GMOs as aid that grows
Author Robert Paarlberg reported that the Gates Foundation would be contributing to the development of drought tolerant maize varieties for Africa. Details can be found in a press release from AATF (African Agricultural Technology Foundation), via ISAAA‘s March 28 Crop Biotech Update. I’ve posted the release below the cut for your convenience.
One of the most exciting parts of the WEMA (Water Efficient Maize for Africa) project is that it pulls in such a diverse group – including research entities from the participating countries, the well known non-profit CIMMYT, and the corporations Monsanto and BASF.
In this project, the corporations will not charge any royalties to small scale farmers. I’m assuming they plan to make their profits from large farmers in the developed world that are now or will soon be experiencing destructive droughts, such as Australia. Clearing up licensing issues before a project begins seems to be the best course, especially if we consider the fate of Golden Rice. This ensures that the people who most need the technology will be able to afford it, and that protracted legal battles will be avoided.
It’s easy to hate Monsanto at times (especially if you are anti-establishment), but it seems that the company is trying to be a better global citizen, if not for any other reason
than to increase their potential customer pool. Who, besides Monsanto and a handful of other biotech companies, has the resources to conduct the research and produce desperately needed varieties like WEMA? Non-profits and government programs will never be able to do it alone.
Monsanto has information about the WEMA project on their website, including this telling photo with the caption: “Field trial of corn with the drought tolerant gene (on right) and control hybrid (on left). Note the greater size and healthier structure of the drought tolerant corn.”
Want to comment? Check out my posts on Biofortified where discussion is welcome!
All material on this site is available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License, unless otherwise stated.
Brain doping to further science
The 10 April Nature presents the results of a survey that aimed to determine how many scientists are using cognition enhancing drugs. Caffeine is of course the most widely used stimulant, but it seems that quite a few people are using other substances to improve concentration.
For those who choose to use, methylphenidate was the most popular: 62% of users reported taking it. 44% reported taking modafinil, and 15% said they had taken beta blockers such as propanolol, revealing an overlap between drugs. 80 respondents specified other drugs that they were taking. The most common of these was adderall, an amphetamine similar to methylphenidate. But there were also reports of centrophenoxine, piractem, dexedrine and various alternative medicines such as ginkgo and omega-3 fatty acids.
The article, Poll results: Look Who’s Doping, reports that 1 in 5 respondents said they had used the drugs, and that all ages reported use. The whole thing started with an April Fool’s Joke by the Academic Editor in Chief of PLoS Biology! Evolutionary biologist Jonathan Eisen of UC Davis discloses all on his blog. Even thought it started with a joke, this brings up some very interesting ideas about human enhancement. Would it be so bad if people who need pinpoint concentration had the option of using a drug like Ritalin? Would they (we) be more productive, better scientists? I’m not sure. My recreational drug use currently consists of coffee and the occasional glass of wine. I don’t know if I’d try anything else. Even if I didn’t choose to use, I wouldn’t prevent others from using – the same way I feel about low-side-effect drugs like marijuana.
The editorial Defining ‘natural’, in the same issue of Nature, explores the idea that the definition of ‘natural’ should change over time, as technology makes more things possible.
Devices such as glasses, hearing aids, pacemakers and artificial hips are unnatural. Yet they are widely accepted as legitimate ways to enhance the human experience. By the same token, if drugs enhance performance on a standardized test, what is so ‘natural’ about prep courses designed to improve scores?
I heartily agree. We should always examine the ethical issues – but not let ethics overwhelm us. An aside of the Look Who’s Doping article, Worrying Words, lists the four major ethical problems associated with neuroenhancing drugs, confirmed by quotes from poll respondents:
Safety – “The mild side effects will add up to be profound in due course and may even require stronger therapy to control the addiction.” 26–35 years old from Nigeria
Erosion of character – “I wouldn’t use cognitive enhancing drugs because I think it would be dishonest to myself and all the people who look to me as a role model.” 25 or younger from Guyana
Distributive justice - “Morally puts a disadvantage to people without access.” 55–65 years old from the United States
Peer pressure – “As a professional, it is my duty to use my resources to the greatest benefit of humanity. If ‘enhancers’ can contribute to this humane service, it is my duty to do so.” 66 or older from the United States
These are all valid issues, but we can not ignore the possible positive ramifications of these drugs. All sorts of professionals might benefit from enhanced concentration. Breakthroughs in science may take less time. This idea of ethical problems vs benefits is so similar to the arguments for and against genetic engineering. I hope we can all come to a satisfactory compromise on these and other issues facing science.
Note: A lot of scientist bloggers include some posts about academia, graduate student life, etc. I plan to start posting more on these topics.