A study released by IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute) in October says there is no connection between Bt cotton and farmer suicides in India. IFPRI “seeks sustainable solutions for ending hunger and poverty”, so it makes sense for them to investigate any possible links between Bt and farmer suicides. Bt Cotton and Farmer Suicides in India: Reviewing the Evidence examines every aspect of the problem, concluding that farmers in India do have very real issues pressing upon them, but Bt is not to blame for their choice to commit suicide.

The report is through, but written in language that lay people can easily follow. I encourage you to read it for yourself. To me, the most interesting part was titled “The Bt Cotton Controversy: The Institutional Context”. This section listed the actual causes of farmer distress, and once we identify the real problems, we can start talking about real solutions. The biggest problem seems to be education. Farmers have access to new technology but little if any information on how to use it to maximize benefit.

Even with the yearly increases in adoption, production, and yields, Bt cotton has had its share of controversy. Farmers lack of information on growing conditions, pesticide use, the importance of planting proper seeds, and the earnings to be expected from using this technology seem to be behind the controversy shrouding Bt cotton’s performance. More specifically, four factors or issues seem to have dominated the Bt cotton debate…

The first issue is the widespread distribution and use of spurious seeds. Inclusive of the technology fee, in the absence of regulations, Bt cotton (hybrid) seeds were initially sold at a price equal to five times that of the local hybrid varieties… This prompted a booming market for spurious seeds, which were sold at much lower prices. However, these seeds were mostly a mix of Bt and non-Bt cotton as well as seeds of unapproved varieties. Mostly sold by local traders, the seeds were targeted to farmers trying to save on seed costs. The germination rate of these seeds was inconsistent and often resulted in crop loss and disappointment for many farmers…

Another factor, which has helped the sale of spurious seeds, is the confusion related to the large release of approved Bt cotton varieties by the government of India in recent years… The lack of agriculture extension and dissemination of knowledge about these new varieties from the government has left farmers solely dependent on the companies for information regarding these varieties (SEMC 2007). The spreading adoption of Bt cotton has been driven mainly by demonstrations from farmers who have had success cultivating it (Ministry of Environment and Forests 2003a). Very few agriculture extension services were provided and were located in distant places (Rao and Suri 2006). The seed and fertilizer company agents have been the sole interface between the technology and the farmers (Shridhar 2006). Faced with choosing among the numerous brands of Bt cottonseeds released between 2004 and 2005, farmers were practically gambling on the seed they used (Stone 2007).

Third, the high use of pesticides even with Bt cotton seems to have played a role (SEMC 2007)…The higher price paid for Bt cottonseeds is justified by the reduction in pesticide use since the plants themselves guard against bollworms. But this does not mean a total elimination of pesticide sprays. To have maximum yield results from Bt cotton, pesticide sprays should be optimized and targeted to the secondary pests that used to be covered by the wide-spectrum pesticides used before Bt cotton.

However, farmers, lacking knowledge about the requirements for Bt cotton, followed their own spraying schedules… This indiscriminate spraying led to development of resistance in the bollworm and hence pest infestation returned, lowering the yield from Bt cotton in these regions… However, the situation has improved according to a more recent report (ASSOCHAMIMRB 2007), showing that Bt cotton farmers have largely reduced pesticide consumption, compared with conventional hybrids.

Lastly, the controversy has been fueled by the lack of consistent public information on the performance of Bt cotton (SEMC 2007). Many studies have been published by various institutes and cited one after the other by the media or selectively by opponents or proponents to Bt cotton. However, there has been no visible public effort toward a comprehensive and synthetic assessment of the effects of Bt cotton in the field. The proliferation of reports supporting both sides of the argument has contributed to the public confusion on the use of genetically modified crops among educated readers. Yet, as shown in the next section, a comprehensive review of the literature shows a convergence in the empirical evidence on Bt cotton, progressively dismissing any controversy on the observed productivity and income effects of the technology.

While quite a few science blogs (such as Counterknowledge Prince Charles and India’s “GM Genocide”) and scientific media sources (including New Scientist GM cotton in the clear over farmer suicides ) reported on the paper, I can only find one popular media source that reported on it (The Guardian Indian farmer suicides not GM related, says study). Other media sources (such as The Daily Mail The GM genocide: Thousands of Indian farmers are committing suicide after using genetically modified crops) continue to spread rumors based on claims made by Greenpeace and Prince Charles. These sources don’t even attempt to present information based on peer-reviwed data, and seem to encourage rampant speculation. People are still talking about “terminator seeds” and “fish tomatoes” even though neither has ever been on the market. We talk about media bias in politics, but this bias is far worse and rarely discussed. Even worse, the same people, the same media sources and NGOs that spread the rumors, ask why we have seen no biotech crops that directly benefit the consumer. What corporation would invest in developing a crop that has been rejected before it existed? What government would invest resources in such a project? It’s time to clear away the speculation and start to concern ourselves with the facts.

The cost of food and fuel are soaring, not just in the U.S. but all over the globe. The world’s poor are suffering the most — culminating in riots and starvation — but price hikes are eroding living standards in advanced nations as well.

Everyone, it seems, is looking for scapegoats — international conspiracies, speculators, hoarders. But the main reason food and fuel prices are skyrocketing is demand for both is rapidly exceeding supply.

You see, hundreds of millions of people in China and India and the former Soviet republics are ascending into the middle class at a rate never before seen in history. And the two items this huge, rapidly-growing middle class want most are cars and meat.

That’s the problem. Cars use enormous amounts of fuel. And meat uses up enormous amounts of agricultural land, because animals that provide it require lots of feed grains. And supplies of both are limited.

This means global prices for fuel and food will continue to increase in the foreseeable future. And these increases are likely to generate the biggest threats to global peace.

Political pressures will mount on governments to protect their own nation’s sources of energy and food for their own citizens. Conflict will intensify over whether land should be used for biofuels or food production. Farm subsidies in advanced nations will come under increasing attack from developing nations.

Meanwhile, superpowers China, Europe, and America will compete ever more intensely for access to global supplies. And as more cars are used and more forests are cleared for agriculture, greenhouse gases will further shrink arable land.

The answer to all this lies mainly in increasing the supply of food and fuels. And both will depend on two kinds of green research — into more productive and sustainable agriculture, and into more efficient and sustainable fuels.

in other words, we’re in a race between a new generation of biotechnology and non-carbon-based energy technology, on the one hand, and rising political and economic conflict on the other. And the global clock is ticking ominously fast.

So what do we do? Barring something terrible, the population size isn’t going to decrease anytime soon. We need to seriously increase production and decrease per capita demand – which means lifestyle change. One answer is simple – shift farmland from producing animal food to producing people food and carbon neutral (preferably carbon negative) fuel and materials. These are the easiest changes, as renovating suburbia and American car-culture by changing home type/location and shifting to public transportation are bit more difficult. Similar ideas apply to all countries, because unfortunately we were the model that started global aspirations to materialistic wastefulness. I just hope we can be the model again. You can read more of Robert’s no-nonsense views on public policy at his blog and listen to his commentary at NPR.

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.

The first sentence of Exposed is clearly sensationalist: “Genetic modification actually cuts the productivity of crops, an authoritative new study shows, undermining repeated claims that a switch to the controversial technology is needed to solve the growing world food crisis.”

Nevermind that scientists never state findings in such definite terms. Any result is simply a hypothesis that hasn’t been rejected. It isn’t fact until it has been corroborated by multiple studies by other researchers, and until it has been published in a peer reviewed journal of consequence. That’s simply the way science works. I suppose the enthusiasm can be chalked up to journalistic license.

The results of this study were published in the quarterly Better Crops (the full name of the publication is Better Crops with Plant Food). Better Crops is published by the International Plant Nutrition Institute. This is the first time I’ve heard of IPNI, but admittedly that doesn’t necessarily mean anything. The website states:

The International Plant Nutrition Institute (IPNI) is a new, not-for-profit, scientific organization dedicated to responsible management of plant nutrients — N, P, K, secondary nutrients, and micronutrients — for the benefit of the human family. With established programs in Latin America, North America, China, India, Southeast Asia, and planned expansion in other areas of the world, IPNI is a global organization ready to respond to the world’s demand for food, fuel, feed, and fiber.

IPNI provides a unified, scientific voice for the world’s fertilizer industry; independent of the industry, but scientifically credible and recognized by governments, academia, NGOs, the public, and the industry. Its scientists are working to help define the basis for appropriate use and management of plant nutrients, especially focusing on the environmental and economic issues related to their use and to provide comprehensive and regional information and research results to help farmers, and the industry, deal with environmental and agronomic problems.

So, IPNI is controlled by the fertilizer industry, which is one of the agricultural input industries that anti-big-ag advocates fight against. Looking over the website, this NGO seems to have a lot of information on fertilizer. Not genetic engineering, biotech, plant breeding, or any similar topics. Just fertilizer.

Of Better Crops, IPNI has this to say:

It’s not easy to describe this unique magazine. With an identity somewhere between an agronomic research journal and a marketing information series, BC provides a steady vehicle for reporting news from research related to nutrient management. While constantly evolving to serve its target audiences, the magazine also serves as a mirror of the agronomic research and education programs of the Institute.

In other words, Better Crops is an industry newsletter, similar to pamphlets on topics like “Beef, it’s what’s for dinner” or “The incredible edible egg.” I may be a bit skeptical, but I don’t trust information that comes directly from individual companies or from large industry groups unless similar findings are reported elsewhere.

Because Exposed came out on 20 April, I assumed that the article of interest would be in the current issue of Better Crops. Instead, the article by Barney Gordon was in the fourth issue of 2007 (way to keep on top of things, Independent). The abstract:

This study was conducted to determine if glyphosate-resistant (GR) soybeans respond differently to Mn fertilizer than conventional soybean varieties in an irrigated high-yield environment, and if so to develop fertilization strategies that will prevent or correct deficiencies. Yield of the GR variety was less than the conventional variety without Mn fertilizer. However, Mn application (banded at planting) to the GR variety closed the yield gap. The conventional soybean variety was not responsive to Mn fertilization. Conversely, yield was reduced at the highest rate of Mn. A second phase of the study showed that a combination of Mn applied as starter and foliar application provided maximum yield response.

I freely admit that I don’t know anything beyond the basics of fertilizers, so feel free to take my analysis of the article with a grain of salt. On the other hand, I am knowledgeable enough in plant physiology to make reasonable conclusions about the article. Geoffrey Lean, environment editor of The Independent, is presumably not, since he completely twisted the facts to make his story.

First, I’d like to mention that Dr. Gordon of Kansas State (not University of Kansas as Lean reported) studies fertilizer and farming methods. Not plant breeding or plant physiology. He makes no claims to the contrary.

Next, I’d like to call attention to the title of the article: Manganese Nutrition of Glyphosate-Resistant and Conventional Soybeans. Titles of scholarly articles are always about the topic at hand, or they will be rejected by editors of the journal. If this article really was about differences in yield between GM and non-GM crops, the title would say so. Occasionally an experiment on one topic will result in exciting data on a topic other than the one that was intended, but the title would certainly reflect that. Scholarly articles typically start with an introduction that indicates past research about the topic. This article starts with:

Glyphosate-resistant soybean variety planting dwarfs that of conventional varieties in the U.S. by a factor of about 9 to 1. Nevertheless, GR soybean yield may still lag behind that of conventional soybeans, as many farmers have noticed that yields are not as high as expected, even under optimal conditions. In Kansas, average yield seldom exceeds 60 to 65 bu/A even when soybeans are grown with adequate rainfall and/or supplemental irrigation water.

There is evidence to suggest that glyphosate may interfere with Mn metabolism and also adversely affect populations of soil micro-organisms responsible for reduction of Mn to a plant-available form. Manganese availability is also strongly influenced by soil pH. As soil pH increases, plant-available Mn decreases. It is unlikely that Mn deficiencies will occur on acid soils. It stands to reason that the addition of supplemental Mn at the proper time may correct deficiencies and result in greater GR soybean yields.

Dr. Gordon hypothesizes that the herbicide glyphosate interferes with Mn uptake (although this is not what this study tested). All plants could have this response to glyphosate application, but we can’t test this hypothesis on plants that are not engineered or evolved to resist glyphosate, for hopefully obvious reasons. The evidence that glyphosate might interfere with crop mineral uptake is serious and must be further investigated, because crops won’t be able to reach their full yield potential without proper mineral uptake. I’m also concerned that glyphosate might affect soil micro-organisms, because research in organic farming methods shows that soil microbes are crucial to soil and plant health. These results might mean that we should discontinue or decrease glyphosate application, but more experiments to investigate these preliminary results must be conducted.

This experiment was designed to test the response to Mn fertilizer of one particular line of soy that has one particular transgene. The results showed that this particular line did respond to Mn fertilizer, indicating that it might not be as good at Mn uptake as the non-transgenic control. Since only one event was tested, though, no conclusions about the gene itself can be made.

An experiment to compare the overall yield of GM crops to non-GM crops (regardless of fertilizer) must include multiple lines of multiple species and include multiple transgenic traits. It must also include comparable non-GM crops for each GM crop in the study. The reason for the repetition is to avoid choosing particular lines of plants that naturally have higher or lower than average yields. Multiple transgenic traits must be used in order to prove one way or another whether “all GMOs” have lower yields than non-GMOs. Each transgene or cisgene is different, and we can’t assume that drought resistant GM rice is the same as beta carotene enhanced GM rice, for example. Despite peoples’ claims to the contrary, making general statements about all GM crops is impossible due to the wide diversity of traits that are available.

The experiment must treat the GM and non-GM plants exactly the same (same planting time and method, same fertilizer, same irrigation, same pest control, and so on) so that the results will actually tell us about the difference between the GM and non-GM plants, not about the differences in farming methods. The experiment must also take place in multiple climates, to ensure that the crops in the experiment will act the same whether it is warm or cool, dry or wet during the growing season. Analyzing the results from a comparison of farming methods would be a lot more complex because there would be multiple differences between experiment and control plots.

Note: In Dr. Gordon’s rebuttal to Exposed, he says that the third year of the experiment showed no difference between the GM and non-GM lines, probably due to environmental variation from year to year.

Another complication is environmental variation from year to year. One of my research projects includes the hypothesis that a certain type of selection will improve seed protein over a period of years. To show this change over time, I have to save seed from multiple years and plant them side by side. I can’t just compare the data from 2006 to the data from 2007 because of all the tiny details that I couldn’t control in the field. Maybe the control plots in 2006 had a worse aphid infestation. Maybe the experimental plots in 2007 had slightly better soil…

Not only does the experiment to compare all GM crops to non-GM have to meet all of the above requirements, it also has to include multiple years worth of seed for each tested line.

It is sometimes possible to use multiple separate experiments to support a hypothesis, in a type of scholarly article called a meta analysis. These articles are often used in medicine in cases where larger human studies are not possible due to cost and other factors. A meta analysis can be used to collect information, but must be very extensive to allow conclusions to be drawn. Often, differences in the way each experiment was done prevent strong conclusions from being made.

I’d like to expand upon something that was mentioned briefly, but not explained, in Exposed. Companies such as Monsanto take years to develop and test the GM seed that is available for sale. The regulatory process is so stringent that, once approval is applied for, the trait can not be improved upon (to be more clear, once approval is applied for with one event, another event can not be substituted), or face a whole new round of application for approval. Regulatory hurdles and other issues make GM seed very expensive for the company to develop, so they must develop new seed to recoup their losses. For these and other reasons, GM seeds are often “one hit wonders” that excel in one specific trait, but not particularly for increased yield. Non-GM lines, on the other hand, are improved every year, with the best yielding plants being used to produce the next year’s seed. I recently attended a seminar presented by a scientist from Pioneer where he said that they were working to develop better yielding lines that would work in conjunction with their primary transgenic traits. The companies are aware that this is a problem with their products, and are of course working to solve it, to avoid losing sales.

The second study mentioned in Exposed also investigates “yield drag” in commercial soy that has been engineered for resistance to glyphosate. In the 2002 Yield Suppressions of Glyphosate-Resistant (Roundup Ready) Soybeans, Roger Elmore (now of Iowa State, previously of University of Nebraska) performs a similar experiment to the one in Manganese Nutrition, albeit without the manganese. The abstract:

Herbicide-resistant crops like glyphosate resistant (GR) soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] are gaining acceptance in U.S. cropping systems. Comparisons from cultivar performance trials suggest a yield suppression may exist with GR soybean. Yield suppressions may result either cultivar genetic differentials, the GR gene/gene insertion process, or glyphosate. Grain yield of GR is probably not affected by glyphosate. Yield suppression due to the GR gene or its insertion process (GR effect) has not been reported. We conducted a field experiment at four Nebraska locations in 2 yr to evaluate the GR effect on soybean yield. Five backcross-derived pairs of GR and non-GR soybean sister lines were compared along with three high-yield, nonherbicide-resistant cultivars and five other herbicide-resistant cultivars. Glyphosate resistant sister lines yielded 5% (200 kg ha21) less than the non-GR sisters (GR effect). Seed weight of the non-GR sisters was greater than that of the GR sisters (in 1999) and the non-GR sister lines were 20 mm shorter than the GR sisters. Other variables monitored were similar between the two cultivar groups. The high-yield, nonherbicide-resistant cultivars included for comparison yielded 5% more than the non-GR sisters and 10% more than the GR sisters.

In other words, this is more of the same: plants bred for high yield perform better than plants that were bred for something else. More information about the difference in seed weight and height between the glyphosate resistant and non-GM soy can be found in the discussion section of the paper:

On average, non-GR sister lines yielded 5% more than the GR sisters when averaged over all locations and both years (Table 5). Non-GR sister grain yields were greater than those of their associated GR sisters in two of the five pairs… Grain yields of sister-line pairs are shown in Fig. 1. The greater number of data points to the right of the 1:1 ratio line indicates that the non-GR sisters yielded more on the average than their GR sister counterparts.

A correlation of 0.75 is very strong. This correlation (as shown in Fig. 1 from Dr. Elmore’s paper) means that, if a GM-soy was low yielding, there is a strong probability that its non-GM sister would also be low yielding. The 5% average difference is undeniable, but the GM plant in some sister pairs out preformed the non-GM plant. In short, I wouldn’t say that this is conclusive, and there would still have to be additional studies on other types of genetically engineered plants to show a difference between all GM and non-GM.

Dr. Elmore concludes: “Cultivar choices are best based on (i) previous weed pressure and success of control measures in specific fields, (ii) the availability and cost of herbicides, (iii) availability and cost of herbicide-resistant cultivars, and (iv) yield.” I read that as: if your fields have stubborn weeds and glyphosate is easy to use, then a slight decrease in yield may be preferable to having to either using a more dangerous herbicide or having your yield decrease anyway when your field is overgrown with weeds.

He also says something more concerning: “Based on the results of this study and those of Elmore et al., 2001, the yield suppression appears associated with the GR gene or its insertion process rather than glyphosate itself.” I would like to see further studies on this possibility, and I would be very surprised if Monsanto isn’t already frantically working to solve any related problems. The best way to test the second hypothesis would still be the laborious experiment with a wide variety of GM traits in different crops. The first hypothesis (that the glyphosate resistance gene itself is causing a yield decrease) could be tested in a few ways, including a study of markers for low yield in populations that include the gene, and testing the yields of plants that have naturally evolved glyphosate resistance compared to their “less evolved” relatives.

This type of study is important to help farmers choose the best seed each year from thousands of choices. They also help farmers to choose the best pest management strategy for their particular situation. This is the whole point of ag extension, and is Dr. Elmore’s job. The purpose of Dr. Gordon’s study is similar: to help soybean farmers achieve the highest possible yields, even if it means applying additional Mn fertilizer. I’m fairly confident in saying that these scientists don’t appreciate having their research misinterpreted to make over reaching conclusions, even if they appreciate the attention.

While researching the background of Exposed, I came across a semi-meta analysis of GM crop yield studies compiled by Clio Turton of the Soil Association (a non-profit promoting organic ag) that was posted on Check Biotech. Every study is listed with the goal of saying that GM crops yield less than non-GM. However, even Mr. Turton even says, “First generation genetic modifications address production conditions (insect and weed control), and are in no way intended to increase the intrinsic yield capacity of the plant.” Instead, they decrease competition from weeds and decrease insect damage which increases yield by corollary. I’d be happy to discuss the articles he presents, but this post is probably long enough.

Bear with me while I use an analogy. Saying that we should stop using all GM crops because they don’t yield as high as crops that have been specially bred for yield is like saying that you are going to throw away a business laptop because the processor can’t handle graphics intensive games. We all know that business laptops were designed with other functions in mind, and don’t necessarily need whizbang graphics cards. If graphics cards were less expensive, they would be in all laptops. If getting a GM crop to market wasn’t so expensive, we would see a better selection of seeds on the market. Right now, the only ones who can afford to make them are Monsanto and Pioneer. Public researchers at universities and small companies can’t even hope to get seed to market, so research in GM crops has been slowed to a trickle in the US. This is not the fault of the scientists or of the companies. Instead, we can blame the anti-GM hysteria that caused regulators to make things so difficult.

Thanks, Mike for pointing out the Common Dreams article, and thus for making me stay up all night and spend half of today researching this post!

Barney Gordon (2007). Manganese Nutrition of Glyphosate-Resistant and Conventional Soybeans Better Crops, 91 (4), 12-14

Roger W. Elmore, Fred W. Roeth, Lenis A. Nelson, Charles A. Shapiro, Robert N. Klein, Stevan Z. Knezevic, & Alex Martin (2001). Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean Cultivar Yields Compared with Sister Lines Agron. J., 93, 408-412

In February, a measles outbreak turned up among California schoolchildren whose parents had rejected the MMR vaccine. Until 2006, the South African government was using beets and lemons to treat AIDS patients. And the United States has yet to ratify the Kyoto Protocol for reducing carbon emissions.

Sadly, this situation of sci-phobia won’t change until we start providing children with an adequate education. n the op ed “We Need a Science White House”, Nobel Prize winner David Baltimore laments that we have no commitments from the presidential candidates that they will ensure science doesn’t slip any further from national priorities. This was in the Wall Street Journal of all places, so you know that this is a big problem (thanks Mike aka Tuibguy for pointing this out).
I’m not even going to bring up the detrimental effects that some religions have had on general understanding of science. I will point out that there are many scientists have absolutely no problem reconciling belief in a higher power with the complexities of our miraculous world. I hope that more people can achieve this reconciliation for their own sake and for the sake of the planet.

We need to get the NCSE’s counter-site to the hideous little propaganda film, Expelled, to rank higher in the search engines. The way to do this is for lots and lots of you to link to the Expelled Exposed site with the word Expelled. It’s not hard: just copy this code into a blog post.

<a href=”http://expelledexposed.com/”><i>Expelled</i></a>

Whenever you write about the movie, use that link. Do it a bunch of times, if you want. It’s more effective if many people use the same link every time, though, than for one person to be repetitive.

I’m offended by the movie Expelled because of the dirty tricks the filmmakers used. Back in September 2007, I posted:

A filmmaker questioned scientists, including Richard Dawkins, for video interviews about their views on science intersecting with religion for a movie to be called “Crossroads.” The filmmaker instead put their interviews in a movie called “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” a pro-intelligent design film. The scientists are angry, with good reason. Being misquoted is one thing, but it’s completely another to have your statements misused in a propaganda film [NY Times].

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.

A less positive note can be found when we consider how unpredictable agriculture can be, with insects, weather, and fungi just to name a few. University of Illinois researchers found that high CO2 levels cause plants to loose their ability to defend themselves against herbivorous beetles. This could become a serious problem, considering that CO2 levels have been steadily rising. Climate change is already causing huge fluctuations in weather patterns, including droughts, freezes, and floods. A destructive wheat fungus has recently spread from Africa into the Middle East and Asia…

Is it realistic to expect organic methods to keep up with all of these things and more? Is it realistic to expect traditional plant breeding to bring us the solutions quickly enough to prevent monetary loss or worse? I just don’t think so. However, I don’t think we should totally abandon organic, either. I’ve long been a proponent of a new type of farming that intelligently blends traditional / low-input / organic methods with modern technology to achieve the very best possible crops for farmers, consumers, and the environment. It turns out that I’m not the only one who thinks so!

Dr. Pamela Ronald of UC Davis is the co-author of the upcoming Tomorrow’s Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food, with her husband Raoul Adamchak. Their bios from Oxford University Press:

Pamela C. Ronald is a Professor in the Department of Plant Pathology at the University of California, Davis. Her laboratory has genetically engineered rice for resistance to diseases and flooding. Her work has been published in Science, Nature… She is an elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Raoul Adamchak has grown organic crops for twenty years, part of the time as a partner in Full Belly Farm, a private 150-acre organic vegetable farm. He has inspected over one hundred organic farms as an inspector for California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF) and served as a member and President of CCOF’s Board of Directors.

Dr. Ronald shares her thoughts on the possible union of organic and genetic engineering in The New Organic In the Boston Globe. She writes: “To meet the appetites of the world’s population without drastically hurting the environment requires a visionary new approach: combining genetic engineering and organic farming.” My favorite paragraph is towards the end of the article:

Pitting genetic engineering and organic farming against each other only prevents the transformative changes needed on our farms. There seems to be a communication gap between organic and conventional farmers and between consumers and scientists. The stakes are high in closing that gap. Without good science and good farming, we cannot even begin to dream about establishing an ecologically balanced, biologically based system of farming and ensuring food security.

I wholeheartedly agree that communication between scientists and consumers needs to be improved. This is why I blog. This is why I make an effort to comment on articles involving genetic engineering on sites like Wired and Grist. I want people to know that I’m here. I am a scientist, I am reasonable, and I am a good person.

Photo credit: Christian L. via Flickr.

Dr. Ronald is also a good person. The Sacramento Bee tells about her efforts to use genes from native rices in Mali to improve agriculture for poor farmers there. The wide reaching series, “Seeds of Doubt“, doesn’t contain any science, but does provide a window into patent issues and consumer confusion for those who know little about the issue of GMOs. It also provides a few glimpses into Dr. Ronald’s private life and her personal ethics.

Like Dr. Ronald and her husband, I believe that the two types of scientists and farmers (sustainable agriculture and genetic engineers) need to communicate and work together. This is why I attend ISU’s Sustainable Agriculture Colloquium whenever my courseload allows. I’m even considering a Sus Ag Graduate Minor, depending on how it affects my genetics coursework and research. The partnership can only happen if every scientist and every person on each side of the issue works to share and understand each other. I’m willing to take steps. Are you?

The future of agriculture could be bright or dark. It all depends on how we choose to act.

Thanks to Ethicurian for bringing the article The New Organic to my attention. I’ll never know how they manage to cover so many sources!

Posner, J., Baldock, J., & Hedtcke, J. (2008). Organic and Conventional Production Systems in the Wisconsin Integrated Cropping Systems Trials: I. Productivity 1990-2002 Agronomy Journal, 100 (2), 253-260 DOI: 10.2134/agrojnl2007.0058