tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35909661751104413912024-02-08T06:15:03.071-08:00Tomorrow's TableOn this web log I explore topics related to genetics, food and farming.Pamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-37428749001434682292009-10-16T13:31:00.000-07:002009-10-16T13:35:56.095-07:00Tomorrow's Table moves to Science BlogsHello readers<br /><br />After a short blogging break, Tomorrow's Table will soon go live on <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/tomorrowstable/">Science Blogs</a>.<br /><br />Please visit the new site. Although it still needs a bit of work (e.g. I need to post my favorite blogs to my new blog roll- that means you Mind the Gap and Tree of Life), next week I will begin posting regularly. Thanks for your comments and support.<br /><br />See you there!<br />PamPamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-27139085597677512032009-08-25T11:33:00.000-07:002009-08-25T11:34:42.748-07:00Also, What If We're Attacked By Beets? What Then?Dear Ms. Doctor Ronald--<br /><br /><br />I recently had the opportunity to read Simplicity Today, the magazine of the University of Reed alumni association, and its <a href="http://web.reed.edu/reed_magazine/summer2009/features/grains_of_truth/index.html">article on you</a> (or someone who looks like you and has the same name as you and is apparently you). I found it to be fascinating and educational in the extreme, so extreme that I actually burned myself on it. I also found it very easy to read, once I mastered the "trick" of holding the magazine rightside-up. <br /><br />Although, because of time constraints, I was only able to skim a few of the shorter paragraphs, I believe I got the gist of the article, which was, if I'm not mistaken, science. Now, I am very pro-science. I believe that science is our future, along with bean-bag chairs and radio. I feel that that every child in America, or wherever they live in the US, should be exposed to science, although only for brief periods and only while wearing a protective lead suit. I also believe that carrots are not our friends. This last point is, admittedly, of only tangential relevance to the matter at hand, but I feel that I should express all my beliefs at once. <br /><br />Despite my fervently pro-science stance, much of what I nearly read in that article causes me great concern. As a small farmer (4'9") struggling to compete in the cutthroat world of agriculture, I am very concerned about genetically modified orgasms (GMOs). I believe that any artificial tampering with sexual function, other than using margarine on the upper torso, is likely to ... wait a moment. I see by further skimming that I have made a small mistake here. Evidently the correct term is "organism." <br /><br />Never mind, then. <br /><br />Dr. Ronald, I work very hard at farming. In my case, I raise bacteria, mostly E. coli, in my stomach, and sell them at farmers' markets. It is a niche enterprise, as the only farmers' markets that cater to this enterprise are very small--very small, indeed. (Most of my buyers are larger bacteria.) Now, it is not the thought of "monster genes" that worries me. Frankly, I wish scientists would take much less care in this area, because I am hoping someday that someone will accidentally invent a hot dog with wings that will fly right into your mouth. No, it is the notion of corporate control of GMOs (organisms) that causes me distress. I am not referring so much to companies like Monsanto or Archer Daniels Midland, because I am pretty sure that these firms will either sink through their own avarice and venality, or from being hit by asteroids, but other corporations. I am thinking specifically of Toys 'R' Us. Dr. Ronald, have you and your organic husband never stopped to think what might transpire if Toys 'R' Us gets hold of the gene? <br /><br />Perhaps the thought of a genetically modified Slinky doesn't bother you. Perhaps you don't care if Mattel creates a pesticide-resistant Barbie that CANNOT BE KILLED. Perhaps you welcome the day that Hasbro markets a Lite Brite that contain genes from a Big Wheel. <br /><br />Well, I don't, Dr. Ronald, and that's why I will continue to raise my stomach bacteria the old-fashioned way . . . on manure from farm animals and rich, loamy deposits of night soil. Yes, it means extra effort, and, yes, my yields may not be as impressive as those of the big, factory-style bacterial farms that double as agribusiness cattle ranches, but I believe that the old ways are the best ways. (Of course, there is always room for progress. Which is why I put a steering wheel on my horse.) If this means that I will miss out on the coming revolution in food-based toys, well, then so be it. That's a small price to pay for piece of mind, although it's rather a high price to pay for, say, shoe inserts. <br /><br />Thank you.<br /><br /><br />Mateo BurtchPamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-77727384084362312142009-08-06T12:34:00.000-07:002009-08-06T13:14:55.797-07:00Who Can We Trust?Discussions about genetic engineering with the general public inevitably lead a to concern that scientists cannot necessarily be trusted. It seems that to successfully make decisions on how to use GE for the betterment of humankind and the environment, the public will need to understand the scientific process and learn to distinguish high-quality scientific research that has stood the test of time and can largely be relied on from simple assertions or unsubstantiated rumors.<br /><br />Jim Holt, a writer for the New York Times Magazine, cites a survey indicating that less than 10% of adult Americans possess basic scientific literacy. For nonscientists, it may be the sheer difficulty of science, its remoteness from their daily activities, “that make it seem alien and dangerous” (Holt 2005). Yet, the societal values that science promotes—free inquiry, free thought, free speech, transparency, tolerance, and the willingness to arbitrate disputes on the basis of evidence—are exactly the qualities needed when debating the future use of GE in generating new plant varieties. In the words of Ismail Serageldin, Director of the Library of Alexandria and past Vice President for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development of the World<br />Bank, an understanding of the scientifi c process is important “not just to promote the pursuit of science, but to yield a more tolerant society that adapts to change and embraces the new” (Serageldin 2002).<br /><br />Misrepresentation of science for ideological or political purposes simply muddies the debate, and sadly, with respect to the GE foods, this often occurs. For example, to suggest that genetic engineering is dangerous, proponents of the California initiatives to ban the process often cite a book called Seeds of Deception (Smith 2004), written by a former Iowa political candidate f or the Natural L aw Party with no scientific training. This book is the likely source for information on another Sonoma county flyer suggesting that “Lab animals fed GE food develop stomach lesions,” in reference to a fundamentally fl awed experiment carried out in 1999 that was never confirmed (Ewen and Pusztai 1999). To lend credence to those irreproducible results, Smith cites the experiment of a seventeen-year-old student who fed mice genetically engineered potatoes. According to the referenced Web site, “ . . . [the mice] fed GM ate more, probably because they were slightly heavier on average to begin with, but they gained less weight.” In addition, “ . . . marked behavioral diff erences” were observed though the boy admitted, “these were ‘subjective’ and not quantitative.” Smith argues that this experiment demonstrates that GE food may have negative eff ects on the “human psyche” and concludes that the boy “has put the scientists to shame.” The implication is that the public can trust this experiment carried out by a student, unhampered by scientific training but not those of the scientific community who pointed out the flaws in the original experiment. Smith ignores the fact that this experiment conducted by a teenager was not subjected to the rigorous methods that are inherent to the scientific process.<br /><br />So how can the public distinguish rumors from high quality science, determine what an established scientific “ f act” i , and what is still unknown? Here are some useful criteria:<br /><br />1. Examine the primary source of information. Is there a reference to the source of information? If not, it cannot be verified. If so, is the source reputable? In the case of the boy and the mice, I found that the reference given for the boy’s work was to another Web site, and that that web site referred to even another Web site (Ho 2002). It turned out that the only documentation of this “experiment” was a chance meeting with the boy’s mother, who was the source of the “scientific information.” “Mum Guusje is very proud of her son. . . .” Why would someone would cite a conversation with a boy’s mother as a good scientific reference? Either the authors of the book and the Web site lack a basic understanding of science and cannot assess the accuracy of the work, or they<br />simply do not care, or both. But they should care; for this kind of deception only confuses and frightens people. And laws are being passed based on this kind of information.<br /><br />2. Ask if the work was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Peer review is the standard process for scientific publications. Peer-reviewed manuscripts have been read by several scholars in the same field (called peers), and these peers have indicated that the experiments and conclusions meets the standards of their discipline and are suitable for publication. In the absence of peer-review the significance and quality of the data cannot be assessed. With no peer-reviewed, published record of the boy’s subjective experiment, it is doubtful that normal standard scientific methods were applied.<br /><br />3. Check if the journal has a good reputation for scientific research. If a peer-reviewed paper is cited, where was it published? Is the journal widely respected? One tool that is commonly used for ranking, evaluating, categorizing, and comparing journals is the frequency with which the “average article” in a journal has been cited in a particular year or period. The frequency of citation reflects acknowledgment of importance by the scientific community. High-impact and widely respected journals include Science and Nature. Therefore, a citation in Science generally suggests scholarly acceptance, whereas publication in a nonscientific or little-known journal does not.<br /><br />4. Determine if there is an independent confirmation by another published study. Even if a study is peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal, independent assessment is critical to confirm or extend the findings. Even the best journals or scientists will occasionally make mistakes and publish papers that are later retracted. Sometimes there may be outright fabrication that is overlooked by the reviewers and not detected until later (Kennedy 2006). In other cases, the scientific report may be accurate but its significance may be misrepresented by the media. A good example is that of genetically engineered corn and the monarch butterfly controversy that erupted in 1999. A Cornell entomologist, John Losey, published a short paper in the scientific journal Nature reporting that monarch butterfly larvae died after eating milkweed plants dusted with pollen from GE corn (Losey et al. 1999). The paper generated intense national and international news coverage transforming the monarch butterfly overnight into a dramatic symbol of what some consumers saw as the dangers of agricultural biotechnology. Subsequent scientific studies, including field trials, showed that the exposure of monarchs to GE corn is fairly small and that the threat to monarchs pales in comparison to risks presented by conventional pesticides (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology 2002). Such misrepresentations or errors are usually discovered by other researchers because most reports, especially if it is exciting news such as a suggestion that genetic engineering kills monarch butterflies or makes mice sick, will be rapidly retested by other scientists. If the data are challenged, the first author then has the opportunity to write another paper refuting the challenge.<br /><br />Although it is a slow process to establish a scientific “truth,” a particular scientific conclusion will eventually either gain broad acceptance or be discarded.<br /><br />5. Assess if a potential conflict of interest exists. Most people would agree that a mother usually believes the best about her son, and that pesky details such as lack of scientific training may not bother her. Therefore, a mother’s recommendation represents a clear conflict of interest in such a case. Studies tainted by such undisclosed conflicts of interests are a major concern in the debate about genetic engineering. If governmental regulators were to rely solely on data supplied by parties whose primary concern is not the public good but private interest, then the public would have reason to question the integrity of the research. Similarly, if a person with a strong stance on the use of GE in agriculture is an employee of a for-profit biotechnology or organic industry, such employment should be disclosed because a conflict of interest may exist. . Transparency is a wonderful disinfectant when honesty is needed. (Full disclosure: neither Raoul nor I presently have financial relationships with for-profit food biotechnology or organic industries; nor have we for the last 10 years).<br /><br />6. Assess the quality of institution or panel. Does the report emanate from a University accredited by the U.S. Department of Education or equivalent society? Such information is generally more reliable than that issued from a single individual putting information out on the web. In the United States, government research arms such as the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health and professional scientific societies generally provide up-to-date, high-quality information. For example, the American Society of Plant Biologists is a nonprofit professional society devoted to the advancement of the plant sciences. It publishes two world-class journals and organizes conferences and other activities that are key to the advancement of the science. K e National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is “an honorific society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientifi c and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare.” (NAS 2006). Election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a U.S. scientist or engineer. These types of nonprofit organizations provide a public service by working outside the framework of government to ensure independent advice on matters of science, technology, and medicine.<br /><br />7. Examine the reputation of the author. Do the author(s) have training in science?<br />If so, have they had formal training leading to an advanced degree such as a Master’s degree or doctorate, and have they published widely in reputable journals? If not, then are they working with a reputable scientist(s) to evaluate the data? In the case of the boy and the mice, a university affiliation is hinted at, but it seems that the “experiment” was carried out at home and reviewed primarily by his mother.<br /><br />You, the consumer, are now ready to delve into issues surrounding genetic engineering.<br />Applying these tips about the scientific process, you can now more easily assess the accuracy of media reports. Checking scientific sources can be time consuming, but it is worth the effort because such sources will get you closer to accurate facts about GE than rumor or unconfirmed reports.<br /><br /><br />Ewen, S.W.B., and A. Pusztai. 1999. Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. The Lancet 354:1353–1354.<br />Holt, Jim. 2005. The Way We Live Now: “Madness A bout a Method.” New York Times<br />Magazine, December 11. www.nytimes.com (accessed March 29, 2006).<br />Ho, Mae-Wan (ed.). 2002. Mice Prefer Non GM. Institute of Science in Society: Science<br />Society Sustainability. ISIS 13/14 (February). w ww.isis.org.uk/Mice Prefe rNonGM.php?<br />(accessed March 31, 2006).<br />Kennedy, Donald (ed.). 2006. Retraction of Hwang et al., Science 308:5279.<br />Re traction of Hwang et al., Science 303:1669. Editorial Re traction. Science<br />(Letters) 301:335.<br />Losey, JE, LS Rayor, ME Carter. 1999.Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Nature 399:214.<br />NAS (National Research Council and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies).<br />2006. Washington D.C.: < e National Academy Press. www.nasonline.org/site/<br />PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_main_page (accessed May 2, 2006).<br />Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. 2002. “Three Years Later: Genetically<br />Engineered Corn and Monarch Butterfl y Controversy.” University of Richmond, < e PEW<br />Charitable Trusts. pewagbiotech.org/resources/issuebriefs/ monarch.pdf (accessed May 8,<br />2006).<br />Serageldin, Ismail. 2002. The rice genome: world poverty and hunger—the challenge for science.<br />Science 296(5565, April 5): 54-58.<br />Smith, Jeffery M. 2004. Seeds of Deception. Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You Are Eating. Portland: Chelsea Green Ltd.Pamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-60365474311331488382009-07-22T17:09:00.000-07:002009-07-22T17:10:27.020-07:00The Obamas' First HarvestSalon ran a story last week on <a href="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/07/06/obama_food/?source=newsletter">Obamas' First harvest</a><br /><br />The story indicates that Michell drew a little flak from groups that "prefer conventional agriculture to the organic garden at the White house"<br /><br />I was curious as to who these anti-new age heretics are. So I checked out the <a href="http://www.lavidalocavore.org/showDiary.do?diaryId=1309">link</a><br /><br />It turns out that the letter is from the Mid America CropLife Association. I couldnt find anything in the letter against organic. Instead it was a reasonable argument that agriculture can benefit from science-based practices. True, the letter did not acknowledge that in many places in the country, fertilizers and pesticides are causing significant environmental problems, but I did like that they pointed out that conventional and local are not mutually exclusive.<br /><br />I suggest Michelle move away from the word "Organic" and use "ecologically-based farming" instead. That way she can feel free to use the most appropriate tools to achieve goals of sustainable agriculture and avoid pitting one group against another.Pamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-89666957153168719732009-06-23T10:37:00.001-07:002009-06-23T10:39:55.711-07:00Five experts debate the roots of GM opposition, the role of big agribusiness, and whether we’ve achieved real scientific consensus<a href="http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/scientific_flip-flop/">Seed magazine</a> has posted a discussion about the roots of opposition to GE crops.<br /><br />On April 22, 1998 the European Union contravened decades of stalwart opposition to genetically engineered crops when it greenlighted the cultivation of “Mon 810,” a pest-resistant maize manufactured by Monsanto.<br /><br />But despite Mon810’s official sanction under EU law, several countries—including France, Austria, Greece, Hungary and Luxembourg—have imposed national bans on the GE crop. The most recent addition to this list is Germany, which banned the corn in April, just before this year’s seeds would have been sown.<br /><br />Ilse Aigner, Germany’s federal agricultural minister, acknowledged that various federal environmental institutes had failed to come to an agreement about Mon810’s environmental risks, but said she was encouraged by the example of Luxembourg, which imposed a moratorium in late March.2<br /><br />At the European level, scientific assessments have found the risks Mon810 poses to the environment to be exceedingly small. Which is no surprise, perhaps, since study after study after study has concluded that the hazards—both to human and ecosystem health—are no greater with GE crops than with conventionally grown ones.<br /><br />And yet throughout Europe, pubic opinion appears to be turning increasingly against GE crops. Speaking on condition of anonymity, one source told EUbusiness that if the people were asked about Mon810, “there would be a rejection.” “The spirit has changed,” the source added. “The legislation in a way is operating like an automatic pilot and we have to put some direction in it.”<br /><br />Most Europeans don’t consider themselves to be anti-science or particularly technophobic. In fact, Europe’s full embrace of the scientific consensus on another environmental issue, global warming, has enabled the continent to take the clear lead on climate change, with the most ambitious emissions targets, the first carbon trading market, and the greenest urban infrastructure plans on the planet.<br /><br />Europe’s scientific disconnect is more broadly true of eco-minded citizens worldwide: They laud the likes of James Hansen and Rajendra Pachauri but shrink in horror at the scientist who offers up a Bt corn plant (even though numerous studies indicate that Bt crops—by dramatically curbing pesticide use—conserve biodiversity on farms and reduce chemical-related sickness among farmers).<br /><br />So why the disconnect? Why do many environmentalists trust science when it comes to climate change but not when it comes to genetic engineering? Is the fear really about the technology itself or is it a mistrust of big agribusiness?<br /><br />See the responses <a href="http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/scientific_flip-flop/">here</a>.Pamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-49748970459283146472009-05-13T15:32:00.000-07:002009-05-13T15:53:00.160-07:00Oprah and scienceSo much for the idea that Oprah would embrace science-based decision making. A few months ago, on my <a href="http://network.nature.com/people/tomorrows-table/blog/2008/09/17/marketing-science-in-the-public-square">nature networks blog</a> I suggested that we start a movement to lobby Oprah to place a non-fiction science book on her list every few months. The idea was to create a forum in the mass media to discuss real science in front of millions. <br /><br />I thought she would go for the idea. After all, she supported Obama and likes to read. Sadly it seems that may be all she has in common with scientists.<br /><br />In their weekly recap, <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/">ScienceBlogs</a> now reports that:<br /><br />Oprah Winfrey and notorious anti-vaccination supporter Jenny McCarthy sealed a contractual deal that will enable McCarthy to spread her belief across several platforms that vaccines cause autism. These claims are vehemently opposed in the scientific community, as they remain virtually unsupported after years of rigorous scientific investigation and, if heeded as true, have lethal consequences in the form of diseases like measles, mumps and rubella. With support from Oprah, McCarthy is slated to host a syndicated talk show and maintain a blog. According to ScienceBlogger <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/?utm_source=ScienceBlogs+Weekly+Recap&utm_campaign=22edf6ee0a-Recap_5_05_to_5_12_2009&utm_medium=email">PZ Myers</a>, this is “proof that there is no god.”<br /><br />It may be time for PZ to start his own talk TV showPamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-38990723561720669352009-05-01T09:04:00.000-07:002009-05-02T09:11:53.757-07:00A Winner of the 2009 National Geographic Kids Hands-On Explorer ContestOur friend Elliot (age 13) has recently been announced as one of 15 winners across the country of the 2009 National Geographic Kids Hands-On Explorer Contest. To win, he submitted a photograph and essay about one of his own recent explorations. He, of course chose an image from his vast collection of snake photos. This one was of a yellow-belly racer that he saw and photographed in Stebbins Cold Canyon UC Reserve. He wrote a 300-word essay about the canyon and about the day he photographed the snake. <br /> <br />And even more exciting is that the prize is a 12-day trip to Peru at the end of May to visit Machu Picchu and the Peruvian Amazon Rainforest for the winners and their chaperones! He also gets a new cool Nikon camera to take with him on the trip. <br /> <br /><br />Elliot<br />Hands on Explorer Challenge Essay<br />2/3/09<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gSGgoFwryCc/Sfsd5pdMK3I/AAAAAAAAAHk/2TrztYs13xI/s1600-h/racer+for+NatGeo.JPG"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 182px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gSGgoFwryCc/Sfsd5pdMK3I/AAAAAAAAAHk/2TrztYs13xI/s320/racer+for+NatGeo.JPG" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5330887460141149042" /></a>Splash! After the three-mile hike through a dry rocky creek bed, the feeling of cool water is welcome as I plunge into the deep clear pool. The high walls of the canyon tower around me and before me is a mossy waterfall. Iridescent hummingbirds drink from the trickling falls and swoop overhead. <br /><br />This is Cold Creek Canyon. Ever since I was a small child I have come here with family and friends, yet with every visit, I discover something new. Once it was a bobcat track along the creek, another time a pileated woodpecker in a massive oak tree. But my favorite things have always been the canyon’s reptiles and amphibians.<br /><br />My love of herpetology began when I was 13 months old and I surprised my parents by pulling a garter snake from a grassy lake. Ever since I have been fascinated by these creatures and I look for them wherever I go. I spend hours researching, photographing, writing field notes, and keeping a life list of the over 165 species and subspecies of reptiles I have seen in the wild. <br /><br />On this day in the canyon, my mother and I have an extraordinary experience. While sitting by the creek, we notice a yellow-belly racer come out of a hole. A nearby sound makes us look up and we see two racers together in a tree and three more below. I realize that the smaller snakes are males following one large female’s pheromones and that the snakes in the tree are mating. <br /><br />I photograph the entire event. The photo here is of the first snake we saw. It is my favorite shot in the series because of the snake’s alertness as it searches the air with its tongue for scents. Whenever I see it, I remember this amazing day.Pamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-83445381674822955962009-04-28T16:19:00.000-07:002009-04-28T16:23:17.978-07:00End the University as We Know ItHere is an interesting and radical proposal to think about:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27taylor.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1">End the University as We Know It </a><br /><br />I am not wild about the idea of abolishing tenure (after all there is no evidence that human nature has changed so much that we dont need to be concerned about politicians firing professors who dig up information they do not like) but I do like the idea of increasing collaborations between departments to create interdisciplinary teams that focus on societally important issues like water and, importantly, disease.Pamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-33957771146860290132009-04-24T09:52:00.000-07:002009-04-24T10:21:48.090-07:00Scientific Consensus on Climate Change and GE CropsA <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper">story</a> today by Andrew Revkin in the New York Times reveals that for more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.<br /><br />"Some environmentalists have compared the tactic to that once used by tobacco companies, which for decades insisted that the science linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer was uncertain. By questioning the science on global warming, these environmentalists say, groups like the Global Climate Coalition were able to sow enough doubt to blunt public concern about a consequential issue and delay government action.<br /><br />George Monbiot, a British environmental activist and writer, said that by promoting doubt, industry had taken advantage of news media norms requiring neutral coverage of issues, just as the tobacco industry once had.<br /><br />'They didn’t have to win the argument to succeed,” Mr. Monbiot said, “only to cause as much confusion as possible.' "<br /><br />Why does this sound so familiar?<br /><br />The debate on GE crops has gone a similar route, although this time the concerted campaign to mislead the public on the scientific consensus about a critical environmental issue of our time has come from a coalition from the progressive left rather than the right using nearly identical tactics. As is clear from numerous scientific reports from leading scientific agencies such as the National Academy of Sciences, <a href="http://pamelaronald.blogspot.com/2008/08/10-things-about-ge-crops-to-scratch.html">the broad scientific consensus</a> is that the GE crops on the market are safe to eat and have clear environmental benefits.<br /><br />Is there a philosophical conversation to be had on whether or not we want bacterial genes in our crops? Certainly.<br /><br />Do we need to integrate ecologically-based farming practices into your production food system? Absolutely<br /><br />Can we say that ALL GE crops in the future will be safe to eat? No.<br /><br />But if we are going to move to a more sustainable agriculture, feed the growing population and protect our environment, then we've got to start by being honest about the science.Pamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-21052824809214292962009-04-20T19:47:00.000-07:002009-04-22T11:26:04.728-07:00The Earth Guy and the Science GuyThe New York Times Sunday magazine "Green Mind" special featured interviews with two exceptional individuals who are leaders of the modern green movement. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/magazine/19wwln-q4-t.html">Steven Chu</a> is a Nobel-prize winning physicist. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/magazine/19wwln-domains-t.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=stewart%20brand%20april%202009&st=cse">Stewart Brand</a> founded one of the most beloved "catalogs" of all time, "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_earth_catalog">The Whole Earth Catalog</a>". <br /><br />Clearly, these accomplishments reflect their creativity, perseverance and love of the natural world. But what I find most inspirational about these two men is that they have been consistently proactive, not reactive, throughout their careers. They are not against things, they are for a green future. <br /><br />Both Chu and Brand advocate practical solutions to particularly difficult-to-solve problems. "The most important thing is making sure that your home is properly insulated, that your leaky doors and windows are fixed" says Chu. They clearly enjoy implementing new ideas and technology that have environmental benefits. They do not ask if a technology is good or bad, cool or not but whether it is appropriate for the task at hand. "The romantic nature-is-perfect approach is just horse exhaust", says Brand, choosing his words carefully. <br /><br />These are thoughtful men that we are fortunate to have as leaders of a community-based, science-based movement. They are not reluctant to engage with established institutions (for example, the government of the United States of America) to move the world's people forward. It is through their efforts and those like them that we finally will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, make our cities more efficient and establish a more ecological way of farming. <br /><br /><br />(Full disclosure: I am associated with the Joint Bioenergy Institute, a DOE-funded Bioenergy Research Center that Secretary Chu supported when he was director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. I also have had the pleasure of meeting Stewart and reading a few advance chapters of his new book "Whole Earth Discipline", which I highly recommend.)Pamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-56068758855991254342009-04-10T18:02:00.000-07:002009-04-10T18:38:18.460-07:00Spring in California, those that inspire us and a blogging excuseI try not to travel in the spring. Instead of the stale air of the airplane, I try to get out to the mountains, the beach, the garden or to the nearby foothills. <br /><br /> Last weekend my daughter and I (who is 8 years old today), went for a walk. I thought she was strong enough to do the 5 mile <a href="http://nrs.ucdavis.edu/stebbins.html">Cold Canyon hike</a> so off we happily went. As we started up the VERY steep hill, her trust began to dissipate. Then the inevitable "I want to go home".<br /><br />I definitely did not want to go home. More than that, I did not want her to want to go home. <br /><br />"Look, a soap plant, the people that were here before us used to dig up this plant and make small brooms".<br /><br />She forgot the steepness and we started digging with some twigs. But these plants are not easy to dig up and the soil was not soft. Still, just to dig in the dirt in the quiet. A peaceful and shared task. Finally we gave up digging. Audrey was ready to hike again. <br /><br />But soon, again, she questioned the purpose of the climb.<br /><br />"To get to the top of course", I explained.<br /><br />She seemed unconvinced so we sat down again and I told her the story of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mallory">George Mallory</a> who took part in the first three British expeditions to Mount Everest in the early 1920s. I told her how badly he wanted to be at the top and that he loved his beautiful wife so much that he carried her picture in his wallet with him always. I told her how tall the mountain is and how hard it is to breath up that high. I explained that Mt Everest is 27x taller than the edges of Cold Canyon. And then I told her that he died. For a long time noone knew if he ever made it to the top. <br /><br />She almost cried and looked at me wanting a better ending than that. Fortunately I had one because I recently heard an <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102468824">interview on NPR</a> with the author of a new book about Mallory. I told her that when his body was finally discovered in 1999, his wallet did not have a picture of his wife. "He must have left it on the peak", I said. "He promised his wife he would do that if he ever made it there".<br /><br />Smiling, we continued on. <br /><br />Near the top she found a rock and we looked over the central valley to the snow capped mountains beyond. "Tell me another story". So I did.<br /><br />"John Muir sat some place in the inner coastal range, just like this. He was an adventurer and loved California. When he saw the mountains beyond the flower-filled valley he decided to go there" <br /><br />I told her how he walked across the entire valley and into the mountains and how he lived there with the people who lived here before us and the bears and the birds.<br /><br />We then continued on. With the mountaineers on our minds and the company of the wildflowers- sticky monkdy flower, Mariposa lily, paintbrush, and others- the hike no longer seemed so hard.<br /><br />Besides we knew there was a swimming hole near the end. <br /><br />It was a beautiful day in California. Too beautiful to spend blogging.Pamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-55297110832808552332009-03-23T06:45:00.000-07:002009-03-23T10:00:57.374-07:00Michell Obama digs up the White House lawnThe Obamas have started planting their garden <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/dining/20garden.html?_r=1">with 55 varieties of vegetables —</a> from a wish list of the kitchen staff — grown from organic seedlings started at the Executive Mansion’s greenhouses.<br /><br />"The Obamas will feed their love of Mexican food with cilantro, tomatillos and hot peppers. Lettuces will include red romaine, green oak leaf, butterhead, red leaf and galactic. There will be spinach, chard, collards and black kale. For desserts, there will be a patch of berries. And herbs will include some more unusual varieties, like anise hyssop and Thai basil". A White House carpenter, Charlie Brandts, who is a beekeeper, will tend two hives for honey.<br /><br />If we all dug up our lawns, planted 55 kinds of vegetables and tended it very carefully, the world would be a better place. That said, who has time? Certainly not the Obamas. The White House grounds crew and the kitchen staff will do most of the work.<br /><br />Still, I love the symbolism of it, and though it will be costly (vegetables harvested from showcase gardens such as the Obamas' are much more expensive than produce from an organic commercial farm), it will provide a great education tool for the fifth graders that will help tend the farm and for White House visitors.<br /><br />I hope one of her assistants plants some corn and teaches them about insects and disease. She can show them how to feel the tip of a mature ear to see if it is filled out. As we described in <a href="http://pamelaronald.blogspot.com/">"Tomorrow's Table"</a>, they may discover some ears with hollow spots created where a corn earworm has been feeding. <br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gSGgoFwryCc/Sce95VEGHhI/AAAAAAAAAG8/gv3OGGfaFRQ/s1600-h/images.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 126px; height: 96px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gSGgoFwryCc/Sce95VEGHhI/AAAAAAAAAG8/gv3OGGfaFRQ/s320/images.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5316426677738675730" /></a><br />The insect deposits its eggs on the corn silk that trails out of each ear of corn. When the larvae hatch, they crawl down the silk into the tip of the ear and begin to feed on the kernels. The kids can open up a couple of ears and see the big, fat, healthy earworms, writhing with irritation at being disturbed from such a luscious feast. They can laugh when they learn that the black stuff in the tips of the ears is called “frass,” a euphemistic word for insect poop. <br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gSGgoFwryCc/Sce99aB7pKI/AAAAAAAAAHE/O6o0N8CS6f0/s1600-h/images-2.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 116px; height: 77px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gSGgoFwryCc/Sce99aB7pKI/AAAAAAAAAHE/O6o0N8CS6f0/s320/images-2.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5316426747791254690" /></a><br />Will she teach them ways to control for this pest? The corn earworm is not a picky eater and will eat almost any crop that we rotate in such as tomatoes, beans, or lettuce, and the adult moth is a good flyer. Even conventional breeding has failed to solve this problem because scientists have not yet been able to find a corn gene that gives protection from earworm. So organic controls dont work very well for the corn earworm making it difficult to control this pest on organic farms. Most organic farmers and consumers accept this problem in exchange for the benefits of not spraying insecticides. <br /><br />There is one approach that works though. Bacillus thuringiensis is a bacteria that produces a toxin (called Bt toxin) that kills a narrow range of moths and butterflies. French farmers first started using Bacillus thuringiensis in the 1920s but it wasn’t available commercially in France until 1950s, and then in the United States in the 1950s. Today Bacillus thuringiensis is cultured in industrial production facilities and sold either as liquid or a powder with some additives to make it flow and mix better. After it is combined with water and sprayed in the field, caterpillars eat the bacteria in the form of spores and toxin. The toxin destroys the gut walls of the caterpillars and spores and other gut bacteria invade its body. This approach is an example of ‘biological control,’ using live organisms to combat pests and disease. Organic farmers have been using Bt as a "natural" insecticide to control insect pests for 50 years. It doesnt work to control earworms on sweet corn, however, because the worm is burrowed deep within the ear, where the Bt spray cannot reach.<br /><br />This is why geneticists engineered corn with the Bt gene. GE sweet corn is resistant to the earworm. I hope the First Lady plants some GE sweet corn next to the conventional variety so that this summer the Obamas and the kids could see firsthand how it resists pests and that it tastes the same. There will be less frass to giggle about but more sweet corn.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gSGgoFwryCc/Sce_-ExOweI/AAAAAAAAAHU/k-Z8E6eZBdY/s1600-h/Slide1.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_gSGgoFwryCc/Sce_-ExOweI/AAAAAAAAAHU/k-Z8E6eZBdY/s320/Slide1.jpg" border="0" alt=""id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5316428958287184354" /></a><br />Sweet Corn Infected with Corn Earworm. On the left are three ears of late-season organically grown sweet corn. On the right are three ears of GE sweet corn containing Bt (Courtesy of Fred Gould, North Carolina State University).Pamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-24076183569284214792009-03-16T12:48:00.000-07:002009-03-31T08:53:34.432-07:00What does GMO really mean?For years, journalists, television producers and newspaper reporters that write about genetically engineered crops, have used the term “GMO” (genetically modified organism) to describe these new crop varieties. The marketing industry has taken to writing “GMO-free” on their products, as a way to increase sales to consumers fearful of the genetic engineering process.<br /><br />The problem is that the term GMO is misused and misunderstood.<br /><br />Take, for example, <a href="http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-03-12-voa83.cfm">a recent story on Voice of America</a> about <a href="http://pamelaronald.blogspot.com/2008/11/blogging-from-bangladesh-part-2.html">a newly developed rice variety that is tolerant of flooding</a>. The producer made a valiant effort to explain the genetic basis of this new variety:<br /><br /> “The new strain is genetically improved, but not genetically modified, so is not subject to tight controls on genetically modified foods.”<br /><br />Does anyone know what is he talking about? I do, so please let me explain.<br /><br />Breeders have a 8000 year history of genetic modification (also called genetic improvement or conventional breeding)- that is, they have modified the genome of crop species in a number of ways. Such conventional breeding methods include hybridization (transfer of pollen from one plant variety to another to generate new seed with genes from both parents), mutagenesis (in which chemicals or irradiation are used to induce random mutations in DNA) and embryo rescue (where plant or animal embryos produced from interspecies gene transfer are placed in a tissue culture environment to complete development). Today, everything we eat has been genetically modified in some way.<br /><br />Genetic engineering, in contrast, uses a direct method to introduce new genes into a crop. Because the transfer is not limited by the relatedness of the parental varieties, any gene, even a gene from another species can be introduced into a crop plant. <a href="http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10977">A committee established by the National Academy of Sciences</a> was asked to look carefully at the GE process. Their report concluded that the process of genetic engineering is not inherently hazardous. However, as with every other technology used for genetic modification, GE carries the potential for introducing unintended compositional changes. It depends on what gene is introduced or modified. For example, a new celery variety developed through conventional breeding that carried improved resistance to pests caused some farm workers to develop a rash on their hands when harvesting. In contrast, after 1 billion acres of GE crops grown over 10 years, there has not been a single instance of harm to human health or the environment.<br /><br />The method that we used to develop flood tolerant rice is called precision breeding, which is a sort of hybrid between genetic engineering and conventional genetic modification. Precision breeding (also called marker assisted selection) uses DNA technology to detect the inheritance of a desired gene to a seedling resulting from a genetic cross between two parent varieties. The result is the precise introduction of one to several novel genes from closely related species. For example, our flood tolerant rice was developed from a cross of a low-yielding rice variety that carried <br />a rare gene for tolerance with modern, locally adapted modern varieties. The resulting seedlings were screened using precision breeding to develop new varieties with the taste and yield favored by consumers with the flood tolerant trait. The rice is now being grown by farmers in Bangladesh and India, where 4 million tons of rice are lost each year to flooding, enough to feed 30 million people.<br /><br />Many anti-GE activists reject GE but do accept precision breeding (even though both processes can introduce novel genes that have not previously been tested in modern varieties). Thus, varieties developed through precision breeding are subject only to standard seed certification and not to the strict regulatory approval process required for GE crops.<br /><br />We need to look at the broader goals of sustainability and food security before ruling out a particular process of crop modification. Each new variety needs to be evaluated on a case-by case basis.<br /><br />To restart the dialog, lets use the term “GE crops” rather than “GMO” so the consumer will have a better idea of what the debate is all about.<br /><br />First published on <a href="http://news.google.com/news?btcid=c6cf220df890634c">google news</a>.Pamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-62988350129985413442009-03-11T11:14:00.001-07:002009-03-11T11:17:48.737-07:00The Open Laboratory 2008<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href=" http://scienceblogs.com/clock/openlab08cover.JPG"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 296px; height: 448px;" src=" http://scienceblogs.com/clock/openlab08cover.JPG" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />The Open Laboratory 2008, an anthology of the best scienceblogs of 2008, is now for <a href="http://www.lulu.com/content/6110823">sale</a>. <br /><br />This year's editor Jennifer Rohn put together a collection of fifty-two selected blog posts showcasing the quality and diversity of science writing on blogs in 2008. You can see the background story on how the book came about <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2009/03/the_open_laboratory_2008_is_he.php">here</a>.Pamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-19549154254861337762009-03-05T12:12:00.001-08:002009-03-05T12:12:54.353-08:00Guest Blogger Raoul Adamchak on corporate transparencyScience based information is critical to Sustainable Agriculture.<br /><br />Agricultural scientists (26) from corn producing states have sent a letter to the EPA criticizing GE seed companies for limiting access to seeds for scientific research. (Pollack, Andrew, NYT, 2/20/09)<br />All of the scientists have been active participants of the Regional Research Projects NCCC-46 "Development, Optimization, and Delivery of Management Strategies for Corn Rootworms and Other Below-ground Insect Pests of Maize" and/or related projects with corn insect pests. The comment appears as follows:<br /><br />"Technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically modified seed explicitly prohibit research. These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good, unless the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM, and its interactions with insect biology. Consequently, data flowing to an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is unduly limited."<br /><br />It appears that the leaders at these seed companies have not yet embraced the idea that the acceptance of GE crops is dependent upon peer-reviewed, scientific research that evaluates effectiveness, safety, or impact on non-target species. Without access and transparency and evaluation by independent scientists, it becomes impossible to determine the suitability of GE crops for agriculture. Hopefully, in the light of these comments to the EPA, the companies will develop methods to facilitate access by university researchers who are a necessary part of our system of scientific checks and balances. <br /><br />In this specific case, the evaluation of effectiveness of BT corn for rootworm control is critical in helping farmers determine if the extra cost of the GE seed is justified by increased yield due to presence of the BT toxin gene. One reason that BT corn has been adapted at a lower rate (@35%) than herbicide tolerant soybeans (@90%), is that in some regions of the U.S. the pests (European Corn Borer or corn root worm) do not attack corn in sufficiently high numbers to reach the economic threshold that justifies the expense of BT corn. Research done by land grant university scientists has been essential in determining the economic thresholds for these pests. This work helps reduce farmer expenses and increases economic return, an important goal of a sustainable ag system.Pamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-26001146367194947752009-02-13T12:27:00.000-08:002009-02-13T13:06:03.095-08:00The power of geneticsHere I have posted a time-lapse video (4 months) of a rice field at the International Rice Research Institute. This video, shot by Gene Hettle, shows survival of the <a href="http://pamelaronald.blogspot.com/2008/11/blogging-from-bangladesh-part-1.html">submergence tolerance rice</a>, developed by our team, after a 17 day flood. <br /><br />The Sub1 rice yielded about 3 fold more in these field trials. In farmers fields in bangladesh, yields are even higher- up to 5 fold. For more information, please see the recent <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/01/29/waterproof.rice/">CNN story</a>.<br /><br /><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.blogger.com/video.g?token=AD6v5dw0zaNqtapv5sPU9qNbzuzYvZYKAl6yaQPbtauKV67EHiCTNLDhEHSHEm2niBVZ5twIMezNPbfvIiKegLfq2w' class='b-hbp-video b-uploaded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br /><br />I received quite a few heartwarming emails in response to the CNN story. Here are a couple (names removed to protect privacy):<br /><br />Dear Prof. Ronald,<br /> <br /> I just read the article on "Fighting hunger with flood-tolerant rice" in CNN. I am immensely touched with what you and your students have been working on, and the breakthrough in your research. I am a native of India (born in Calcutta) and I know very well the implication of this research to millions of farmers in SouthEast Asia and more than billion people, whose staple food is rice. Both Bangladesh and India is devasted with monsoon floods, pretty much every other year, many of the farmers only survival is their rice (which not only sustain as their food but also as a cash crop). I am praying that you continue to work in this area; as food scarcity is a global security problem and survival of a civilization. There are too many hungry children in the world, it is for them.<br /> <br />Thank you and wish you more success.<br /><br />Hello Pam,<br /><br />I read about your discovery of flood sustaining rice and I must admit, this is the most happiest news I read in my recent memory. There are lots of people dying of starvation every day, and I have read and seen farmers whose families are ruined because of floods. I am very happy today that there are still some scientists in this world, who did not forget the fundamental needs of humans and who actually works for the benefit of mankind, in the true sense of its meaning, and remind the rest of the world what's being humane. I am not denying progress we make in inventing xbox systems, unmanned bomber aircraft, and missions to mars, but unfortunately, we are forgetting that, we first need to fill stomachs of millions of people and give them shelter. The calamities of flooding they are facing is because of greenhouse effects that we make.<br /><br />I am an engineer working in Canada for last 9 years, and since I moved to this country from India when I was 23, I could never understand why some people are starving to death in some parts of the world, and at same time, people in other parts of the world are just ignoring it when they can help. But, today, I am extremely happy, to read this news. You shall remain my inspiration. God bless you and your family with peace and long life.Pamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-71990978205790943052009-02-10T15:10:00.000-08:002009-02-10T17:57:00.536-08:00Big Island TransgenicsBy the year 2050, the Earth's population will increase to 9.2 billion from the current 6.7 billion. If we continue with current farming practices, vast amounts of wilderness will be lost, millions of birds and billions of insects will die, and the environmental cost will be immeasurable. Clearly, the world needs a better way to meet the demand for increased food production.<br /><br />To meet the growing need to feed the world’s population in an environmentally friendly way will require combining the technologies of genetic engineering and organic farming. <br /><br />To successfully marry these two technologies we will need to overcome long held animosity between scientists, supporters of organic farming and conventional farmers. We will also need to address the antagonism some feel toward the idea of genetic engineering.<br /><br />The recent debate on the Big Island over genetically engineered crops pitted organic coffee farmers against researchers and the biotech industry, with some organic farmers voicing concern that genetically engineered crops threaten their livelihood and agricultural philosophy.<br /><br />However, it appears their concerns about food safety are driven more by technological anxiety than by science. Today, the majority of all processed foods in the United States have at least one ingredient from genetically engineered crops and all scientific panels that have studied this matter have concluded that the GE crops currently grown in the United States are safe to eat. <br /><br />The National Academy of Sciences and the United Kingdom Genetically Modified Science Review Panel have both concluded that the process of adding genes to our food by genetic engineering is just as safe as conventional plant breeding.<br /><br />Organic farming techniques have proven results in reducing the use of insecticides, and doing so benefits humans and the environment. The question is whether the technology of organic agriculture is robust enough to meet the growing demand for food around the world. <br /><br />One way to enhance yields is to develop new varieties of crops that can survive harsh conditions such as drought, cold, heat, salt, and flooding. Many of the world’s poorest people farm in areas that are far from ideal. They face tremendous obstacles with soil quality, access to water, pests, and periodic flooding. Organic farming techniques can offer some solutions, but they still have their limits. <br /><br />It is estimated that pests and disease can reduce agricultural productivity worldwide by 40 percent. If we reduce this loss it would be equivalent to creating more land and more water. However, current pesticide use is a health and environmental hazard. <br /><br />One logical approach would have to be combining the techniques of organic farming and genetic engineering. Genetic engineering can be used to develop plants with enhanced resistance to pests and disease; organic farming can manage the overall spectrum of pests more effectively.<br /><br />Genetically engineered crops have already been proven against pests. For example, in central and southern India, where small-scale farmers typically suffer large losses because of pests, average yields of genetically engineered crops exceeded those of conventional crops by 80 percent. <br /><br />In Hawaii, the 1998 introduction of an engineered papaya plant that could resist the papaya ringspot virus has long been credited with saving the industry. The availability of GE papaya brought struggling growers back into the papaya business and by 2003, production in the region had rebounded. There was no other technology then, including organic farming techniques, to protect the papaya from this devastating disease, nor is there today. <br /><br />Genetic engineering also helps achieve other goals of the organic farming movement. By reducing the use of pesticides and by reducing pest and disease, it can make farming more affordable and thus keep family farmers in business. It can also assure local food security, an issue of growing concern here in Hawaii. <br /><br />Worldwide demand by farmers for improved hybrid corn has also made Hawaii’s expanding seed industry the number one agricultural commodity in the state. According to an economic analysis commissioned by the Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation, the Hawaii seed industry contributes approximately $144 million of economic activity to Hawaii’s economy. This translates to $7 million in annual taxes to the state, $53 million in annual labor income, and more than 2,000 jobs.<br /><br />There seems to be a communication gap between organic and conventional farmers, as well as between consumers and scientists. It is time to close that gap. Dialogue is needed if we are to advance along the road to an ecologically balanced, biologically based system of farming. <br /><br />Science and good farming alone will not be sufficient to provide food security to the healthy, or to the poor and malnourished, or to solve all our current environmental problems. However, without science and good farming we cannot even begin to dream about maintaining such a secure future.<br /><br />Rather than indulge in speculation and mistrust, let us focus our attention on the facts and to where it matters: the need to support farming methods that are good for the environment and for our childrenPamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-45320832752387186272009-01-19T17:21:00.000-08:002009-01-19T17:23:32.623-08:00To Label or not to LabelIf GE crops are considered safe by most scientists, why not simply label the produce from these crops and let people decide for themselves? Most people like to know what they are eating and make their own choices.<br /><br />I am a label reader. If there is an excess of added sugar or too many ingredients with names that I don't recognize then I don't buy the product. Not all information, however, is useful.<br /><br />A few months ago our local food coop began posting red "consumer alert" signs that say, "Conventional foods that contain corn, soy, or canola may be genetically engineered." I find these signs more annoying than helpful. It is a little bit like the warnings posted on science textbooks in some states that say, "This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory which some scientists present as scientific explanation for the origin of living things, such as plants and humans. No one was present when life first appeared on Earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact". <br /><br />Neither statement says anything informative about the state of our food nor the creation of our universe. With <a href="http://pamelaronald.blogspot.com/2008/08/10-things-about-ge-crops-to-scratch.html">no specific hazards associated with GE foods</a> or evolution, how can a consumer use these statements to make a more informed choice about the risk to their health or to their faith in God? <br /><br />The National Research Council Committee states that attempts to assess food safety based solely on the process are <a href="http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10977">scientifically unjustified</a>. Rather than adding a general label about the process with which a plant variety was developed, it would make more sense to label food so that consumers are informed about what is actually in or on the food. But this, too, is not necessarily helpful. For some people it may be informative to read a label that says, "may contain traces of carbamate pesticides, which at high concentrations are known to cause death of animals" or "may contain trace amounts of purified <em>Bacillus thuringiensis</em> protein, which kill Leptidoptera (a class of insects)." But is it helpful to most consumers who are not familiar with the science? <br /><br />Here is another example. If we carry forward with labeling the product, then organic produce treated with rotenone, a "natural" pesticide favored by some organic farmers, would need to be labeled with the following, "may contain trace amounts of rotenone--chronic exposure can cause damage to liver and kidney" (Occupational Safety and Health Administration 1998). Organic super sweet corn would require this label: "Carries a genetic mutation induced by radiation mutagenesis, resulting in the presence of a mutant protein." Organically grown papaya would need to be marked: "may contain vast amounts of papaya ringspot viral RNA and protein".<br /><br />These labels are so ominous that it is not likely that many people would feel comfortable eating these organic fruits and vegetables. Still, there is no evidence that any of these food products are hazardous. After all, we have been eating sweet corn and organic papaya safely for years.<br /><br />It seems to me that if the labeling statement does not help with safety interventions or inform consumer choice, it does not serve the purpose. It only confuses and unnecessarily alarms people.Pamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-27399974754481730682009-01-04T10:57:00.000-08:002009-01-04T11:08:57.740-08:00Tomorrow's Table: One of Seed Magazine’s Best of 2008<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/uploads/bestbooks3INLINE.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 563px; height: 210px;" src="http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/uploads/bestbooks3INLINE.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />The editors of Seed selected Tomorrow's Table as one of <a href="http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/12/seeds_best_books_of_2008_cont_1.php">the year's outstanding book releases</a>.<br /><br />Other picks include Michael Pollan's "In defense of food", Carl Zimmer's Microcosm and Paul and Anne Erlich's "The Dominant Animal". <br /><br />This is the first award Raoul and I have ever received for our writing. We are thrilled.<br /><br />Thanks Seed!Pamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-87392762998088380942008-12-17T14:44:00.000-08:002008-12-17T14:45:40.045-08:00I am not palling around with terroristsNext week the FBI will provide my fingerprints to the Department of Justice and begin a background check to review my life activities. All my laboratory personnel will also be checked out. We do not work with anthrax, small pox, botulism or ricin. We are not palling around with terrorists.<br /><br />We work with a pathogen of rice called Xanthomonas oryze pv. oryzae that is newly listed as a select agent. It has been designated as a pathogen that can be turned into a <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071128/full/450596b.html">bioweapon</a>, despite<a href="http://apsjournals.apsnet.org/doi/abs/10.1094/PHYTO-98-10-1060"> broad scientific consensus</a> that any plant-pathogenic bacterium realistically falls into this category.<br /> <br />Xoo is harmless to humans. So harmless in fact, that components of Xoo are regularly consumed by humans in chewing gum and ice cream. There is no evidence that it can be made into bio weapon to create a disease epidemic on our farmer's fields. If such an epidemic was a serious possibility, it would already have occurred. This is clear because contaminated rice seed has been imported into California for the last 250 years and there has not been a single incidence of pathogen infection. Virtually all experts in the field believe that this pathogen, which is prevalent in humid regions of Asia, cannot survive in our hot, dry climate. <br /> <br />Xoo research, supported by the NIH, NSF and the USDA and published in leading journals, is directed at protecting the nation's rice crop from disease. All available scientific evidence indicates that the current quarantine restrictions are adequate to prevent an outbreak. The scientific evidence is backed by the perfect safety record from over 20 years of research. Yet this research is now crippled, preventing the very service we seek to provide. <br /><br />Not a single scientist has come forward to suggest that this pathogen poses a threat to US rice production. Why then has this pathogen suddenly been listed as a select agent, a potential bioweapon?<br /> <br />No one knows - not the USDA regulators themselves, not leading plant pathologists in the nation (who provided science-based information to the USDA last year indicating that the current strict quarantine conditions were adequate), not the university of officials who are tasked with ramping up security. <br /> <br />Our research has suddenly become much, much more expensive. The university must pay 5-6 personnel to monitor our lab. The federal government is paying another 5-6 people to carry out inspections. The local government must carry out fingerprinting. The FBI must carry out weeks of background checks. My research staff and myself must spend hours devising procedures to prevent terrorists from stealing our cultures. Tempers are short because there is uncertainty about which seemingly arbitrary guidelines is needed. If we overlook 20 years of research will be destroyed. Some of us may go to prison.<br /> <br />This is an example of how taxpayers are spending millions dollars to strengthen to prevent bioterrorists from accessing laboratory material that is benign.<br /> <br />We urge the Obama administration and our new secretary of agriculture Tom Vilsack, to return to a science-based decision-making process and delist this pathogen.Pamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-71781235554144454202008-12-10T12:45:00.000-08:002008-12-10T12:46:11.388-08:00Should Germline Gene Therapy be Banned?This was the topic of debate among 10 University of California, Davis undergraduates last week.<br /><br />Germ line gene therapy to cure disease is “like going after a fly with a bazooka” said team 1 who argued in favor of the ban. “There are significant risks and unproven benefits. We don’t fully understand how genes interact with each other so we cannot predict the long-term effects. With somatic gene therapy or only the individual is affected. Germ line gene therapy is passed down through generations.”<br /><br />Team 2 disagreed. “Why be hesitant to reduce suffering and remove painful diseases from the human population? All medical procedures carry risks. Think of Huntington’s disease. This is a lethal disease does not kill someone until later in life, often after they have already unknowingly passed the mutant gene onto their children. Wouldn’t it be better if they did not have the mutant at all? “<br /><br />Team 1: “Gene therapy violates a fundamental natural law. Who gets to decide what is normal vs. abnormal? Think of plastic surgery- at first it was used for severe disfigurement but now individuals are seek treatment for cosmetic reasons. Gene therapy, which requires replacing or complementing a mutation with the wild-type human gene has risks. For example, germ line gene therapy may introduce new mutations that would be passed down into the next generation and forever change the human population”.<br /><br />Team 2: “ Our species is not sacred. The human gene pool is enormous. Saying that changing one gene is going to drastically affect the human population is like saying peeing into the ocean will change the salt balance. A visceral fear of messing our genetic code should not outweigh the clear benefits of this technology. All options to relieve human suffering should be on the table.”Pamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-46588970297575731152008-11-27T12:49:00.000-08:002008-11-27T12:53:47.542-08:00Farewell! Thou art too dear for my possessing*“A thing of beauty is a joy for ever;<br />Its loveliness increases: it will never<br />Pass into nothingness; but still will keep<br />A bower quiet for us, and a sleep<br />Full of sweet dreams, and health, and quiet breathing.”<br /><br />(Keats, “A thing of beauty”)<br /><br />Imagine the choices. You have successfully had two children using in vitro fertilization (mixing eggs and sperm in the laboratory), but there are 10 embryos left over. When faced with such an overabundance, what would you do? Do you attempt to have more children, discard the embryos, or donate them to embryonic stem cell research?<br /><br />This choice is faced by thousands of parents every year, because, for every successful in vitro fertilization, more embryos are created than can be implanted into a womb.<br /> <br />If you choose research, scientists will harvest the inner mass of cells from your embryos and transfer them into a plastic laboratory culture dish. After six months or more, the original 30 cells of the inner cell mass will proliferate, yielding millions of embryonic stem cells.<br /><br />Future experiments with your embryonic stem cells could lead to partial or complete cures for Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, and type I diabetes. They may even be useful for repairing heart muscle damaged from a heart attack.<br /><br />If you choose to implant the embryos into your womb (or into that of your wife or a stranger’s) they will most likely grow into a child that will be loved. <br /><br />If you choose to discard the embryos, they will pass into nothingness-- no research will be carried out and no additional children will be created.<br /><br />I think about the donors of these gametes. Some of these couples may have wanted a child for years. Some may have lost pregnancies through repeated miscarriages. I know one woman who lost her only child to a sudden heart attack on the high school football field; a weak heart that had gone undetected. These parents are beyond ecstatic when the in vitro approach is successful. I expect that it cannot be an easy decision for them to discard “surplus” embryos. After all, can one separate the concept of a child from that of an embryo? <br /><br />What would I do? Would I donate the embryos to stem cell research so people like my father-in-law could one day have new bone marrow cells that would mitigate his leukemia? Or would it be too difficult to give up the idea of more children.<br /><br />I think of the physical characteristics of my own boy and girl: the dimples of my son that he shares with his father and grandfather; the blue eyes that I envied in my handsome brothers, now his. My daughter’s dark, thick lashes that have no precedent in recent family history. And then the complex behaviors- the calm, easygoing son who asks, puzzled, “mommy why do some people get mad so easily?” The daughter who does. The picture-perfect handwriting of one, the illegible scrawl of the other that is so closely related to my own. The team player and the rebel. I cannot help but wonder what our other children would have been like if we had had more.<br /><br />And I would want more. After all, I was never was one to stop with one cookie. So sweet, so satisfying, seemingly simple. But I also know reaching for too many can bring indigestion. Before deciding to have more children, I would need to consider the possible stress it would bring. Would more children disrupt the delicate balance of family harmony we have occasionally achieved?<br /> <br />President-elect Obama has indicated that he will lift the current administration’s ban on the federal funding of research on embryonic stem cell lines created after August 9,2001. That means that parents who donate their embryos will enhance the ability of some of the best scientists in the nation to develop cures to some of the most dreadful diseases. And they may be successful in our lifetime.<br /><br />I imagine that faced with the choices of donate, discard or raise more children, that I would choose donation. A simple act of generosity, perhaps, but one made with regret and sadness for the children that I would never embrace. <br /><br /><br />* from Shakepeare’s Sonnet 87Pamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-57969795982424103142008-11-20T17:10:00.000-08:002008-11-20T17:12:13.451-08:00"All proponents of organic agriculture, especially the noisier ones such as Prince Charles, should read Tomorrow's Table."- Review in Science magazineScience 21 November 2008:<br />Vol. 322. no. 5905, pp. 1190 - 1191<br />DOI: 10.1126/science.1165961<br /><br />Books<br />AGRICULTURE:<br />Organic and GM—Why Not?<br />Mark Tester*<br /><br />Tomorrow's Table<br />Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food<br />by Pamela C. Ronald and Raoul W. Adamchak<br />Oxford University Press, New York, 2008. 226 pp. $29.95, £17.99. ISBN 9780195301755. The organic movement's opposition to genetically modified (GM) crops is causing it to miss an opportunity. Like agriculture across the planet, organic farming needs all the technological help it can get to be both sustainable and high-yielding. As with many recent innovations, GM technologies provide myriad possibilities for reducing the impacts of agriculture on the environment and the need for chemical inputs to maintain yield. But from the start, the organic movement rejected the use of GM crops. Genetic engineering is a technology, and like so many technologies, its benefits, costs, and risks depend on how it is used. A comparison with nuclear technology is not unfair: most of us benefit from medical applications of nuclear technologies, while many of us have major concerns with the large stockpiles of nuclear weapons that still threaten the planet. So, the risks of GM depend on the genes being put into the plants, not on the technology per se. Yet the numerous potential applications of GM to reduce chemical inputs to agriculture are flatly rejected by most organic farmers.<br /><br />In Tomorrow's Table, we now have the positive aspects of both organic and GM approaches discussed logically and clearly. The delightfully constructive book was written by a talented wife-and-husband team: Pamela Ronald, a very successful plant geneticist at the University of California, Davis, and Raoul Adamchak, an organic farmer who teaches at the same university. The authors are eminently qualified to present authoritative descriptions of their respective disciplines, which they do in a readable and accurate manner. But the noteworthy aspect of the book is the way they then marry their separate fields to argue logically for the use of GM technologies to improve organic agriculture. As Gordon Conway (a former president of the Rockefeller Foundation) comments in his foreword, "The marriage is long overdue."<br /><br /> Figure 1 To increase harvests and efficiency. The authors propose that combining genetic engineering with organic farming offers the best path to sustainable food production.<br /><br /> CREDIT: AMY GUIP/GETTY IMAGES<br /><br />The authors describe the possibilities for GM to assist organic agriculture with examples drawn from their own and others' research. Pest control is a particular focus. Ronald was centrally involved in the genetic engineering of flooding tolerance in rice (1). She describes lucidly how this would enable farmers to flood a paddy field in which the rice has been established, thus killing the weeds that inevitably afflict the crop but not the rice itself. When the water is subsequently lowered, the rice has a head start on any weeds that eventually emerge, which provides a simple, cheap, and clearly organic method for weed control. How can the organic movement turn its back on such opportunities?<br /><br />The false dichotomy that has been constructed between GM crops and organic farming can be illustrated with numerous similar examples. Another discussed by the authors is Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin, which has been successfully commercialized by Monsanto. These small insecticidal proteins, synthesized by widespread soil bacteria, can be applied in an almost unregulated way by organic farmers. This has been done for many decades. Yet when genetic engineering is used to place the gene encoding the Bt toxin in a plant's genome, the resulting GM plants are vilified by the very people willing to spray the product encoded by this same gene over otherwise similar plants. The organic movement's sustained rejection of this current application of GM appears increasingly illogical as evidence continues to accumulate that it does reduce pesticide use. In fact, this reduction is the principal reason farmers pay more for the biotech seeds--their lowered expenditures on pesticides are saving them money.<br /><br />The authors marshal many additional examples to support their thesis that GM technologies and organic agriculture are quite compatible. Their discussion of these two topics exposes the complexity of the biological systems in which the issues surrounding them have to be addressed. This highlights the superficial nature of much of the GM debate, in which both sides make oversimplifications that support unnecessarily polarized standpoints. The biology is more complex. Unlike most protagonists, Ronald and Adamchak do not crudely lump together every GM crop as though they are all the same. That oversimplification blurs the issues (2, 3) to the detriment of fruitful consideration of topics that are increasingly important in a world in which we need to produce more food, fiber, and fuels in the face of global environmental change. In contrast, the authors calmly argue something that makes perfect sense to me, but their book will be controversial.<br /><br />All proponents of organic agriculture, especially the noisier ones such as Prince Charles, should read Tomorrow's Table. Ronald and Adamchak's clear, rational approach is refreshing, and the balance they present is sorely needed in our increasingly polarized world. In addition, plant scientists--who have the privilege of greater knowledge than most in this area and who therefore have a responsibility to share their understanding with a wider audience--will find the book provides useful information and arguments to help them when doing their next "science in the pub" talk.<br /><br />References<br /><br /> 1. K. Xu et al., Nature 442, 705 (2006).<br /> 2. M. Tester, Nature 402, 575 (1999).<br /> 3. M. Tester, New Phytol. 149, 9 (2001).<br /><br />10.1126/science.1165961<br /><br />The reviewer is at the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics and University of Adelaide, Australia. E-mail: mark.tester@acpfg.com.auPamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-1229615652893186052008-11-19T16:23:00.000-08:002008-11-19T16:27:26.159-08:00The organic approach is as old as dirt"The organic approach is as old as dirt (literally), but it is not mired in the past. Our methods are built on the wisdom farmers and gardeners have gleaned from centuries of experience observing nature and using their resources efficiently. Researchers, however, continually uncover the scientific basis for how and why the organic approach works. And organic farmers and gardeners are benefiting from new tools and technologies that help us build healthy soil and protect plants from destructive pests without disrupting the balance of nature....<br /><br />As you read each issue of Organic Gardening, notice that nearly every article is built with input from scientists. We don't rely soley on personal anecdotes- they can be interesting and useful, but also flawed and misleading. You also will see in this issue an excerpt from a provocative new book written by a scientist and an organic farmer, who assert that the tools of bitoechnnolgy could be useful to sustainable agriculture. <br /><br />This premise may be viewed as heresy by many in the organic movement. But when I read the book, I was reminded of the words of our visionary editor, Robert Rodale, from our January 1989 issue. 'Biotech will have to be part of that environmental solution,' Rodal stated. 'And it will have to blend into a whole landscape of farm and garden methods that will be asked to regenerate instead of degrade the environment. What I call the tricky biotech of today- the search for ways to fool plants and animals to do more - will evolved into a much more sensible and high-quality way to improve plants in the more distant future.' <br /><br />Why give these advocates for GE a chance to state their case in the pages of OG? Because a scientific approach demands a reasoned, informed debate, not dogmatic rejection. Because if our organic principles are sound, they can hold up to debate. You dont stand up for centuries if you don't have sturdy legs."<br /><br />- An excerpt from Scott Meyer's editorial entitled "Looking Forward" from the Nov -Jan 2008-2009 issue of Organic Gardening magzine that featured "Tomorrow's Table".Pamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3590966175110441391.post-86714190691649792462008-11-16T17:00:00.000-08:002009-08-25T15:06:46.750-07:00Blogging from Bangladesh, Part 7. Last post in the seriesNovember 8th <br /><br />This is the last post in the series "Blogging from Bangaldesh". For #6, see this <a href="http://pamelaronald.blogspot.com/2008/11/blogging-from-bangladesh-part-6.html">post</a>.<br /><br />Bells ringing and birds singing at 5 am. Yoga and meditation on the balcony overlooking the temple. A walk through the rice fields with my mother where we see two green parrots, a brilliantly-colored blue and red kingfisher and a black and white bird with a fish in its long beak. The birds darts among the 80 rice varieties being tested here. <br /><br />One variety has been bred for erect flag leaves that extend above the ripening grain to protect it from the birds. Another has been genetically improved for dwarfism so that it will not fall over and spill its grain into the paddy when mature. And then there are the thick stands of the three new Sub1 varieties, each plant heavy with full panicles of rice. Their parents (Samba, IR64 and Swarna) that lack the Sub1 locus have not faired so well. Only 3-4 plants survived the 15 day flood. <br /><br />In India, 70% of the farmers cultivate 1 hectare or less. These small and marginal farmers are benefitting from the work here at the Cuttack Rice Research Institute and the international collaboration that has brought our team together. They are also benefiting from innovative approaches being developed here that integrate the most modern varieties into diverse cropping systems. <br /><br />In one trial, an acre is planted to a creative mixture of food crops. A pond was dug to grow low-yielding deep-water rice and fish during the wet season. Once harvested, the fish is eaten and two more crops of a genetically improved high yielding irrigated rice are grown. On the banks of this small farm grow, pineapples, coriander, peppers, cowpea, bananas, mango, and papaya. They also grow bamboo that can be sold for a good price. The soil is fertilized with less synthetic fertilizer than many of the rice farms in Asia because the a cow and some chickens provide compost for fertilizer. The organic fertilizer is supplemented with a small amount of synthetic fertilizers toenhance the productivity of the farm. A husband and wife work the land and sell the produce- a real life test of the sustainability of the system. <br /><br />This small model farm may be the future of agriculture- by integrating a diverse array of crops and the most modern seed with the best organic methods daily food security can be enhanced. If this mixture of crops produces well throughout the year the farmers and their families will thrive.<br /><br />In 1996 when my laboratory first began this work with Dave Mackill, I could not have known that the project would take me to these fields in Cuttack. We finally isolated the Sub1 gene that we had sought for so many years in 2004. Now, thanks to an international team of breeders, it has been introduced into 6 varieties popular with farmers in India, Indonesia, and Bangladesh. The gene is now on its own journey in the hands of breeders and farmers. I feel as if my child has grown up and developed his own, successful life. <br /><br />Later today we will fly to Dehli where I will give a lecture at the University of Dehli. Our host Anil Grover, Department of Plant Molecular Biology, University of Delhi, later tells me "It is mind-blowing how one gene is doing so many wonders, particularly when everybody says abiotic stresses can not be handled with genetic engineering, it is just a matter of getting the right gene, following the right approach." After dinner with our Indian colleagues we will begin the long journey home. <br /><br />Goodbye gentle India. Namaste.Pamela Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08905736049638342587noreply@blogger.com1