Fighting for science
Kathrin Mendler, a fourth-year agronomy student at Nürtingen-Geislingen University (HfWU), is fighting back. Her university “bowed to pressure from the protest groups and announced that all trials of genetically modified plants would be stopped for the next five years.” She leads a group of students calling for the school to reverse her decision, GMO Safety reports. The story was also reported in NatureNews.
The protesters have destroyed fields almost every year since 1996, when researchers at HfWU first started to study transgenic crops. One of the biggest arguments against genetic engineering is that it is untested. The students at HfWU worry that the only research on genetic engineering will be conducted by big corporations, if they can no longer research at universities. Sadly, the same has been happening in the US. The entire interview with Kathrin can be found below…
Peace with agriculture
Brownfield (Ag News for America) posts a lot of news that doesn’t make other media sources. One of my recent favorites pairs two of my life’s loves: the US Army and agriculture.
Nebraska Army National Guard takes ag to Afghanistan
Tuesday, May 13, 2008, 3:36 PM
by Peter Shinn
One of the keys to winning the war in Afghanistan may be helping farmers there grow enough food to feed their families. Doing so will help take land out of opium production, the profits from which are helping to maintain the Taliban as a serious military threat.
That’s why the Nebraska Army National Guard is taking a team of Guard members who are also agricultural producers to Afghanistan later this year, to help make Afghan farmers food self-sufficient. Colonel Mike Johnson is commanding the mission.
“They can raise some opium, but even that with the income, they can’t get enough food to take care of their family for a year,” Johnson told Brownfield. “So if we can go over and help them expand their operation a little bit, and get them enough food from one growing season to the next, they’re going to be a lot better off.”
As for the Nebraska Army Guard members who are going to Afghanistan, Johnson noted they’re making some serious sacrifices to help improve ag production there. And Johnson emphasized it’s not just the Guard members themselves who will bear the burden of their commitment.
“We’re leaving in the fall time-frame, so they’re going to rely on some other folks – good folks in Nebraska – trying to help them out, getting their harvest in as we get ready to go over,” Johnson said.
And Nebraska’s farming and ranching Army Guard members are eager to help. According to Johnson, he had more than twice the number of volunteers for the mission to Afghanistan as he could take. Those selected will be in pre-deployment training for the next few months. The Nebraska Army National Guard joins the Army National Guard of Missouri, Texas, Indiana and Tennessee in sending agricultural support missions to Afghanistan, Johnson added.
Editor’s Note: 1Lt Peter Shinn is a member of the Iowa Air National Guard.
A scientist speaks out
Dr. Barney Gordon, soil scientist at Kansas State, isn’t willing to let his work be misrepresented by the media. In a letter to Seed Today, he explained exactly what his work is and isn’t.
As I described in my post Exposed, Indeed about the original article Exposed: The Great GM Crops Myth, I’m so fed up with the media twisting science. I’m very glad that Dr. Gordon took the time to set the record straight, although I wish more blogs and news sites had picked it up.
Thanks to GMO Pundit for posting this in Man Bites Dog.
Data mining and GMOs
In order to make sound conclusions about different types of genetically engineered crops and to plan for the future, we’ll need to have sound data about any possible environmental effects of said crops. Researchers from a variety of institutions and disciplines* plan to collect that data. Harvesting Data from Genetically Engineered Crops**, published in the 25 April issue of Science, explains that we can use existing data about pesticide and fertilizer usage, water quality, and information about birds, amphibians, and other animals – if we can connect that data to what types of crops the farmers are planting. A news story, UA Scientists and Colleagues Call for More Access to Biotech Crop Data, has been posted by the U of Arizona. The authors conclude their proposition:
The United States has the world’s most extensive history of using GE crops and one of the world’s best continentalscale programs in environmental monitoring. Combining these two sources of information
provides an opportunity to lead the world in identifying agricultural pathways for the future that best serve people and the environment. Providing scientists access to data on GE crop use at the county scale is a small and relatively inexpensive step with enormous scientific and public benefits.
** I don’t know if it’s legal for me to post a link to the pdf here. If you know the rules, please fill me in!
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.
Speaking for science
Rachel Carson was undoubtedly a force for good in the 1960s. She singlehandedly started the environmental movement by calling attention to the dangers of unregulated pesticide use. As a graduate of the University of Maryland College Park, I especially appreciate Carson’s work in the Chesapeake Bay.
Kate Neville, in The Science Creative Quarterly, calls for scientists today to do as Rachel Carson did. She enthusiastically concludes:
We should take from Rachel Carson the hope that her actions conveyed: that great change can come through research, that people do want to know more, and that narrative can bridge the gap. We need not all take on a public role to engage in this process: Carson’s influence came from her ability to synthesize work across many fields, which relied on the willingness of many researchers to take the time and effort to share their findings with her, and explain the significance and the debates. We must support our public intellectuals – question their conclusions, but champion their causes; critique their claims, but provide them with alternative information. We need to communicate our research more clearly, participate in dialogue and explanation, and engage with the issues of our time in collaborative, constructive, critical, and public ways. We have the potential to effect great change, even in the most improbable of cases, and even on the most intractable of problems.
I couldn’t agree more. That’s why I’m blogging, after all. I share Kate’s optimism, believing that the best way to make our world better is through new collaborations and communication that defies traditional boundaries.
Unfortunately, it seems that the movement started by Rachel Carson has forgotten the science their mentor championed and succumbed to pessimism. A few weeks ago, I flipped through Courage for the Earth: Writers, Scientists, and Activists Celebrate the Life and Writing of Rachel Carson. Many of the essays are appropriate, but some go too far, essentially saying that we should stop many types of research in medicine and agriculture.
Rachel Carson, herself a scientist, conducted a a cost-benefit analysis. She saw that the costs of pesticide overuse and industrial pollution outweighed the benefits, and acted accordingly. I don’t think we can predict what she would think about therapeutic cloning, genetic engineering, or many other technologies that have been developed since she passed. I do think she would have considered carefully, educating herself on the ramifications each would have on ourselves and our natural world.