarah A. Tishkoff Comparative studies of ethnically diverse human populations, particularly in Africa, are important for reconstructing human evolutionary history and for understanding the genetic basis of phenotypic adaptation and complex disease. African populations are characterized by greater levels of genetic diversity, extensive population substructure, and less linkage disequilibrium (LD) among loci compared to non-African populations. Africans also possess a number of genetic adaptations that have evolved in response to diverse climates and diets, as well as exposure to infectious disease. This review summarizes patterns and the evolutionary origins of genetic diversity present in African populations, as well as their implications for the mapping of complex traits, including disease susceptibility.this one looks especially good: Positive Selection in the Human Genome: From Genome Scans to Biological Significance Vol. 9: 143-160
|
| Let's talk about facts this election - Part VI - Family Values [The Daily Transcript] Posted: 10 Sep 2008 12:04 PM CDT A certain segment of the US population is obsessed with "family values" and the "culture wars". This has been on full display ever since Sarah Palin was nominated as McCain VP. But let's face it, the facts are often at odds with the religious right's core beliefs. This idea that the country's problems have to do with a lack of "family values" and the spread of "liberal, secular ideals" is wrong on so many levels. So where to start? Well I'm here to point out some facts. And here's one for you: divorce correlates with religiosity. Yes it's true, the more religious you are the more likely you are to get a divorce. That's the facts. From a famous study from the Barna group: Religion, % have been divorced Jews 30% You can look at this by region too. The Bible belt is the nation's capitol of divorce. The place with the lowest divorce rate? The Northeast: Area, % are or have been divorced The Barna group, a pro-religious entity whose vision is "To provide leadership and unique, strategic information and resources that help facilitate spiritual transformation in America" no longer has these numbers available on its website. But they are all over the web (infact I've posted about these stats before). And in case you think this was one study or a fluke, the AP had a follow up study. From the Boston Globe: The AP report stated that 'the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average of 4.2 per thousand people.' The 10 Southern states with some of the highest divorce rates were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. By comparison nine states in the Northeast were among those with the lowest divorce rates: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. So what is the meaning of all these facts? If religious conservatives think that they will cure all of America's problems by legislating morality, they should first take a look at themselves. It would seem places where religious tolerance is practiced (including the tolerance of atheists) are the places that have some of the best "moral" indicators. So instead of supporting initiatives such as banning gay marriage or having the Ten Commandments displaced in a public place let's focus on real issues like education and healthcare. Promoting religiously-based "family values" will clearly have no impact on improving the lives of all those out there who are really struggling. Read the comments on this post... |
| China's $3.5 billion GE crop initiative [Tomorrow's Table] Posted: 10 Sep 2008 11:42 AM CDT Today in Science magazine, reporter Richard Stone describes China's $3.5 billion GE crop initiative. Of the six plants that China has approved for commercialization, only cotton is grown widely. Introduced into commerce in 1997, 64 varieties of pest-resistant cotton are now grown on 3.7 million hectares, or about 70% of the area devoted to commercial cotton, averting the use of 650,000 tons of pesticides. A new initiative could pave the way for GM versions of the biggest prize of all: rice. |
| 5 ways to Damage DNA [Bitesize Bio] Posted: 10 Sep 2008 09:46 AM CDT DNA can be damaged in a number of ways. Although the level or type of damage may not affect your experiments, sometimes enough damage can be sustained to ruin them. Forearmed is fore-warned so here are 5 ways that your DNA can be damaged. Now you can do your best to ensure that any damage is minimised, giving your experiment the best chance of working. 1. Exposure to UV light. I have gone on about this so many times it is getting boring. But the fact remains that UV light cases thymine dimers and has wrecked many a good cloning experiment. So minimize you sample’s exposure to UV, especially the more damaging short-wave variety. Enough said. 2. Mechanical shearing. Excessive rough handling (e.g. pipetting or vortexing) of DNA can cause breaks and nicks. The longer the DNA, the more sensitive it is to shearing so treat things like gDNA especially carefully if you require intact DNA. 4. Dessication. Breaks and nicks, as well as base oxidation, can also be caused by harsh drying of DNA. This was shown under particularly harsh experimental condition, in which samples were dried rapidly in silica, but it is probably a good idea to avoid over-drying DNA anyway in general to prevent this sort of damage. 5. Heating. In aqueous solution, DNA is subject to oxidation and acid hydrolysis damage. Like most chemical reactions, these speed up as the temperature increases, which is why we store DNA at low temperatures and you should avoid excessively heating your DNA samples. Now you know. So go easy on your DNA samples! |
| PSD-95 holds your long term memories in place [biomarker-driven mental health 2.0] Posted: 10 Sep 2008 08:54 AM CDT  Image by pchow98 via Flickr One of the cool things about the brain & one of the ways in which it differs markedly from our current computer systems is that cells and synapses are living dynamic entities that grow and sprout new connections in response to experience. Since the 1980's studies using protein synthesis inhibitors have shown that protein synthesis is necessary for an organism to store, recall and re-store, etc. various aspects of memory. The question for some time has been, "well, what protein(s) exactly ?" In their paper entitled, "ERK-dependent PSD-95 induction in the gustatory cortex is necessary for taste learning, but not retrieval" [DOI:10.1038/nn.2190], Elkobi et al., examine the role of PSD-95 a sort of general purpose scaffolding protein expressed in post-synaptic membranes that anchors the many molecular components that make up the synaptic machinery. They show that PSD-95 is indeed upregulated in the rat gustatory cortex after exposure to a novel stimulus (flavor) and that when it is selectively down-regulated via lentiviral expressed siRNA, that the creation of long term memories was disrupted. Interestingly, the paper shows a 3-hr time lag in the induction of PSD-95 after exposure to the memorable stimulus. Wow, that means I have 3 hours to selectively block long-term memories ... I wonder what would be worth not remembering ?![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=7e2b67d3-1b93-4774-a3d1-31fd42ce9f78) |
| Follow-Up to 23andMe’s Price Drop [The Genetic Genealogist] Posted: 10 Sep 2008 07:35 AM CDT Yesterday I wrote about 23andMe’s decision to lower their price to $399 (down from $999) while adding more genealogically-relevant SNPs and partnering with Ancestry.com. Although I don’t have any further information about the new SNPs, I’ve seen a couple of interesting articles about the price drop around the blogosphere. Aaron Rowe at Wired science writes “Human Genetics is Now a Viable Hobby.” He notes that the new price is “well within the reach of cash-strapped grad students, frugal genealogy buffs and other not-so-early adopters.” The comment thread is an interesting read as well. “Cheap as chips” Daniel MacArthur of Genetic Future writes “Cheap as chips: 23andMe slashes the price of personal genomics” at his new scienceblogs location. Daniel also notes that the updated product “will certainly be popular with genetic genealogists” because of the addition of Y-DNA and mtDNA SNPs, and agrees with my hypothesis that other companies will follow suit and lower their prices. Daniel also mentions the Personalized Medicine Collaborative (PMC) at the Coriell Institute for Medical Research, which is offering free personal genome scans to 10,000 individuals this year. The Death of DTC Genetics? Andrew Yates at Think Gene has suggested that free testing by the PMC will kill Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) genetics. However, as Ann Turner commented on his post, the PMC does not return raw data, only interpretation of items they consider “medically actionable.” This is the exact reason why PMC will not kill all DTC testing. I think Andrew fails to appreciate that this is not a new world of genetic testing; genetic genealogists have been doing this for over 8 years now, and all we care about is the raw data. The more raw data, the better. Thus, history suggest that at least to the early adopters, raw data is vital. Andrew answers Ann’s concerns by saying:
But genetic genealogists (and undoubtedly many others) DO chose their testing provider based on the results they receive. Sure, we like to know which haplogroup we fit into, but ultimately the most useful aspect of genetic genealogy is the comparison of Y-STR numbers (i.e. the raw data). And genetic genealogy is an enormous market that has yet to be completely tapped. (The other problem with Andrew’s assertion is that interpretation of genetic information (unlike a broken bone in an x-ray) varies; a SNP might mean one thing to company A based on study X, while it means another to company B based on study Y. And this is, of course, an unavoidable result of the current stage of genomic science. But why should I rely on just one source to interpret my genetic data? Why can’t I interpret it myself or allow another entity to interpret it? This is why entities such as SNPedia have recently been created. After all, to use an analogy, aren’t you supposed to get a second opinion from a different doctor?) And last but certainly not least, David P. Hamilton at bnet writes “23andMe's Price Cut: The End of Commerical Personal Genomics?“ David suggests that 23andMe’s price cut is “an attempt to jump-start the data collection in order to kick the real money engine [data mining a large database of genotype/phenotype information created by 23andMe] into gear.” However, he notes that this is a problem because it is difficult to extract phenotypic information from users, and because scientists can now afford to do their own large-scale genomic studies as the result of lowering prices (and free tests via the PMC). |
| Posted: 10 Sep 2008 06:55 AM CDT Press release - September 9, 2008 Download this press release as a PDF-file. Press release September 9, 2008 (pdf-file) Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia — September 9, 2008 — An international consortium consisting of Saudi Biosciences, Beijing Genomics Institute Shenzhen, and CLC bio have in a joint effort performed an initial sequencing and analysis of the first Arab human [...] |
| Top Trumps for Science Competition [Sciencebase Science Blog] Posted: 10 Sep 2008 05:25 AM CDT
This term, both my kids are learning about the elements at school. My daughter, who is still in primary school is learning about the ancient elements - earth, air, fire, water. While my son, who is half way through high school returned home with tales of electron shells and the elements of the periodic table. It was, therefore quite timely that Royal Society of Chemistry press officer and Satrianialike, Jon Edwards, should send me a pack of Visual Elements Trumps. The cards follow in the classic tradition of the Top Trumps game, my friends and I collected and played when we were at school - trains, planes, automobiles and a few more sciencey ones, including dinosaurs were around at that time. There have been others since, including a spinoff from the defunct BBC TV show and magazine Tomorrow’s World, Star Wars, and Harry Potter have also fallen under the trumping spell. And, of course, Pokemon and Digimon cards, which swept through playground a few years ago, are also based on the trump theme, albeit with a few more bizarre properties than top speed and height. Anyway, the kids and I had a quick round of Elemental trumps. My daughter won, having quickly latched on to the notions of A related product on the science educational stuff market is Elementeo, which is a hybrid of sword & sorcery game and science, with a Sodium Dragon and Oxygen the Lifegiver. They’re very tongue in cheek but there’s not as much chemical information. So unless you’re a science fantasy addict, I’d opt for the RSC game. Another variation on the theme is available from the WebElements shop and was developed by the University of Brighton. This version has more facts and also comes with approval (for what that’s worth) from the Top Trumps people . We then moved on to a game of Cell Trumps, produced by the Centre of the Cell at Queen Mary University of London, which arrived at roughly the same time as the RSC cards. However, a quick fan of the deck reveals them to be slightly simpler, swapping number in body for 1st ionisation energy, and number of their scientists working on the particular type of cell for atomic radius. But the kids coped, although my daughter favoured the slightly more esoteric Element Trumps over the cell. She was quite taken by the adipocytes having spotted the connection with the name of the fatty, alien Adipose characters from a recent Doctor Who episode. Scientific Trumps seemed just right for introducing some scientific concepts in a fun way to kids at the higher end of primary school or even heading towards high school exams. They might even be inspirational to money-free undergraduates lacking beer towards the end of term, who knows? And, if you arrived here looking for science education materials check out the learn with Sciencebase page, which has links to various science project resources. Card Competition Which Top Trumps would you prefer? Okay, here’s the competition bit. What you have to do to be in with a chance of winning is to vote in the poll above and then give us a reason for your choice, and you could win a pack of the Cell Trumps and some other goodies or Elemental Trumps (winner’s choice, sorry babes and cars not available). Here’s how: First, vote in the poll. Next, signup for the Sciencebase email newsfeed. Then, use that exact same email address to email me or leave a comment here (email addresses are not published, they’re just so I can check you subscribed). If you already subscribe to Sciencebase by email then please subscribe to sibling site Sciencetext.com instead and let me know. If you’re already subscribed to both by email, then I’ll be able to see from the subscriber lists, so either way, your subscribed email must be valid to qualify. Finally, I’ll pick the best ideas from the comments and emails and announce the winner in the next couple of weeks. Judge’s decision will be final and if no entries come up to scratch then I reserve the right to throw my rattle out of the pram. Top Trumps for Science Competition |
| Friends and feedy thoughts [business|bytes|genes|molecules] Posted: 10 Sep 2008 12:08 AM CDT I hope Bret and co are paying attention. I’ve heard people say that Friendfeed is too noisy, that they don’t get the value, etc. The tech world has the unique ability to make anything too noisy and the worlds ultimate echo chamber. The scientific community on the other hand (life scientists, physicists, librarians and technologists) have made it a second home. We use it to discuss ideas and ask questions. Of course, every conference seems to get it’s own backchannel on Friendfeed, e.g. ISMB, BioBarCamp, Science in the 21st Century, Science Blogging 2008, etc. We even have rooms for programming and development efforts now, e.g.for Ruby for Python and for the Chemistry Development Kit. It’s a classic example of successful micro-communities, all coming together, driven by common interests. Makes you want to think ahead. Friendfeed has an API, a decent search engine, but what I would love to see is some way of mining all that data, cause in all the science rooms there is a ton of interesting information. I suspect you can do it today, just not sure what the best approach might be, and the graph of likes and comments and connections just HAS to be fascinating. Related articles by Zemanta![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=6c564072-3197-467f-b865-27907edad8e6) |
| Stephen Colbert’s DNA Headed for the International Space Station [Eye on DNA] Posted: 09 Sep 2008 09:44 PM CDT Along with the DNA of other bright minds, musicians, and athletes, clever funnyman Stephen Colbert’s digitized DNA will also be included in Operation Immortality’s digital time capsule that’s being delivered to the International Space Station next month. See video above for his DNA sign-off from February 2006. |
| Carl Zimmer on Junk DNA and Bad Science Journalism [adaptivecomplexity's column] Posted: 09 Sep 2008 09:32 PM CDT If haven't yet listened to Ryan Gregory or Larry Moran (or me) on junk DNA, for the love of God, listen to Carl Zimmer before you ever use that term in a scientific paper, press release, or blog post! For some reason people like to set junk DNA up as a straw man, and pretend that every discovery of functional non-coding DNA is paradigm-shifting. Don't believe them! |
Something a little different today. A tale of family playtime, a poll, and a competition to win prizes from the RSC and the CentreoftheCell. So, on with the story…| You are subscribed to email updates from The DNA Network To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner |
Inbox too full?  Subscribe to the feed version of The DNA Network in a feed reader. | |
| If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: The DNA Network, c/o FeedBurner, 20 W Kinzie, 9th Floor, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment